T 0416/87 (Block copolymer) du 29.06.1989

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T041687.19890629

Date de la décision

29 juin 1989

Numéro de l'affaire

T 0416/87

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

81305931.8

Classe de la CIB

C08F 297/04

Langue de la procédure

Anglais

Distribution

Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)

Téléchargement

Décision en anglais

Versions JO

Autres décisions pour cet affaire

Résumés pour cette décision

Titre de la demande

Nom du demandeur

JSR

Nom de l'opposant

Hüls

Chambre

3.3.01

Sommaire

1. If the description on its proper interpretation specifies a feature to be an overriding requirement of the invention, following Article 69(1) EPC and its Protocol the claims may be interpreted as requiring this as an essential feature, even though the wording of the claims when read in isolation does not specifically require such feature (see Reasons paragraph 5).

2. In a case where a prior document is cited by an opponent for the first time during the appeal stage of an opposition and is considered by the Board to be the closest prior art and therefore admissible but not such as to prejudice maintenance of the patent, the Board may itself examine and decide the matter under Article 111(1) EPC rather than remit the matter to the first instance (see Reasons paragraph 9). In such a case an apportionment of costs may be made against the opponent in respect of the submission of evidence in reply by the patentee, following Decision T 117/86 Costs/(FILMTEC (OJ EPO 1989, 401) (see Reasons paragraph 10).

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention Art 104 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 69(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 63(1) 1973Protocol_on_interpretation_Art_069

Mots-clés

Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Late filed document is closest prior art but does not prejudice maintenance of patent
Document admitted
Exercise of discretion under Article 111(1) EPC
No remittal to Opposition Division
Late filed document first relied upon in grounds of appeal
Documents relied upon before Oppositon Division not relied upon in grounds of appeal
Abuse of procedure
Apportionment of costs

Exergue

Affaires citées

Affaires citantes

T 0525/88 T 0638/89 T 0314/90 T 0876/90 T 0881/91 T 0273/92 T 0457/92 T 0527/93 T 0566/93 T 0569/97 T 0788/97 T 0717/98 T 1063/98 T 0932/99 T 0997/99 T 0096/00 T 0556/02 T 0223/05 T 0597/07 T 1490/07 T 0620/08 T 2525/11 T 0432/12 T 0058/13 T 0049/15 T 2758/17 T 0439/22 T 0425/24

ORDER

For these reasons, it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs in the appeal procedure shall be apportioned so that the appellant shall pay to the respondent fifty per cent of the costs which were incurred by the respondent's representative and charged to the respondent in preparing and filing the respondent's reply to the appeal dated 7 September 1988.