T 0300/89 (Polyesters) du 11.04.1990

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T030089.19900411

Date de la décision

11 avril 1990

Numéro de l'affaire

T 0300/89

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

85308381.4

Classe de la CIB

C08G 63/58

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

Minnesota Mining

Nom de l'opposant

Chambre

3.3.01

Sommaire

1. Even if it is possible for an Examining Division to envisage amendments which might enable progress towards grant, the burden lies upon an applicant (if he so wishes) to propose amendments (including by way of auxiliary requests) which overcome the objections raised by the Examining Division, in the observations in reply to the first communication under Article 96(2) EPC in which such objections are raised.

2. If an applicant wishes to avoid the risk of an adverse decision being issued without oral proceedings being appointed, he should request oral proceedings at the latest in his observations in reply to the first communication under Article 96(2) EPC.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention Art 113 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 96 1973 European Patent Convention R 51 1973 European Patent Convention R 67 1973

Mots-clés

Novelty (no)
Product defined by a product-by-process claim involving three reactants without specific reaction conditions not novel with regard to prior art mentioning the same reactants
Rejection after one communication
Request for telephone call left unanswered - no procedural violation

Exergue

Affaires citées

Affaires citantes

T 0251/90 T 0919/91 T 0366/92 T 0599/92 T 0793/92 T 1032/92 T 1067/92 T 0075/93 T 0163/94 T 0236/94 T 0939/95 T 0042/97 T 0059/97 T 0596/97 T 0201/98 T 0961/98 T 1087/98 T 0638/00 T 0095/04 T 0980/06 T 0435/07 T 0301/10 T 0245/15 T 2707/16

ORDER

For these reasons, it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The main request and the first auxiliary request are rejected.

3. The case is remitted to the Examining Division for further prosecution on the basis of Claim 1 of set C - the second auxiliary request - filed on 29 March 1989.

4. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is rejected.