European Patent Office

J 0016/13 (Correction of application documents) du 22.05.2014

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:J001613.20140522
Date de la décision
22 mai 2014
Numéro de l'affaire
J 0016/13
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
08167183.6
Classe de la CIB
G09G 3/34
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
Display apparatus and control method thereof
Nom du demandeur
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.1.01
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
Competence of the boards of appeal - Legal board competent to hear the case (yes)
Correction of error - (no)
Exchange of complete description and claims (no)
Incorporation by reference (not applicable)
Grant of time limit under Rule 56 (no)
Filing of missing parts under Rule 56 (not applicable)
Violation of legitimate expectations (no)
Exergue
Where the formal order of an appealed decision is obviously erroneous to such an extent that it is essentially incomprehensible when compared with the reasons in the body of the decision, in particular when it plainly does not correspond to any of the foreseen possible legal effects flowing from the substantive issue underlying the appealed decision, and if the competence pursuant to Article 21(3) EPC is supposed to change from one Board to another only because of such an "impossible" order, the formal order can be disregarded for the purposes of Article 21(3)(a) and (c) EPC, and rather the substantive request underlying the decision must be guiding in determining the Board competent to decide the case, see point 6 of the Reasons. (T 1382/08 not followed)

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The request for correction of the specification under Rule 139 EPC with the description and claims filed on 19 January 2010 is refused.

3. The request for an extension of the time limit for filing missing parts under Rule 56(3) EPC is refused.

4. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.