T 0501/92 (Alphanumeric Display) du 01.06.1995

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T050192.19950601

Date de la décision

1 juin 1995

Numéro de l'affaire

T 0501/92

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

84304457.9

Classe de la CIB

G09G 3/04

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

System for displaying alphanumeric messages

Nom du demandeur

ARTHUR G. RUSSELL

Nom de l'opposant

GRUNDIG E.M.V.

Chambre

3.4.01

Sommaire

I. If a new ground for allowing the appeal based upon the facts set out in the file record is raised by an Appellant for the first time as a new argument during oral proceedings at which the Respondent is voluntarily absent, it would be contrary to Article 113(1) EPC and contrary to the principles underlying decision G 0004/92 (OJ EPO 1994, 149) to decide to allow the appeal on the basis of this new ground without first giving the Respondent an opportunity to comment thereon.

II. Any procedural request made by a party to first instance proceedings before the EPO is not effective or applicable within subsequent appeal proceedings (following decision T 0034/90, OJ EPO 1992, 454).

III. In a Notice of Appeal, the statement pursuant to Rule 64(b) EPC of the "extent to which amendment or cancellation of the decision is requested" defines the legal framework of the appeal proceedings (following Decision G 9/92, OJ EPO 1994, 875).

IV. In admissible opposition appeal proceedings, in the absence of a "request" or reply from a Respondent indicating that the decision of the Opposition Division should not be amended or cancelled, a Board of Appeal must still examine and decide whether the appeal is allowable, in accordance with Articles 110 and 111 EPC.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention Art 100 1973 European Patent Convention Art 101 1973 European Patent Convention Art 110 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 99 1973 European Patent Convention R 57 1973 European Patent Convention R 58 1973 European Patent Convention R 64 1973 European Patent Convention R 66(1) 1973

Mots-clés

Absence of a request from the Proprietor for maintenance of the patent, during opposition appeal proceedings, not in itself a ground for allowing the appeal and revoking the patent
Inventive step - (no)

Exergue

Affaires citées

G 0004/92 G 0009/92 T 0220/83 T 0145/88 T 0034/90

Affaires citantes

J 0012/06 J 0007/20 T 0898/99 T 0260/00 T 0238/01 T 0151/04 T 0520/07 T 2030/07 T 2102/08 T 2343/08 T 0719/09 T 1621/09 T 1942/11 T 0177/18 T 2113/18

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The Opponent's request for revocation of the patent on the ground set out in paragraph V above, and the associated requests for an apportionment of costs and for referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, are rejected.

2. The appeal is allowed, and the European patent is revoked on the ground of lack of inventive step.