Quick Navigation
In T 666/90 the opposition division had indicated during oral proceedings that it would maintain the European patent as amended if new documents conforming to the version of the claims it had said it would allow were submitted. Although such a set of claims had not yet been formally submitted in writing by the applicants' representative during oral proceedings, the representative had given an undertaking to do so later and had done so by the deadline set. The written decision had revoked the patent however. The board held that this inconsistency between the oral and written decisions was in breach of R. 68(1) EPC 1973 and was hence a substantial procedural violation.
In T 425/97 an appellant submitted as sole ground of appeal the inconsistency existing between the written decision and the form of the patent held to be patentable by the opposition division at the oral proceedings. The board held that any substantive deviation, as in this case, of the decision notified in writing from the decision taken at the oral proceedings and given orally, amounted to a procedural violation.