Tuesday, 26 March 2013

T 1483/10 – Back To China

[2.1] A 14(2) allows for a European patent application to be filed in any language and then to be translated into one of the official languages. Throughout the proceedings before the EPO, such translation may be brought into conformity with the application as filed.

[2.2] According to A 153(2), an international application for which the EPO is a designated or elected Office, shall be equivalent to a regular European application (Euro-PCT application). Under A 153(5) Euro-PCT applications shall be treated as European applications. It is also a general principle that such applications must be treated as favourably as those made in a contracting state (see T 700/05 [4.1.1], also T 353/03). Hence, by analogy, A 14(2) must also allow the translation into English of a PCT application originally filed in Chinese to be brought into conformity with the original Chinese text of the application throughout the proceedings before EPO.

[2.3] The certified translation provided by the appellant with its letter of 17 January 2013 shows that the use of the term “astigmatism plate” was the result of a translation error and the correct term should have been “light-scattering plate”. Accordingly, the replacement of the term “astigmatism plate” by “light scattering plate” in claim 1 is an allowable correction made under Article 14(2) EPC and does not infringe A 123(2).

Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.

The file wrapper can be found here.