T 0850/95 (Correction of decision to grant) of 21.11.1995
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T085095.19951121
- Date of decision
- 21 November 1995
- Case number
- T 0850/95
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 89311913.1
- IPC class
- C04B 11/024
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- T 0850/95 Correction of decision to grant 1996-07-12T 0850/95 Rectification de la décision de délivrance 1996-07-12T 0850/95 Berichtigung des Erteilungsbeschlusses 1996-07-12T 0850/95 Correction of decision to grant/US GYPSUM III 1996-07-12
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Composite material and method of producing
- Applicant name
- US GYPSUM
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.02
- Headnote
The following question of law shall be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC: Are appeals from a decision of an examining division refusing a request under Rule 89 EPC for correction of the decision to grant to be decided upon by a technical board of appeal (Article 21(3)(a) and (b) EPC) or by the Legal Board of Appeal (Article 21(3)(c) EPC)?
If the answer dependings on the circumstances of the case, who shall decide on the competence?
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 21(3) 1973European Patent Convention R 89 1973
- Keywords
- Competence of the boards of appeal
Refusal of a correction of the decision to grant - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following question of law shall be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC:
Are appeals from a decision of an examining division refusing a request under Rule 89 EPC for correction of the decision to grant to be decided upon by a technical board of appeal (Article 21(3)(a) and (b) EPC) or by the Legal Board of Appeal (Article 21(3)(c) EPC)?
If the answer depends on the circumstances of the case, who shall decide on the competence?