T 0536/88 (Dust-tight folding carton) of 14.01.1991
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1991:T053688.19910114
- Date of decision
- 14 January 1991
- Case number
- T 0536/88
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 83109529.4
- IPC class
- B65D 5/42
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- -
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- Badische Kartonfabrik
- Opponent name
- Henkel
- Board
- 3.2.01
- Headnote
I. Documents cited in the contested European patent are in principle not automatically scrutinised in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings.
II. A document indicated in the European patent as the closest or important prior art for the purposes of elucidating the technical problem set out in the description nevertheless forms part of the opposition or opposition appeal proceedings even if not expressly cited within the opposition period (follows Decision T 198/88 dated 3 August 1989, OJ EPO 1991, 254).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114 1973European Patent Convention R 27(1)(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973
- Keywords
- Important prior art indicated in European patent specification automatically admitted in opposition proceedings
Remittal to Opposition Division (no)
Substantial procedural violation (no) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0300/90T 0191/94T 0316/94T 0318/94T 0372/94T 0501/94T 0569/94T 0907/94T 0009/95T 0136/95T 0505/95T 0726/95T 0812/95T 0017/97T 0018/97T 0051/97T 0085/97T 0569/97T 0780/97T 0843/97T 0288/98T 0429/98T 0533/98T 0541/98T 1072/98T 0140/00T 0122/01T 0214/01T 0442/01T 0454/02T 0086/03T 0215/03T 1018/05T 1155/06T 0578/08T 1225/08T 0904/09T 1763/09T 1421/12T 1634/12T 2128/13T 0257/14T 1123/14T 2541/17T 2377/18T 2391/18T 0727/20T 2499/22
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The requests for remittal of the case to the first instance and reimbursement of the appeal fee are rejected.