European Patent Office

T 2197/16 vom 13.05.2022

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T219716.20220513
Datum der Entscheidung
13. Mai 2022
Aktenzeichen
T 2197/16
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
09750253.8
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
Nicht verteilt (D)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 R 099(1)(c)
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
Method for recycling composite material
Name des Antragstellers
REPLAN GLOBAL SAGL
Name des Einsprechenden
Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA
Kammer
3.2.05
Leitsatz
-
Relevante Rechtsnormen
EPC2000_Art_108_(2007)_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 100(b)European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 106(3)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 97(1)European Patent Convention R 99(1)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2)
Schlagwörter
Novelty (yes)
Novelty - implicit disclosure (no)
Inventive step (yes)
Inventive step - ex post facto analysis
Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive step - non-obvious combination of known features
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application (no)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no)
Grounds for opposition - lack of clarity no ground for opposition
Late-filed facts - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal
Late-filed facts - submitted during oral proceedings
Late-filed facts - admitted (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Decision on apportionment of costs - not subject of the appeal proceedings
Orientierungssatz
-
Zitierende Akten
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The respondent's requests concerning the apportionment of costs are inadmissible.