T 1691/15 du 27.07.2016
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T169115.20160727
- Date de la décision
- 27 juilliet 2016
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1691/15
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 09765878.5
- Classe de la CIB
- B65B 69/00
- 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
- USE OF A CAPSULE TREATMENT APPARATUS
- Nom du demandeur
- Nestec S.A.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Franssen, Guy Jacques
- Chambre
- 3.2.07
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 112(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention R 128European Patent Convention R 144(d)European Patent Convention R 79(1)European Patent Convention R 81(2)European Patent Convention R 99
- Mots-clés
- Admissibility of appeal - (yes)
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Procedural violation - (no)
Inspection of files - Exclusion of documents from file inspection (no)
Notification of all correspondence to all parties in inter partes proceedings
Referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no) - Exergue
- Exchanges between an opponent and the EPO which have a substantive and/or procedural bearing on the case in opposition proceedings, even if dealt with by the Directorate Quality Support in the context of a complaint handling system, should be communicated without delay to the other party/parties, as any other submission of a party or communication of the EPO in opposition proceedings. Such an exchange with a substantive and/or procedural bearing on the case should figure, by definition, in the public part of the file (see reasons, point 3).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The two requests for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.