T 0736/14 (Selecting invention to be examined/QUALCOMM) of 25.02.2016
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T073614.20160225
- Date of decision
- 25 February 2016
- Case number
- T 0736/14
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 09163209.1
- IPC class
- H04L 27/26
- 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
- Frequency division multiple access for wireless communication
- Applicant name
- Qualcomm Incorporated
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.05
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 21(3)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 82 1973European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 137(3)Guidelines_H-II, 7(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11
- Keywords
- Competence of the Legal Board of Appeal - (no)
Violation of principle of good faith - (no)
Correct exercise of first-instance discretionary power - (no)
Violation of right to be heard - (yes)
Remittal to first instance for further prosecution - (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes) - Catchword
- If an applicant whose application is non-unitary responds unclearly and/or in a misleading way to an invitation from the examining division to designate which searched invention it wishes to prosecute further (e.g. by submitting a main request covering one invention and an auxiliary request covering the other invention searched), it cannot be automatically assumed that the applicant selected the invention covered by the main request for examination. Rather, the examining division must clarify, e.g. via a further communication, which of the searched inventions the applicant actually wants it to examine. Confronting the applicant with an irrevocable decision not to admit an auxiliary request covering one of the inventions searched, without giving an opportunity to comment on its admissibility beforehand, is regarded as a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 3).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.
3. Reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.