T 0327/92 (Oriented film laminates of polyamides and ethylene vinyl alcohol) of 22.04.1997
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T032792.19970422
- Date of decision
- 22 April 1997
- Case number
- T 0327/92
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 84106652.5
- IPC class
- B32B 27/08
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Oriented film laminates of polyamides and ethylene vinyl alcohol
- Applicant name
- ALLIEDSIGNAL INC.
- Opponent name
- Wolff Walsrode AG
- Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113 1973European Patent Convention Art 123 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 99 1973European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973
- Keywords
- Jurisdiction of Board of Appeal to consider opposition grounds on appeal where patent revoked by first instance
Novelty - main request (no) - auxiliary request (yes)
Inventive step auxiliary request (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (no)
Refund of appeal fee (no) - Catchword
- Where a patent has been revoked by the Opposition Division, then on appeal the Board of Appeal is entitled to consider all material in the opposition on all grounds originally alleged, even where the opponent no longer opposes the grant of a patent and the conclusion of the Board on a particular ground differs from that of Opposition Division (Reasons section 1).
An intermediate product which exists only for some sixty seconds before being further processed, can destroy novelty of a claim where the intermediate product meets all the technical characteristics required by the claim (Reasons section 2.2).
Reliance by the Opposition Division at oral proceedings on a document originally cited in the opposition against a dependent claim only, as closest prior art against an amended main claim, does not amount to a substantial procedural violation where patentee had the opportunity at oral proceedings to comment (Reasons section 5).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is referred back to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the first auxiliary request filed on 5 November 1996 with the amendment to claim 4 received on 26 November 1996, and a description to be adapted.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.