J 0003/09 du 28.05.2010
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2010:J000309.20100528
- Date de la décision
- 28 mai 2010
- Numéro de l'affaire
- J 0003/09
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 06758637.0
- Classe de la CIB
- H01M 8/04
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Fuel cells
- Nom du demandeur
- The Gillette Company
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.1.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 153European Patent Convention Art 157(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 82European Patent Convention Art 83 1973European Patent Convention R 109 1973European Patent Convention R 110(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 110(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 110(3) 1973European Patent Convention R 110(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 112 1973European Patent Convention R 161European Patent Convention R 162(1)European Patent Convention R 162(2)European Patent Convention R 162(3)European Patent Convention R 162(4)European Patent Convention R 164(2)European Patent Convention R 43(2)European Patent Convention R 43(5)European Patent Convention R 45 1973European Patent Convention R 46European Patent Convention R 46 1973
- Mots-clés
- Refund of claims fees (no)
Abandonment of subject-matter (no)
Arbitrary delay by Office (no)
Permission to prosecute all claims subject to payment of additional search fees (no) - Exergue
- 1. Although the procedure on entry of an application into the European phase where the EPO has acted as the International Searching Authority has changed with the coming into force of EPC 2000, the responsibility for establishing whether or not the application meets the requirements of unity of invention still ultimately rests with the Examining Division, and the opinion of the EPO acting as the International Searching Authority on lack of unity is not final or binding on the Examining Division.
2. In the case of an a posteriori objection of non unity, even if justified, the claims may still usefully serve as a basis for later limiting the claimed subject-matter to a more specifically defined but now unitary and searched invention.
3. The payment of claims fees for claims exceeding the number of ten may thus have a useful purpose on its own independently of whether all the claims concern unitary subject-matter.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.