T 0416/87 (Block copolymer) of 29.06.1989

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T041687.19890629

Date of decision

29 June 1989

Case number

T 0416/87

Petition for review of

Application number

81305931.8

IPC class

C08F 297/04

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Applicant name

JSR

Opponent name

Hüls

Board

3.3.01

Headnote

1. If the description on its proper interpretation specifies a feature to be an overriding requirement of the invention, following Article 69(1) EPC and its Protocol the claims may be interpreted as requiring this as an essential feature, even though the wording of the claims when read in isolation does not specifically require such feature (see Reasons paragraph 5).

2. In a case where a prior document is cited by an opponent for the first time during the appeal stage of an opposition and is considered by the Board to be the closest prior art and therefore admissible but not such as to prejudice maintenance of the patent, the Board may itself examine and decide the matter under Article 111(1) EPC rather than remit the matter to the first instance (see Reasons paragraph 9). In such a case an apportionment of costs may be made against the opponent in respect of the submission of evidence in reply by the patentee, following Decision T 117/86 Costs/(FILMTEC (OJ EPO 1989, 401) (see Reasons paragraph 10).

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention Art 104 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 69(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 63(1) 1973Protocol_on_interpretation_Art_069

Keywords

Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Late filed document is closest prior art but does not prejudice maintenance of patent
Document admitted
Exercise of discretion under Article 111(1) EPC
No remittal to Opposition Division
Late filed document first relied upon in grounds of appeal
Documents relied upon before Oppositon Division not relied upon in grounds of appeal
Abuse of procedure
Apportionment of costs

Catchword

Cited cases

Citing cases

T 0525/88 T 0638/89 T 0314/90 T 0876/90 T 0881/91 T 0273/92 T 0457/92 T 0527/93 T 0566/93 T 0569/97 T 0788/97 T 0717/98 T 1063/98 T 0932/99 T 0997/99 T 0096/00 T 0556/02 T 0223/05 T 0597/07 T 1490/07 T 0620/08 T 2525/11 T 0432/12 T 0058/13 T 0049/15 T 2758/17 T 0439/22 T 0425/24

ORDER

For these reasons, it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs in the appeal procedure shall be apportioned so that the appellant shall pay to the respondent fifty per cent of the costs which were incurred by the respondent's representative and charged to the respondent in preparing and filing the respondent's reply to the appeal dated 7 September 1988.