European Patent Office

T 0955/20 (Query translation/GOOGLE) du 02.02.2022

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T095520.20220202
Date de la décision
2 février 2022
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0955/20
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
09151235.0
Classe de la CIB
G06F 17/27
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
Systems and methods for searching using queries written in a different character-set and/or language from the target pages
Nom du demandeur
Google LLC
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.5.07
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
European Patent Convention Art 109(1)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 103(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules relating to fees Art 13(2)
Mots-clés
Inventive step - main request (no)
Interlocutory revision - substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - first appeal fee (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - second appeal fee (yes)
Remittal to the department of first instance
Remittal - (yes)
Exergue
1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2).
2. If the department of first instance grants interlocutory revision only to refine the written reasons which already complied with Rule 111(2) EPC, this may constitute a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 1).
3. Such a substantial procedural violation may justify the reimbursement under Rule 103(1)(a) of the appeal fee paid for a subsequent appeal (Reasons 3.1 and 3.2).
Affaires citantes
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.

3. The request for reimbursement of the first appeal fee is rejected.

4. The request for reimbursement of the second appeal fee is allowed.