T 2866/18 du 04.10.2022
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T286618.20221004
- Date de la décision
- 4 octobre 2022
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 2866/18
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 06846060.9
- Classe de la CIB
- F28F 9/04
- 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 Art 13(2) RPBA 2020
- Titre de la demande
- HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE AND MANUFACTURABILITY
- Nom du demandeur
- Carrier Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- Mahle International GmbH
- Chambre
- 3.2.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b)European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 111European Patent Convention Art 54Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
- Mots-clés
- Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Grounds for opposition - extension of subject-matter (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Novelty - prior disclosure
Novelty - implicit features (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no) - Exergue
- Whether the documents which are taken as starting points for newly raised inventive step objections were previously used for objections regarding a lack of novelty has no bearing for determining whether these inventive step objections constitute an amendment to the opponent's appeal case under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons 4.7).
- Affaires citées
- J 0014/19T 0184/17T 0574/17T 1179/17T 1816/17T 2360/17T 1042/18T 2161/18T 2920/18T 0151/19
- Affaires citantes
- T 1773/22
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is maintained as granted.