European Patent Office

T 0955/20 (Query translation/GOOGLE) vom 02.02.2022

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T095520.20220202
Datum der Entscheidung
2. Februar 2022
Aktenzeichen
T 0955/20
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
09151235.0
IPC-Klasse
G06F 17/27
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
An die Kammervorsitzenden verteilt (C)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
Systems and methods for searching using queries written in a different character-set and/or language from the target pages
Name des Antragstellers
Google LLC
Name des Einsprechenden
-
Kammer
3.5.07
Leitsatz
-
Relevante Rechtsnormen
European Patent Convention Art 109(1)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 103(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules relating to fees Art 13(2)
Schlagwörter
Inventive step - main request (no)
Interlocutory revision - substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - first appeal fee (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - second appeal fee (yes)
Remittal to the department of first instance
Remittal - (yes)
Orientierungssatz
1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2).
2. If the department of first instance grants interlocutory revision only to refine the written reasons which already complied with Rule 111(2) EPC, this may constitute a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 1).
3. Such a substantial procedural violation may justify the reimbursement under Rule 103(1)(a) of the appeal fee paid for a subsequent appeal (Reasons 3.1 and 3.2).
Zitierende Akten
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.

3. The request for reimbursement of the first appeal fee is rejected.

4. The request for reimbursement of the second appeal fee is allowed.