T 1019/92 du 09.06.1994
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T101992.19940609
- Date de la décision
- 9 juin 1994
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1019/92
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 86308866.2
- Classe de la CIB
- B60K 28/10B60K 26/02
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Failsafe engine controller
- Nom du demandeur
- General Motors Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- Robert Bosch GmbH
- Chambre
- 3.2.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Late submitted material - late filed facts - late submission of public prior use (admitted) - no abuse of procedure - absence of evidence
Notice of opposition - admissibility - objective basis - requirements - relevant date - substantiation of the grounds of opposition - sufficiency (yes)
Enlarged Board - referral (no)
Inventive step (no)
Extent to which a patent is opposed
No prior art material cited - dependent claims - Exergue
- I. If an opponent requests revocation of the patent in its entirety then the fact that no specific prior art material is cited against a dependent claim does not exclude that claim from the opposition (point 2.1 of the Reasons, paragraphs 3 and 4).
II. The fact that an opponent after the end of the opposition period subsequently submits prior art material originating from himself does not constitute an abuse of the proceedings in the absence of evidence that this was done deliberately for tactical reasons (see point 2.2 of the Reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The requests for refund of the appeal fee and for referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are rejected.