T 0278/00 (Naphthyl compounds/ELI LILLY) du 11.02.2003

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T027800.20030211

Date de la décision

11 février 2003

Numéro de l'affaire

T 0278/00

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

96301542.5

Classe de la CIB

C07D 211/14

Langue de la procédure

Anglais

Distribution

Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)

Téléchargement

Décision en anglais

Versions JO

Autres décisions pour cet affaire

Résumés pour cette décision

Titre de la demande

Naphthyl pharmaceutical compounds

Nom du demandeur

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

Nom de l'opposant

Chambre

3.3.01

Sommaire

1. The reasoning of a decision under appeal must be taken as it stands. The requirements of Rule 68(2) EPC cannot be construed in such a way that in spite of the presence of unintelligible and therefore deficient reasoning, it is up to the Board or the Appellant to speculate as to what might be the intended meaning of it.

2. The Board must be in a position to assess on the basis of the reasoning given in the decision under appeal whether the conclusion drawn by the first instance was justified or not. This requirement is not satisfied when the Board is unable to decide which of the various inconsistent findings indicated in and justifying the decision under appeal is correct and which is false.

3. A decision of the European Patent Office open to appeal which is based on such a deficient reasoning is not 'reasoned' in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC, which failure amounts to a substantial procedural violation.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention R 67 1973 European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973

Mots-clés

Decision reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC (no) - unintelligible findings - missing identification of prior art in assessment of inventive step - reference to oral proceedings in parallel case
Substantial procedural violation (yes) - reimbursement of appeal fee

Exergue

Affaires citées

T 0103/86 T 0292/90 T 0939/92 T 0355/97 T 0165/98

Affaires citantes

G 0002/21 R 0006/11 J 0025/10 T 0963/02 T 0897/03 T 0188/04 T 0276/04 T 0482/04 T 0583/04 T 0020/05 T 0316/05 T 0689/05 T 1182/05 T 1356/05 T 1360/05 T 1366/05 T 0599/06 T 1302/06 T 1479/06 T 1698/06 T 1936/06 T 0571/07 T 0831/07 T 0952/07 T 1411/07 T 1553/07 T 1612/07 T 0087/08 T 0421/08 T 0534/08 T 0868/08 T 1053/08 T 1079/08 T 0152/09 T 0306/09 T 2105/09 T 2467/09 T 1693/10 T 2323/10 T 2375/10 T 2474/10 T 0353/11 T 0823/11 T 2366/11 T 2509/11 T 0034/12 T 0374/12 T 0405/12 T 1205/12 T 1206/12 T 1511/12 T 2460/12 T 0071/14 T 0177/15 T 0184/15 T 1232/16 T 0591/17 T 0899/17 T 2187/17 T 0461/18 T 2378/18 T 2146/19 T 3000/19 T 3071/19 T 0912/20 T 0689/21 T 2178/22 T 0957/24

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution.

3. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.