T 1336/21 of 10.10.2024
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T133621.20241010
- Date of decision
- 10 October 2024
- Case number
- T 1336/21
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 10782307.2
- IPC class
- F23D 14/10
- 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
- BURNER WITH LOW POROSITY BURNER DECK
- Applicant name
- Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
NV Bekaert SA - Opponent name
- Polidoro S.p.A.
Worgas Bruciatori S.r.l.
Viessmann Group GmbH & Co. KG - Board
- 3.2.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
- Keywords
- Sufficiency of disclosure - relationship between Article 83 and Article 84
Sufficiency of disclosure - main request (yes)
Novelty - common general knowledge
Novelty - availability to the public
Novelty - main request (yes)
Novelty - public prior use
Novelty - standard of proof
Novelty - public prior use
Novelty - burden of proof
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes)
Substantial procedural violation - reimbursement of appeal fee (no)
Substantial procedural violation - violation of the right to be heard (no)
Late-filed objection - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Late-filed objection - circumstances of appeal case justify admittance (no)
Late-filed objection - no longer maintained in first-instance proceedings (yes)
Late-filed objection - admitted (no) - Catchword
- -
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.