T 2197/16 of 13.05.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T219716.20220513
- Date of decision
- 13 May 2022
- Case number
- T 2197/16
- Online on
- 12 August 2022
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 09750253.8
- IPC class
- D21B 1/02B29B 17/02
- 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
- Abstract on EPC2000 R 099(1)(c)
- Application title
- Method for recycling composite material
- Applicant name
- REPLAN GLOBAL SAGL
- Opponent name
- Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA
- Board
- 3.2.05
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 100(b)European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 106(3)EPC2000 Art 108 Sentence 1European Patent Convention R 97(1)European Patent Convention R 99(1)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2)
- Keywords
- Novelty (yes)
Novelty - implicit disclosure (no)
Inventive step (yes)
Inventive step - ex post facto analysis
Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive step - non-obvious combination of known features
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application (no)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no)
Grounds for opposition - lack of clarity no ground for opposition
Late-filed facts - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal
Late-filed facts - submitted during oral proceedings
Late-filed facts - admitted (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Decision on apportionment of costs - not subject of the appeal proceedings - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0009/92G 0004/93G 0001/99G 0002/10G 0003/14T 0753/92T 0079/96T 0596/96T 0762/96T 1011/01T 0653/03T 0304/08T 0689/09T 0268/13T 2111/13T 1601/15
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The respondent's requests concerning the apportionment of costs are inadmissible.