T 0084/16 (PAR-1 activation/TUFTS) of 27.01.2017
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T008416.20170127
- Date of decision
- 27 January 2017
- Case number
- T 0084/16
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 10762578.2
- IPC class
- A61K 38/16A61P 7/00A61K 9/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- PAR-1 activation by metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1)
- Applicant name
- Tufts Medical Center, Inc.
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- Decision President dated 12 July 2007 concerning documents excluded from file inspectionEuropean Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention Art 107European Patent Convention Art 112(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(2)European Patent Convention Art 128(4)European Patent Convention Art 64(1)European Patent Convention Art 65European Patent Convention Art 97(1)European Patent Convention Art 97(3)European Patent Convention Art 98European Patent Convention R 101(1)European Patent Convention R 111European Patent Convention R 139European Patent Convention R 140European Patent Convention R 144(d)European Patent Convention R 71(3)European Patent Convention R 71(5)European Patent Convention R 71(6)European Patent Convention R 71a(1)European Patent Convention R 73European Patent Convention R 74Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 21
- Keywords
- Admissibility of the appeal - (no)
Error in the patent specification - (yes)
Adversely affected by the grant decision - (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Exclusions from file inspection - (yes) - Catchword
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appellant's letter dated 22 July 2016 with enclosure, the board's communication dated 28 July 2016 without enclosure and the appellant's letter dated 29 September 2016, all of them only in the versions as submitted during the oral proceedings before the board, are open to file inspection.
The original versions of these documents remain excluded from file inspection.
2. The request for referral of questions to the Enlarged Board is rejected.
3. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.