T 0568/06 () of 3.6.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T056806.20080603
Date of decision: 03 June 2008
Case number: T 0568/06
Application number: 02740073.8
IPC class: G07F 17/24
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.710K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Parking Management Systems
Applicant name: Vehiclesense, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
Keywords: Main request - Novelty (no)
1st and 2nd Auxiliary request - Inventive step (no)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This is an appeal against the refusal of application 02 740 073 for lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC 1973).

II. On appeal the applicant requested grant of a patent on the basis of a main, 1st or 2nd auxiliary requests. Auxiliarily oral proceedings were requested.

III. In a reasoned communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings appointed for 10 June 2008, the board informed the appellant of its provisional opinion that the system of claim 1 of the main request was not new over WO 99 30 290 A and that the system of claim 1 of the 1st or 2nd auxiliary requests did not involve an inventive step considering the same document and common general knowledge in the art.

IV. By letter dated 26 May 2008 the appellant applicant's representatives informed the board that they would not attend the oral proceedings.

V. The oral proceedings were consequentially cancelled.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. In the communication of the board, the appellant applicant was informed in detail of the reasons for the board´s preliminary view that the systems of claim 1 of the main, 1st or 2nd requests were not allowable (Article 54 and 56 EPC 1973).

3. The appellant did not file any substantive response to the communication, but announced that he would not be represented at the oral proceedings. Having reconsidered its own reasoned objections as set out in the said communication and making express reference thereto, the board sees no reason to depart from them. Consequently, the appellant's requests fall to be refused.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Quick Navigation