T 0278/00 (Naphthyl compounds/ELI LILLY) of 11.02.2003

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T027800.20030211

Date of decision

11 February 2003

Case number

T 0278/00

Petition for review of

Application number

96301542.5

IPC class

C07D 211/14

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Naphthyl pharmaceutical compounds

Applicant name

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

Opponent name

Board

3.3.01

Headnote

1. The reasoning of a decision under appeal must be taken as it stands. The requirements of Rule 68(2) EPC cannot be construed in such a way that in spite of the presence of unintelligible and therefore deficient reasoning, it is up to the Board or the Appellant to speculate as to what might be the intended meaning of it.

2. The Board must be in a position to assess on the basis of the reasoning given in the decision under appeal whether the conclusion drawn by the first instance was justified or not. This requirement is not satisfied when the Board is unable to decide which of the various inconsistent findings indicated in and justifying the decision under appeal is correct and which is false.

3. A decision of the European Patent Office open to appeal which is based on such a deficient reasoning is not 'reasoned' in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC, which failure amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention R 67 1973 European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973

Keywords

Decision reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC (no) - unintelligible findings - missing identification of prior art in assessment of inventive step - reference to oral proceedings in parallel case
Substantial procedural violation (yes) - reimbursement of appeal fee

Catchword

Cited cases

T 0103/86 T 0292/90 T 0939/92 T 0355/97 T 0165/98

Citing cases

G 0002/21 R 0006/11 J 0025/10 T 0963/02 T 0897/03 T 0188/04 T 0276/04 T 0482/04 T 0583/04 T 0020/05 T 0316/05 T 0689/05 T 1182/05 T 1356/05 T 1360/05 T 1366/05 T 0599/06 T 1302/06 T 1479/06 T 1698/06 T 1936/06 T 0571/07 T 0831/07 T 0952/07 T 1411/07 T 1553/07 T 1612/07 T 0087/08 T 0421/08 T 0534/08 T 0868/08 T 1053/08 T 1079/08 T 0152/09 T 0306/09 T 2105/09 T 2467/09 T 1693/10 T 2323/10 T 2375/10 T 2474/10 T 0353/11 T 0823/11 T 2366/11 T 2509/11 T 0034/12 T 0374/12 T 0405/12 T 1205/12 T 1206/12 T 1511/12 T 2460/12 T 0071/14 T 0177/15 T 0184/15 T 1232/16 T 0591/17 T 0899/17 T 2187/17 T 0461/18 T 2378/18 T 2146/19 T 3000/19 T 3071/19 T 0912/20 T 0689/21 T 2178/22 T 0957/24

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution.

3. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.