T 2233/09 (Augmenting step/ANDRITZ) vom 21.09.2012
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T223309.20120921
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 21. September 2012
- Aktenzeichen
- T 2233/09
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 01200864.5
- IPC-Klasse
- D21C 3/22D21C 3/02D21C 7/00D21C 11/04
- 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
- Dissolved solids control in pulp production
- Name des Antragstellers
- Andritz Inc.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Metso Paper Sweden Aktiebolag
- Kammer
- 3.3.06
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1)European Patent Convention R 76(2)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 16(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 16(c)
- Schlagwörter
- Admissibility of the new grounds of opposition (no): no consent of the Patent Proprietor
Admissibility of the new objections raised under Art. 123(2) EPC (no): their introduction during oral proceedings would have disadvantaged the Patent Proprietor
Admissibility of documents submitted with the grounds of appeal (yes): reaction to the decision under appeal
Novelty (yes): implicit disclosure of one of the claimed method steps not convincingly proven
Inventive step (yes): unobvious alternative
Apportionment of costs in the Respondent's favour (yes): adjournment of oral proceedings due to Appellant's conduct - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierende Akten
- T 0234/16
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs incurred to the Respondent due to the oral proceedings of 19 September 2012 are to be borne by the Appellant.