T 0755/90 du 01.09.1992
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T075590.19920901
- Date de la décision
- 1 septembre 1992
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0755/90
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 83303938.1
- Classe de la CIB
- D01F 6/84
- 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
- Improved polyester fiber and method of production thereof
- Nom du demandeur
- TORAY INDUSTRIES, INC.
- Nom de l'opposant
- 01) Viscosuisse SA
02) Hoechst AG - Chambre
- 3.3.03
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 116(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention R 63(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973
- Mots-clés
- Novelty (yes) - additional parameter
Inventive step (main request: no) - problem and solution
Inventive step (auxiliary request: yes)
Novelty - combination of disclosure
Costs - apportionment - equity (yes) - late filed claims
Decision re appeals - remittal (no)
Oral proceedings - request refused
Examination of own motion - late submitted material - document admitted (no)
Examination of own motion - late submitted material - relevant (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - withdrawal of appeal (no) - Exergue
- General technical problem not solved - solution of the limited technical problem not inventive
- Affaires citantes
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The request for further oral proceedings is rejected.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The main request for the Contracting States DE, FR and GB is rejected.
4. The request for the Contracting State IT is rejected.
5. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of Claims 1 to 6 filed during oral proceedings as auxiliary request for the Contracting States DE, FR and GB and a description yet to be adapted.
6. The costs in the appeal procedure shall be apportioned so that the Appellant shall pay to Respondent 1 all the costs incurred by Respondent 1 in preparing and filing the written statement dated 2 March 1992.
7. The request of Respondent 1 for reimbursement of the appeal fee is rejected.