W 0004/94 (Pigments) of 16.01.1995
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1995:W000494.19950116
- Date of decision
- 16 January 1995
- Case number
- W 0004/94
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- PCT/EP1992/02351
- IPC class
- C09C 1/00
- 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
- Gefärbte und beschichtete plättchenförmige Pigmente
- Applicant name
- Merck Patent
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.02
- Headnote
1. The obligation under Rule 68.2 PCT to provide justification can be seen as fulfilled if the prime reason for the decision is identifiable, even though the reasons could be seen as insufficient or incorrect (see reasons, 4.1).
2. If the arguments submitted in the protest do not necessitate any additional discussion on technical and/or patent law issues, ie do not lead to any new assessment of the facts, it is not automatically incorrect for the notification of the result of the review under Rule 68.3(e) PCT merely to refer back to the reasons given on form PCT/IPEA/405 (see reasons, 4.2).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 155(3) 1973Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 34(3)(a)Patent Cooperation Treaty Guidelines Kap.III, 7Patent Cooperation Treaty Guidelines Kap.VI, 5(5)Patent 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
Obligation under Rules 68.2 and 68.3(e) PCT to provide justification
Assessment of unity a posteriori
Functional feature not definitely called into question
Reimbursement of all fees - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- W 0003/93
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
Reimbursement of the additional fees paid for four inventions and the protest fee is ordered.