T 1798/08 of 21.08.2012
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T179808.20120821
- Date of decision
- 21 August 2012
- Case number
- T 1798/08
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 99912385.4
- IPC class
- A61F 9/08
- 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
- Visual prosthesis
- Applicant name
- JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
- Opponent name
- IMI Intelligent Medical Implants AG
- Board
- 3.2.02
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 114(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 21(3)(a)European Patent Convention Art 21(3)(b)European Patent Convention Art 53(c)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 64(1)European Patent Convention Art 69(1)European Patent Convention R 102(g)European Patent Convention R 124(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 9
- Keywords
- Added subject-matter (main request: yes; auxiliary request 1: no)
Exception from patentability (no)
Admissibility of late-filed evidence (yes/no)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Referral of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Request for legel hint (rejected)
Enlargement of the Board (no)
Interruption of oral proceedings (no)
Postponement of oral proceedings (no)
Request for recording a statement in the minutes of oral proceedings (rejected) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal of the opponent is dismissed.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of:
- claims 1 to 29 of the auxiliary request 1 filed with letter dated 22 May 2009;
- the description and the figures of the patent specification;
4. The request for referral of three questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is rejected.