T 0042/84 (Alumina spinel) of 23.03.1987
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T004284.19870323
- Date of decision
- 23 March 1987
- Case number
- T 0042/84
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 80304734.9
- IPC class
- B01D 53/02
- 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
- Removal of sulfur and/or sulfur compound from industrial process streams using metal alumina spinel
- Applicant name
- Exxon
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.4.01
- Headnote
1.The Guidelines not having the binding authority of a legal text, a failure by the Examining Division to follow them is not to be regarded as a procedural violation within the meaning of Rule 67 of the EPC unless it also constitutes a violation of a rule or principle of procedure governed by an article of the EPC or one of the Implementing Regulations.
2. The failure of the Office to enclose the text of Articles 106 to 108 EPC with the decision neither invalidates the decision nor does it constitute a substantial procedural violation.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 96(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68 1973
- Keywords
- Remittal for further prosecution
Added subject-matter (no)
Binding authority of a legal text - Guidelines
Reimbursement of appeal fee (no)
Applicant's request to be informed by telephone disregarded by Examining Division/substantial procedural violation (no)
Failure of the Office to enclose text of Articles 106 to 108 EPC with the decision/substantial procedural violation (no) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Examining Division for further substantive examination on the basis of the following documents:
(a) Claims 1 to 7 filed on 25 April 1985, and Claims 8 to 13 filed on 15 September 1982;
(b) description pages 1 to 3 and 11 as originally filed, pages 4 and 4A filed on 11 May 1983, and pages 6 to 10 filed on 15 September 1982.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.