T 1556/06 vom 24.06.2008
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T155606.20080624
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 24. Juni 2008
- Aktenzeichen
- T 1556/06
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 97201482.3
- IPC-Klasse
- B23K 26/12
- 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 stir welding with simultaneous cooling
- Name des Antragstellers
- The Boeing Company
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Airbus SAS
- Kammer
- 3.2.06
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 103(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
- Schlagwörter
- Inventive step (no) - patent as granted
Late-filed documents - partly admitted
Clarity (no) - patent as maintained
Late-filed auxiliary requests I to VI - not admitted because not clearly allowable
Late-filed auxiliary request VII - admitted [reasons, 4.4.1]
Remittal (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (no) - allowing a PowerPoint presentation during oral proceedings is a matter of discretion for the competent tribunal
Apportionment of costs (no) - Orientierungssatz
- The Opposition Division has a discretion as to the way oral proceedings are conducted. It is not a wrongful exercise of this discretion, and thus not a procedural violation, to refuse to allow a party to use a PowerPoint presentation during oral proceedings if the party is not thereby prevented from presenting its arguments orally (reasons, 5.2.1-5.2.7).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division for further prosecution.
3. The appellant/patent proprietor's request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.
4. The appellant/opponent's request for an apportionment of costs is refused.