T 1082/06 () of 21.10.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T108206.20081021
Date of decision: 21 October 2008
Case number: T 1082/06
Application number: 02257729.0
IPC class: H01L 21/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 23.401K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Via/line inductor on semiconductor material
Applicant name: Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing Ltd.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
Keywords: Clarity - main request (no)
Novelty - first auxiliary request (no)
Inventive step - second auxiliary request (no)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This is an appeal against the refusal of application 02 257 729 for lack of clarity and novelty.

II. The appellant applicant requested grant of a patent on the basis of a main, first or second auxiliary requests as formulated in the statement of grounds of appeal. In addition, oral proceedings were requested.

III. In a reasoned communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings the board informed the appellant of its provisional opinion that

- the main request did not comply with the requirement of clarity;

- that the subject matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request was not new over US 5 281 769 (Document D1);

- that the subject matter of independent claim 6 of the first auxiliary request did not involve an inventive step over document D1; and

- that the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 6 of the second auxiliary request did not involve an inventive step over document D1.

IV. Oral proceedings were held in the absence of the appellant, who did not appear despite being duly summoned.

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 main, first and second auxiliary requests were not allowable (Articles 84, 54 and 56 EPC 1973).

3. The appellant neither filed any substantive response to the communication nor appeared at the oral proceedings despite being duly summoned. 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