European Patent Office

T 1198/20 vom 27.06.2023

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T119820.20230627
Datum der Entscheidung
27. Juni 2023
Aktenzeichen
T 1198/20
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
16161403.7
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
Nicht verteilt (D)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
A FLUIDIZED BED HEAT EXCHANGER AND A CORRESPONDING INCINERATION APPARATUS
Name des Antragstellers
Doosan Lentjes GmbH
Name des Einsprechenden
Sumitomo SHI FW Energia Oy
Kammer
3.2.03
Leitsatz
-
Relevante Rechtsnormen
European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 101(1)European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention R 111(2)European Patent Convention R 116(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016(1)
Schlagwörter
Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Right to be heard - obligation for the opposition division to communicate their preliminary opinion (no)
Right to be heard - appealed decision sufficiently reasoned (yes)
Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (no)
Novelty - main request (no)
Late-filed request - auxiliary requests 1 to 13
Late-filed request - admissibly raised in first-instance proceedings (no)
Late-filed request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Late-filed request - circumstances of appeal case justify admittance (no)
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Apportionment of costs - different apportionment of costs justified (no)
Orientierungssatz
-
Zitierte Akten
G 0012/91
Zitierende Akten
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The request for a different apportionment of costs is refused.