European Patent Office

R 0006/22 (Petition clearly unallowable) vom 06.11.2023

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:R000622.20231106
Datum der Entscheidung
6. November 2023
Aktenzeichen
R 0006/22
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
14824813.1
IPC-Klasse
H04W 8/18
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
Nicht verteilt (D)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 R 106
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
METHOD FOR ACCESSING A SERVICE AND A CORRESPONDING DEVICE
Name des Antragstellers
Thales Dis France SAS
Name des Einsprechenden
IDEMIA France
Giesecke+Devrient Mobile Security GmbH
Giesecke & Devrient GmbH
Kammer
-
Leitsatz
-
Relevante Rechtsnormen
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)European Patent Convention Art 112a(5)European Patent Convention Art 113European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 100(2)European Patent Convention R 104(b)European Patent Convention R 106European Patent Convention R 107(1)European Patent Convention R 107(2)European Patent Convention R 108(1)European Patent Convention R 109(2)(a)European Patent Convention R 109(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(1)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 12(1)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 13Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 14(2)
Schlagwörter
Petition for review - grounds clearly inadmissible and clearly unallowable
Petition for review - obligation to raise objection
Petition for review - dismissal of objection by the Board (no)
Petition for review - relevant request within the meaning of Rule 104(b) EPC (no)
Petition for review - fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC (no)
Orientierungssatz
In a situation such as the present case - where the board does not react in a recognisable and explicit manner to an intended objection under Rule 106 EPC - a diligent party should normally insist on a discernible response from the board. Failure to do so will leave the party with an indication that weighs against its case (Reasons 16).
Zitierende Akten
T 2194/22

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The petition for review is unanimously rejected as being clearly unallowable.