T 1232/03 (Automatic transmission fluid/INFINEUM) du 14.09.2006
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T123203.20060914
- Date de la décision
- 14 septembre 2006
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1232/03
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 98911812.0
- Classe de la CIB
- C10M 163/00
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents des chambres de recours (C)
- 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 improving anti-shudder durability of power transmission fluids
- Nom du demandeur
- Ethyl Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- Infineum USA L.P.
- Chambre
- 3.3.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
- Mots-clés
- Lack of novelty objection due to prior use submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal: late filed (yes) - not admitted into the appeal proceedings as not prima facie relevant.
Technical report submitted after the statement of grounds of appeal by the Appellant: late filed (yes) - not admitted into the appeal proceedings as not prima facie relevant.
Technical reports submitted by the Appellant one month before the oral proceedings: late filed (yes) - not admitted into the proceedings - no opportunity for the Respondent to take position.
Main request, first and second auxiliary requests: inventive step (no) - no improvement within the whole claimed area - obvious alternative.
Third auxiliary request: inventive step (no) - alleged effect not credibly achieved for all claimed alternatives - extent of the claimed monopoly not justified by the technical contribution to the art.
Fourth auxiliary request: inventive step (yes) - non obvious alternative. - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citantes
- -
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 fourth auxiliary request filed with letter dated 16 September 2004 (Claims 1 to 10 set B) and a description to be adapted.