European Patent Office

T 2197/16 du 13.05.2022

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T219716.20220513
Date de la décision
13 mai 2022
Numéro de l'affaire
T 2197/16
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
09750253.8
Classe de la CIB
D21B 1/02B29B 17/02
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Non distribuées (D)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Versions JO
Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
Résumé de EPC2000 R 099(1)(c)
Titre de la demande
Method for recycling composite material
Nom du demandeur
REPLAN GLOBAL SAGL
Nom de l'opposant
Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA
Chambre
3.2.05
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
EPC2000_Art_108_(2007)_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 100(b)European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 106(3)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 97(1)European Patent Convention R 99(1)(c)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2)
Mots-clés
Novelty (yes)
Novelty - implicit disclosure (no)
Inventive step (yes)
Inventive step - ex post facto analysis
Inventive step - problem and solution approach
Inventive step - non-obvious combination of known features
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application (no)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no)
Grounds for opposition - lack of clarity no ground for opposition
Late-filed facts - submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal
Late-filed facts - submitted during oral proceedings
Late-filed facts - admitted (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Decision on apportionment of costs - not subject of the appeal proceedings
Exergue
-
Affaires citantes
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The respondent's requests concerning the apportionment of costs are inadmissible.