T 2011/21 of 03.09.2024
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T201121.20240903
- Date of decision
- 3 September 2024
- Case number
- T 2011/21
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 13003568.6
- IPC class
- B60N 2/28
- 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 Article 117 EPC
- Application title
- Child safety seat
- Applicant name
- BRITAX RÖMER Kindersicherheit GmbH
- Opponent name
- CYBEX GmbH
- Board
- 3.2.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111European Patent Convention Art 112European Patent Convention Art 113European Patent Convention Art 117European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
- Keywords
- Evidence - public prior use
Evidence - review of the evaluation of evidence by the first instance
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - auxiliary request (yes)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Claims - clarity in opposition appeal proceedings
Amendment to case - amendment within meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 (yes)
Amendment to case - admitted (yes)
Reply to statement of grounds of appeal - new request substatiated (yes)
Substantial procedural violation - (no)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no) - Catchword
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0925/23
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 with the order to maintain the patent with the claims of the auxiliary request 3 filed with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal, and a description to be adapted thereto.
3. The requests for reimbursement of the appeal fee and for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are refused.