T 0473/98 (Magnetic field screen) vom 05.09.2000
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T047398.20000905
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 5. September 2000
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0473/98
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 86307104.9
- IPC-Klasse
- H01F 27/36
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Magnetic field screens
- Name des Antragstellers
- BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
- Name des Einsprechenden
- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
- Kammer
- 3.5.02
- Leitsatz
I. It is entirely appropriate and desirable in the interests of overall procedural efficiency and effectiveness that an opposition division should include in the reasons for a revocation decision pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC employing the standard decision formula, by way of obiter dicta, findings which could obviate remittal in the event of the revocation being reversed on appeal (2.4).
II. An opponent is not adversely affected by such findings favourable to the proprietor included in a revocation decision nor is the proprietor as sole appellant protected against a reformatio in peius in respect of such findings (2.1 to 2.6).
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 106(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 64 1973European Patent Convention Art 68 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Opponent adversely affected by revocation decision including findings favourable to the proprietor - (no)
Insufficiency - (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The opponent's appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form in the following version:
Claims: 1 as filed in the oral proceedings on 5. September 2000;
2. to 15 of the patent specification.
Description: pages 2 and 4 to 23 of the patent specification,
page 3 as filed in the oral proceedings on 5 September 2000;
Drawings: Figures 1 to 38 of the patent specification.