J 0004/93 (Re-establishment) du 24.05.1993
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1993:J000493.19930524
- Date de la décision
- 24 mai 1993
- Numéro de l'affaire
- J 0004/93
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 90914566.6
- Classe de la CIB
- G01N 21/35
- 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
- J 0004/93 Re-establishment 1994-06-09
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Method for analyzing agent gas
- Nom du demandeur
- Nellcor Incorporated
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.1.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 122(5) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Enlarged Board of Appeal - referral
Restitutio - inapplicable time limits - scope of
General principles - legitimate expectation - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
- Affaires citantes
- J 0025/96
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Is the EPO and are the Boards of Appeal, in the light of Article 172 EPC, competent to exclude, by way of interpretation of Article 122(5) EPC, the time limit provided for in Rule 104b(l)(b) EPC from re-establishment of rights?
2. If the answer is yes (and the decision G 3/91 is confirmed with regard to the time limit provided for in Rule 104b(l)(b) EPC): Is the former, constant practice of the EPO regarding the applicability of Article 122 EPC to the time limit referred to in Rule 104b(1)(b) EPC a sufficient basis for the legitimate expectations of a party to have its request for re-establishment examined according to this former practice, if the request was filed before the party was duly informed of the decision G 3/91?
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes: From which date can the users of the EPO be assumed to have been duly informed of decision G 3/91?