European Patent Office

T 0934/02 du 29.04.2004

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T093402.20040429
Date de la décision
29 avril 2004
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0934/02
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
95304228.0
Classe de la CIB
C08J 5/04F16D 69/02
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
Friction lining materials
Nom du demandeur
BorgWarner Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
Verband der Reibbelagindustrie e.V
Chambre
3.2.01
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
Appeal of the patent proprietor based on a new request for amendment (admissible)
Main request rejected in the opposition division decision- formulation attempt, not partial surrender
Inventive step (yes)
Exergue
I. An appeal of the patent proprietor is to be considered sufficiently substantiated within the meaning of Article 108, third sentence EPC by filing amended claims which deprive the contested decision of its basis, even though it does not state any specific reasons why the contested decision is wrong. It is therefore not necessary and would also be pointless for the purposes of adequately substantiating an appeal, to file grounds in support of a version of a claim that the appellant (patent proprietor) no longer defends in the appeal proceedings. (see point 2 of the reasons).
II. Where a patent proprietor appeals against an interlocutory decision, maintaining a patent in amended form in accordance with an auxiliary request the main request rejected by the opposition division is to be considered as a formulation attempt which does not prevent the patent proprietor from submitting in the appeal proceedings a new main request having a claim 1 broader in scope than that of the rejected main request but narrower than that of the granted version (see point 3 of the reasons).

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 with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the following documents:

- claims 1 to 7 and amended description according to the main request filed with letter of 29 May 2004

- drawings as granted.