T 0274/95 (Re-introduced ground of opposition) of 02.02.1996
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T027495.19960202
- Date of decision
- 2 February 1996
- Case number
- T 0274/95
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 85308677.5
- IPC class
- G07F 3/02
- 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
- Coin checking apparatus
- Applicant name
- MARS INCORPORATED
- Opponent name
- WH Münzprüfer Dietmar Trenner GmbH
- Board
- 3.4.01
- Headnote
I. If a ground of opposition is substantiated in the notice of opposition but is subsequently not maintained during the Opposition Division proceedings (here: a statement to that effect is made by the opponent during oral proceedings), the Opposition Division is under no obligation to consider this ground further or to deal with it in its decision, unless the ground is sufficiently relevant to be likely to prejudice maintenance of the patent (following Opinion G 10/91).
II. A ground of opposition which is substantiated in the notice of opposition but which is subsequently not maintained before the Opposition Division, if sought to be re-introduced during appeal proceedings is not a "fresh ground of opposition" within the meaning of Opinion G 10/91, and may consequently be re-introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patent proprietor, in the exercise of the Board of Appeal's discretion.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
- Keywords
- Ground of opposition (Article 100(c) EPC) substantiated in the notice of opposition but not maintained before the Opposition Division
Re-introduction into appeal proceedings in the discretion of the Board of Appeal
Subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
Inventive step (yes) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0010/91
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The request for an apportionment of costs is rejected.