T 1040/04 (Floor covering/UNILIN) of 23.03.2006
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T104004.20060323
- Date of decision
- 23 March 2006
- Case number
- T 1040/04
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 00201515.4
- IPC class
- F16B 5/00E04F 15/04
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Floor covering, consisting of hard floor panels
- Applicant name
- Unilin Beheer B.V.
- Opponent name
- Otger Terhürne Holzwerke GmbH & Co. KG
Berry Finance N.V.
ROYSOL - Board
- 3.2.03
- Headnote
The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
Can a patent which has been granted on a divisional application which did not meet the requirements of Article 76(1) EPC because at its actual date of filing it extended beyond the content of the earlier application, be amended during opposition proceedings in order to overcome the ground of opposition under Article 100(c) EPC and thereby fulfill said requirements?
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973
- Keywords
- Amendment of a patent granted on a divisional application -Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
- Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following question is referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
Can a patent which has been granted on a divisional application which did not meet the requirements of Article 76(1) EPC because at its actual date of filing it extended beyond the content of the earlier application, be amended during opposition proceedings in order to overcome the ground of opposition under Article 100(c) EPC and thereby fulfill said requirements?