T 1366/05 (Polymer electroluminescent device/PHILIPS) of 18.10.2007
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T136605.20071018
- Date of decision
- 18 October 2007
- Case number
- T 1366/05
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 98945462.4
- IPC class
- C09K 11/06
- 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
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Polymer electroluminescent device
- Applicant name
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
- Opponent name
- Merck KGaA
- Board
- 3.3.10
- Headnote
1. A written decision of an Opposition Division revoking a patent for lack of novelty to be reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC must contain a logical chain of reasoning starting with the identification of that portion of the prior art used to justify the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter lacks novelty. The sole statement of the conclusion reached does not constitute a reasoning within the meaning of Rule 68(2) EPC.
2. Any reasoning arriving at the conclusion that the subject-matter of a claim lacks novelty must be proper to the deciding body. The mere summary of a party's submission is not per se a reasoning proper to the deciding body.
3. A written decision 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 1973European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973
- Keywords
- Decision reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC (no) - absence of reasoning proper to the Opposition Division - sole statement of the conclusions of Division - mere summary of Party's submissions does not reason the decision
Substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes)
Remittal to the first instance for further prosecution - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- T 0278/00
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.