T 0300/89 (Polyesters) of 11.04.1990
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T030089.19900411
- Date of decision
- 11 April 1990
- Case number
- T 0300/89
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 85308381.4
- IPC class
- C08G 63/58
- 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
- -
- Applicant name
- Minnesota Mining
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.01
- Headnote
1. Even if it is possible for an Examining Division to envisage amendments which might enable progress towards grant, the burden lies upon an applicant (if he so wishes) to propose amendments (including by way of auxiliary requests) which overcome the objections raised by the Examining Division, in the observations in reply to the first communication under Article 96(2) EPC in which such objections are raised.
2. If an applicant wishes to avoid the risk of an adverse decision being issued without oral proceedings being appointed, he should request oral proceedings at the latest in his observations in reply to the first communication under Article 96(2) EPC.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 96 1973European Patent Convention R 51 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973
- Keywords
- Novelty (no)
Product defined by a product-by-process claim involving three reactants without specific reaction conditions not novel with regard to prior art mentioning the same reactants
Rejection after one communication
Request for telephone call left unanswered - no procedural violation - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The main request and the first auxiliary request are rejected.
3. The case is remitted to the Examining Division for further prosecution on the basis of Claim 1 of set C - the second auxiliary request - filed on 29 March 1989.
4. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is rejected.