T 2233/09 (Augmenting step/ANDRITZ) du 21.09.2012
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T223309.20120921
- Date de la décision
- 21 septembre 2012
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 2233/09
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 01200864.5
- Classe de la CIB
- D21C 3/22D21C 3/02D21C 7/00D21C 11/04
- 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
- Dissolved solids control in pulp production
- Nom du demandeur
- Andritz Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Metso Paper Sweden Aktiebolag
- Chambre
- 3.3.06
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1)European Patent Convention R 76(2)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 16(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 16(c)
- Mots-clés
- Admissibility of the new grounds of opposition (no): no consent of the Patent Proprietor
Admissibility of the new objections raised under Art. 123(2) EPC (no): their introduction during oral proceedings would have disadvantaged the Patent Proprietor
Admissibility of documents submitted with the grounds of appeal (yes): reaction to the decision under appeal
Novelty (yes): implicit disclosure of one of the claimed method steps not convincingly proven
Inventive step (yes): unobvious alternative
Apportionment of costs in the Respondent's favour (yes): adjournment of oral proceedings due to Appellant's conduct - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citantes
- T 0234/16
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs incurred to the Respondent due to the oral proceedings of 19 September 2012 are to be borne by the Appellant.