T 0042/84 (Alumina spinel) du 23.03.1987
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T004284.19870323
- Date de la décision
- 23 mars 1987
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0042/84
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 80304734.9
- Classe de la CIB
- B01D 53/02
- 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
- Removal of sulfur and/or sulfur compound from industrial process streams using metal alumina spinel
- Nom du demandeur
- Exxon
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.4.01
- Sommaire
1.The Guidelines not having the binding authority of a legal text, a failure by the Examining Division to follow them is not to be regarded as a procedural violation within the meaning of Rule 67 of the EPC unless it also constitutes a violation of a rule or principle of procedure governed by an article of the EPC or one of the Implementing Regulations.
2. The failure of the Office to enclose the text of Articles 106 to 108 EPC with the decision neither invalidates the decision nor does it constitute a substantial procedural violation.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 96(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68 1973
- Mots-clés
- Remittal for further prosecution
Added subject-matter (no)
Binding authority of a legal text - Guidelines
Reimbursement of appeal fee (no)
Applicant's request to be informed by telephone disregarded by Examining Division/substantial procedural violation (no)
Failure of the Office to enclose text of Articles 106 to 108 EPC with the decision/substantial procedural violation (no) - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
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 substantive examination on the basis of the following documents:
(a) Claims 1 to 7 filed on 25 April 1985, and Claims 8 to 13 filed on 15 September 1982;
(b) description pages 1 to 3 and 11 as originally filed, pages 4 and 4A filed on 11 May 1983, and pages 6 to 10 filed on 15 September 1982.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.