T 1556/06 du 24.06.2008
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T155606.20080624
- Date de la décision
- 24 juin 2008
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1556/06
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 97201482.3
- Classe de la CIB
- B23K 26/12
- 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 stir welding with simultaneous cooling
- Nom du demandeur
- The Boeing Company
- Nom de l'opposant
- Airbus SAS
- Chambre
- 3.2.06
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 103(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
- Mots-clés
- Inventive step (no) - patent as granted
Late-filed documents - partly admitted
Clarity (no) - patent as maintained
Late-filed auxiliary requests I to VI - not admitted because not clearly allowable
Late-filed auxiliary request VII - admitted [reasons, 4.4.1]
Remittal (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (no) - allowing a PowerPoint presentation during oral proceedings is a matter of discretion for the competent tribunal
Apportionment of costs (no) - Exergue
- The Opposition Division has a discretion as to the way oral proceedings are conducted. It is not a wrongful exercise of this discretion, and thus not a procedural violation, to refuse to allow a party to use a PowerPoint presentation during oral proceedings if the party is not thereby prevented from presenting its arguments orally (reasons, 5.2.1-5.2.7).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division for further prosecution.
3. The appellant/patent proprietor's request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.
4. The appellant/opponent's request for an apportionment of costs is refused.