T 0774/05 of 08.11.2007
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T077405.20071108
- Date of decision
- 8 November 2007
- Case number
- T 0774/05
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 95116064.7
- IPC class
- B26D 1/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Slicing machine for slicing two or more food loaves
- Applicant name
- Formax, Inc.
- Opponent name
- Weber Maschinenbau GmbH & Co. KG
CFS GmbH Kempten - Board
- 3.2.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 101(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 69(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 2(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 2(5) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(1)(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 56(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 84 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 9
- Keywords
- Admissibility of oppositions - yes (points 1 and 2)
Admissibility of appeal I - yes (point 3)
Admissibility of appeal II - no (point 4)
Request for accompanying person to present parts of the case - refused (point 5)
Late request to derogate from language of proceedings - allowed (point 6)
Interpretation from that language into the language of the proceedings - not allowed (point 6)
Late filed documents - admitted (point 7)
Admissibility of ground of novelty for one appellant - yes (point 8)
Novelty (patent as granted) - no (point 10)
Remittal - yes (point 11)
Request to refer questions to Enlarged Board of Appeal - refused (point 12) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal of opponent II is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The request to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
3. The decision under appeal is set aside and the case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.