T 0647/93 (Procedural violation) du 06.04.1994
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T064793.19940406
- Date de la décision
- 6 avril 1994
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0647/93
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 88309812.1
- Classe de la CIB
- G11B 5/64
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Magneto-optic recording medium and method of magneto-optic recording using the same medium
- Nom du demandeur
- Hitachi Maxell
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.02
- Sommaire
I. The provision of Article 113(2) EPC, that the European Patent Office shall consider and decide upon the European patent application or the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the applicant for or proprietor of the patent, is a fundamental procedural principle, being part of the right to be heard, and is of such prime importance that any infringement of it, even as the result of a mistaken interpretation of a request, must, in principle, be considered to be a substantial procedural violation. In any case, such violation occurs when, as in the present case, the Examining Division does not make use of the possibility of granting interlocutory revision under Article 109 EPC, after the mistake has been pointed out in the grounds of appeal.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 109 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 10
- Mots-clés
- Decision of first instance not taken on text submitted by applicant - substantial procedural violation
Failure to follow procedure set out in Guidelines - not a substantial procedural violation
Decision of first instance not well reasoned - not a substantial procedural violation
Remittal to first instance for further prosecution
Reimbursement of appeal fee - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Examining Division for further prosecution.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is allowed.