T 0165/93 of 12.07.1994
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T016593.19940712
- Date of decision
- 12 July 1994
- Case number
- T 0165/93
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 86108136.2
- IPC class
- F16H 7/12
- 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
- Tensioner for toothed drive belts
- Applicant name
- Tsubakimoto Chain Co
- Opponent name
- INA Wälzlager Schaeffler KG
- Board
- 3.2.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973
- Keywords
- Extent of opposition limited to specific claims - extension of the oppositon to dependent claims
Inventive step - yes (after amendment)
Right to be heard in opposition proceedings - proprietor of the patent informed about new extent to which the patent is opposed - no need for further communication
Procedural violation - reimbursement of appeal fee (no) - Catchword
- If following an extension of the opposition to originally not attacked dependent claims after expiry of the opposition period the proprietor of the patent who was duly informed about this extension does not show any willingness to include such originally undisputed subject-matter into the independent claim(s) there is no necessity to issue a further communication in this respect before revoking the patent (point 7 of the reasons).
- Citing cases
- T 0802/12
In the given circumstances, the Opposition Division had to decide upon the European patent in the text submitted by the Appellants (Article 113(2) EPC), and accordingly had to revoke the patent as a whole, since the main claims were considered as not allowable. The Board, therefore, is of the opinion that the proceedings before the Opposition Division did not suffer from a substantial violation of a principle of procedure in accordance with the EPC. Therefore, in the Boards's judgment, there is no basis for a reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 67 EPC. ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent in the following version:
Description: Pages 1 to 8 filed with letter of 7 April 1994
Claims: No. 1 to 9 filed with letter of 7 April 1994
Drawings: Sheets 1/5 to 5/5 filed with letter of 7 April 1994.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is rejected.