T 0934/02 vom 29.04.2004
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T093402.20040429
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 29. April 2004
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0934/02
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 95304228.0
- IPC-Klasse
- C08J 5/04F16D 69/02
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- An die Kammervorsitzenden und -mitglieder verteilt (B)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Friction lining materials
- Name des Antragstellers
- BorgWarner Inc.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Verband der Reibbelagindustrie e.V
- Kammer
- 3.2.01
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- EPC1973_Art_108_Sent_3European Patent Convention Art 106 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention R 57a 1973European Patent Convention R 64(b) 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Appeal of the patent proprietor based on a new request for amendment (admissible)
Main request rejected in the opposition division decision- formulation attempt, not partial surrender
Inventive step (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- I. An appeal of the patent proprietor is to be considered sufficiently substantiated within the meaning of Article 108, third sentence EPC by filing amended claims which deprive the contested decision of its basis, even though it does not state any specific reasons why the contested decision is wrong. It is therefore not necessary and would also be pointless for the purposes of adequately substantiating an appeal, to file grounds in support of a version of a claim that the appellant (patent proprietor) no longer defends in the appeal proceedings. (see point 2 of the reasons).
II. Where a patent proprietor appeals against an interlocutory decision, maintaining a patent in amended form in accordance with an auxiliary request the main request rejected by the opposition division is to be considered as a formulation attempt which does not prevent the patent proprietor from submitting in the appeal proceedings a new main request having a claim 1 broader in scope than that of the rejected main request but narrower than that of the granted version (see point 3 of the reasons). - Zitierende Akten
- T 0880/01T 0655/03T 1197/03T 0386/04T 1272/05T 1394/05T 0213/08T 0760/08T 1188/08T 1370/08T 1407/08T 1708/08T 0137/09T 0360/09T 0473/09T 0573/09T 0919/09T 0933/09T 1538/09T 0028/10T 0095/10T 2532/11T 0395/12T 0918/12T 0050/13T 0835/13T 1969/13T 2226/13T 0143/14T 0043/16T 1049/17T 1520/20
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the following documents:
- claims 1 to 7 and amended description according to the main request filed with letter of 29 May 2004
- drawings as granted.