T 0862/98 (Apparatus for fluid dispersing/ABBOTT LABORATORIES) of 17.08.1999
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T086298.19990817
- Date of decision
- 17 August 1999
- Case number
- T 0862/98
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 87116861.3
- IPC class
- G01F 11/02G01N 35/00G01N 1/10
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Apparatus and process for reagent fluid dispensing and printing
- Applicant name
- Abbott Laboratories
- Opponent name
- Roche Diagnostics GmbH
- Board
- 3.4.02
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 102(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 106(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 116(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973
- Keywords
- Unclear situation of the file: substantive oral decision or intention announced
Infringement of Rule 68(2) EPC: substantial procedural violation
Change in composition of Opposition Division: obligation to offer new oral proceedings - Catchword
- Changes in the composition of an Opposition Division after oral proceedings should be generally avoided also in cases where no final substantive decision has been given orally. Where this is not possible, new oral proceedings must in general be offered to the parties under such circumstances (see the analogous regulation of Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal). Such offers may be foregone in exceptional cases, in particular if the final decision given by a differently composed Opposition Division is not substantially based on findings arrived at during the oral proceedings but on fresh facts and arguments communicated to the parties in the resumed written proceedings (see point 2.3 of the reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.
3. The reimbursement of the appeal fee is ordered.