T 0749/02 (Late filed amendments/SEIKO) vom 20.01.2004
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T074902.20040120
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 20. Januar 2004
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0749/02
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 91310565.6
- IPC-Klasse
- H01L 21/58
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- An die Kammervorsitzenden verteilt (C)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Semiconductor device for use in a light valve device, and process for manufacturing the same
- Name des Antragstellers
- SEIKO INSTRUMENTS INC.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.4.03
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 51(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 51(5) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 86(3) 1973Guidelines_C-VI 4(9)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 10
- Schlagwörter
- Procedural violation (yes) - decision issued by the formalities officer not empowered to decide
Procedural violation (yes) - discretion under Rule 86(3) exercised without reasoning
Remittal (no) - discretion under Article 111(1) EPC
Reimbursement of the appeal fee (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierende Akten
- -
5. The Board finds that it is equitable to reimburse the appeal fee pursuant to Rule 67 EPC, since the appeal is allowed, and the decision under appeal was null and void for having been taken by a person not empowered to decide and moreover, since in its content it was not reasoned in the exercise of the discretion under Rule 86(3) EPC. Had the Examining Division exercised its discretion correctly and decided itself accordingly, the present appeal would not have been filed. ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of the first instance with the order to grant a patent on the basis of the documents as specified under item V above.
3. Reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.