T 0281/03 (Teletext transmission/EDICO) of 17.05.2006
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T028103.20060517
- Date of decision
- 17 May 2006
- Case number
- T 0281/03
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 92100124.4
- IPC class
- -
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- T 0281/03 Partiality/XXX 2005-03-18T 0281/03 2006-03-30
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Method and receiver for teletext transmission
- Applicant name
- EDICO S.r.l.
- Opponent name
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Interessengemeinschaft für Rundfunkschutzrechte GmbH
Schutzrechtsverwertung & Co. KG - Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 24(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 24(4) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973
- Keywords
- Suspected partiality (no)
Novelty (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes) - Catchword
- 1. Delaying detailed substantiation of the ground of inventive step raised in the notice of opposition to the last moment of opposition proceedings should be avoided if possible since it creates an unexpected situation for the other parties and the opposition division.
2. However, in the special case where an inventive step argument is based on the same document as the novelty argument, and the novelty of the features in question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but depends on how the document is interpreted as a whole, it may be difficult if not impossible for an opponent to argue lack of inventive step without a precise statement of how the document is understood, and the features actually found to be different by the opposition division.
3. In order to guarantee the right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC), there should in any case be an explicit step during oral proceedings, recorded in the minutes, giving an opponent an opportunity to comment on inventive step on the basis of the opposition division's finding with respect to novelty before deciding against the opponent.
(See points 13 to 15 of the reasons). - Cited cases
- T 0131/01
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The conditional request to refuse the members of the Board due to a violation of Article 113(1) EPC is inadmissible.
2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the question presented at the oral proceedings is refused.
3. The decision under appeal is set aside.
4. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution.
5. Reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.