T 0520/01 du 29.10.2003
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T052001.20031029
- Date de la décision
- 29 octobre 2003
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0520/01
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 91202896.6
- Classe de la CIB
- B65D 1/02
- 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
- Method of blow moulding a returnable polyester biaxially oriented container
- Nom du demandeur
- CONTINENTAL PET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
- Nom de l'opposant
- CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL Holland B.V.
Rexam Aktiebolag
PEPSICO, Inc. - Chambre
- 3.2.07
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Re-introduction of grounds in appeal proceedings - not allowed
Claims not supported by the description
Patent revoked
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) - a decision on the appeal could be rendered without an answer to the proposed question - Exergue
- 1. Where a ground of opposition, here insufficiency, was expressly not maintained in opposition oral proceedings by the only party which had relied on the ground and the Opposition Division did not deal with the ground in their decision the re- introduction of the ground in appeal proceedings constitutes a fresh ground which, following Opinion G 10/91 by analogy, requires the permission of the proprietor.
2. Where a ground, here novelty, was substantiated within the opposition period and the party which raised the ground neither appears at the opposition oral proceedings nor withdraws the ground the Opposition Division has to deal with the ground in their decision. The ground may then be taken up by other appellants in subsequent appeal proceedings.
3. A request for a referral under Article 112 EPC to the Enlarged Board of Appeal must be refused if a decision can be reached on the basis of grounds other than those grounds to which the proposed question was related, cf. decision G 3/98, point 1 of the reasons.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. European patent No. 0 479 393 is revoked.
3. The request for referral of a question under Article 112 EPC to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.