W 0004/93 (Zeolite suspensions) of 05.11.1993
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1993:W000493.19931105
- Date of decision
- 5 November 1993
- Case number
- W 0004/93
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- PCT/EP1992/01590
- IPC class
- C11D 3/12
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- -
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- Henkel
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.01
- Headnote
1. The review, required under Rule 68.3(e) PCT, of the justification for the invitation to pay an additional fee for the international preliminary examination must be based exclusively on the reasons contained in the invitation to pay, having regard to the facts and arguments submitted by the applicants in the grounds given for their protest. This rules out the subsequent submission of new reasons and evidence in the notification of the result of the review (Reasons, 2.1 and 2.2).
2. The notification of the result of the review of the invitation to pay under Rule 68.3(e) PCT should address the grounds given for the protest (Reasons, 2.3).
3. The right of the applicants to communicate orally with the IPEA (Article 34(2)(a) PCT) does not include the right to formal oral proceedings. An informal interview under Rule 66.6 PCT is usually not expedient in protest proceedings under Rule 68.3(c) PCT (Reasons, 9).
- Relevant legal provisions
- Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 34(3)(a)Patent Cooperation Treaty Guidelines Kap. III, 7.5, 7.6, 7.10Patent Cooperation Treaty Guidelines Kap. VI, 5(7)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 68(2)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 68(3)(c)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 68(3)(e)
- Keywords
- IPEA
Scope of review under Rule 68.3(e) PCT
Assessment of unity a posteriori
Objective criteria, but avoiding a purely theoretical approach
Reimbursement of part of the additional fees
Oral proceedings (no)
Mündliche Verhandlung (nein) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for oral proceedings is rejected.
2. The main request is refused.
3. The alternative request is allowed. The reimbursement of DEM 6000 is ordered.