T 1691/15 of 27.07.2016
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T169115.20160727
- Date of decision
- 27 July 2016
- Case number
- T 1691/15
- Online on
- 30 August 2016
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 09765878.5
- IPC class
- B65B 69/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- USE OF A CAPSULE TREATMENT APPARATUS
- Applicant name
- Nestec S.A.
- Opponent name
- Franssen, Guy Jacques
- Board
- 3.2.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention R 79(1)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention R 81(2)European Patent Convention R 99European Patent Convention R 128European Patent Convention R 144(d)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 54
- Keywords
- Admissibility of appeal - (yes)
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Procedural violation - (no)
Inspection of files - Exclusion of documents from file inspection (no)
Notification of all correspondence to all parties in inter partes proceedings
Referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no) - Catchword
- Exchanges between an opponent and the EPO which have a substantive and/or procedural bearing on the case in opposition proceedings, even if dealt with by the Directorate Quality Support in the context of a complaint handling system, should be communicated without delay to the other party/parties, as any other submission of a party or communication of the EPO in opposition proceedings. Such an exchange with a substantive and/or procedural bearing on the case should figure, by definition, in the public part of the file (see reasons, point 3).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The two requests for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.