T 1544/08 of 16.11.2012
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T154408.20121116
- Date of decision
- 16 November 2012
- Case number
- T 1544/08
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 00927183.4
- 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
- Automotive glazing panel having an electrically heatable solar control coating layer
- Applicant name
- AGC Flat Glass Europe SA
- Opponent name
- Saint-Gobain Glass France
- Board
- 3.5.02
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 106Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
- Keywords
- Admissibility of late-filed documents - no
Sufficiency of disclosure - yes
Added subject-matter (main request) - no, after amendment
Novelty (main request) - yes
Inventive step (main request) - yes
Rule 106 EPC objections - one addressed, one dismissed - Catchword
- 1. In some circumstances it can be appropriate to respond to an objection raised under Rule 106 EPC during oral proceedings before a board of appeal by (re-)opening the discussion of the issue in question (see point 10.2 of the reasons).
2. The wish to avoid giving commercially valuable information to competitors is not necessarily a valid reason for not complying with the requirement of Article 12(2) RPBA (see point 2.2 of the reasons).
3. If drawings are originally filed in colour at the date of filing of an application, then the technical content of these original colour drawings should be determined taking into account the available evidence when establishing the content of the application as filed for the purpose of examining compliance of amendments with Article 123(2) EPC (see points 4.4 and 4.5 of the reasons). - Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0272/15
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The decision under appeal is set aside.
The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form in the following version:
Description
Pages 3 and 4 of the patent specification
Pages 1a and 2 filed during oral proceedings on 11th April 2008
Claims
Numbers 1 to 13 filed during oral proceedings on 16th November 2012
Drawings
Figures 2 to 4 of the patent specification
Figure 1 received on 11th March 2008 with letter of 11th March 2008.