T 0473/98 (Magnetic field screen) of 05.09.2000
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T047398.20000905
- Date of decision
- 5 September 2000
- Case number
- T 0473/98
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 86307104.9
- IPC class
- H01F 27/36
- 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
- Magnetic field screens
- Applicant name
- BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
- Opponent name
- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
- Board
- 3.5.02
- Headnote
I. It is entirely appropriate and desirable in the interests of overall procedural efficiency and effectiveness that an opposition division should include in the reasons for a revocation decision pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC employing the standard decision formula, by way of obiter dicta, findings which could obviate remittal in the event of the revocation being reversed on appeal (2.4).
II. An opponent is not adversely affected by such findings favourable to the proprietor included in a revocation decision nor is the proprietor as sole appellant protected against a reformatio in peius in respect of such findings (2.1 to 2.6).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 106(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 64 1973European Patent Convention Art 68 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973
- Keywords
- Opponent adversely affected by revocation decision including findings favourable to the proprietor - (no)
Insufficiency - (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The opponent's appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form in the following version:
Claims: 1 as filed in the oral proceedings on 5. September 2000;
2. to 15 of the patent specification.
Description: pages 2 and 4 to 23 of the patent specification,
page 3 as filed in the oral proceedings on 5 September 2000;
Drawings: Figures 1 to 38 of the patent specification.