European Patent Office

T 0713/02 (Phosphoramidites/AVECIA) du 12.04.2005

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T071302.20050412
Date de la décision
12 avril 2005
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0713/02
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
96933245.1
Classe de la CIB
C07F 9/6518
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
In situ preparation of nucleoside phosphoramidites and oligonucleotide synthesis
Nom du demandeur
Avecia Biotechnology Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.3.01
Sommaire

1. Even where the Formalities Officer allowed a request for correction of priority data, that matter is not thereby decided in the applicant's favour in binding form prior to the decision terminating the granting procedure and is, thus, open to review by the Board of Appeal. (Point 2.1 of the reasons)

2. The examination of a request for correction of priority data after the publication of the application is not to be restricted to that portion of the facts and circumstances which in a decision of a Board of Appeal in another case were considered not to preclude the correction. Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be ignored that the requested correction by addition of an earlier priority date would eliminate from the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) EPC a highly relevant document, which the applicant had previously de facto accepted as comprised in that state of the art. (Point 2.2 of the reasons)

Mots-clés
Correction of priority data after publication of application (not allowed) - no separate positive decision in examination proceedings - no binding effect - no res judicata - public taken by surprise - correction not requested promptly
Novelty (no) - prepublished document
Referral of questions to EBA (no) - questions irrelevant for present decision
Refund of appeal fee (no) - unsuccessfull appeal
Exergue
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The request to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is rejected.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.