T 1198/97 (Spray drying/UNILEVER) of 05.03.2001
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T119897.20010305
- Date of decision
- 5 March 2001
- Case number
- T 1198/97
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 90203444.6
- IPC class
- B01D 1/16
- 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
- Computer-controlled spray-drying process
- Applicant name
- UNILEVER N.V., et al
- Opponent name
- HENKEL KGaA
PROCTER & GAMBLE E.T.C. - Board
- 3.3.05
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 76 1973
- Keywords
- Novelty - yes, no implicit disclosure
Procedural violation - yes, introduction of evidence by opposition division in oral proceedings without indicating relevant facts thereof
Competence for requests concerning the minutes of first instance oral proceedings - Catchword
- When a document published several years after the priority date of the patent-in-suit is introduced by the Opposition Division of its own motion as evidence for the common general knowledge at the priority date of the patent-in-suit, in order to safeguard the parties'right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC, the parties have to be made aware of the publication date of the document, if this date cannot be ascertained from the document itself (6. of the Reasons).
2. Even when an appeal has been filed against a decision of a first instance department, only the department of first instance before which the oral proceedings took place is competent and at the same time also obliged to decide in first instance on a request concerning the contents of the minutes of oral proceedings held before it (7. of the Reasons). - Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division for further prosecution.
3. Reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.