T 0556/95 (Undeniable systems) of 08.08.1996
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T055695.19960808
- Date of decision
- 8 August 1996
- Case number
- T 0556/95
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 88202620.6
- IPC class
- H04L 9/30
- 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
- Undeniable signature systems
- Applicant name
- SECURITY TECHNOLOGY CORP.
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
The conditions for amendment of an application laid down in Article 123(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 86(3) EPC remain applicable so long as the Examining Division retains competence over the application, including after the issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, and until the decision to refuse or grant the application is taken (cf. G 7/93).
The right to be heard at oral proceedings under Article 116(1) EPC subsists so long as proceedings are pending before the EPO, and a request for oral proceedings must be granted (ie oral proceedings must be appointed) before any request of a party (whether procedural or substantive) is decided against that party so as to cause them a loss of rights. This applies also in the case of a request for oral proceedings to discuss amendments submitted after the issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC. The discretion of the Examining Division under Rule 86(3) EPC must be exercised in such circumstances having regard to Article 116(1) EPC. The Enlarged Board has no power to limit the application of Article 116(1) EPC by means of any guidance it may lay down as to how an Examining Division should exercise its discretion under Rule 86(3) EPC.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 116(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 116(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 97(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 97(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 51(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 51(6) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 86(3) 1973
- Keywords
- Request for oral proceedings refused following submission of amendments after Rule 51(6) communication - procedural violation
Decision based on new grounds - procedural violation
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - Catchword
- -
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 for further prosecution.
3. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.