T 1049/93 (Emulsions/NITRO NOBEL) du 03.08.1999
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T104993.19990803
- Date de la décision
- 3 août 1999
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1049/93
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 87900458.8
- Classe de la CIB
- C10M 173/00
- 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
- Water-in-oil emulsions
- Nom du demandeur
- The Lubrizol Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- Nitro Nobel AB
- Chambre
- 3.3.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 116 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 71(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 71(2) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Amendments (main 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests) - partly no support in application as filed
Clarity - main 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests (no) - 3rd auxiliary request (yes)
Novelty (3rd auxiliary request) (yes)
Inventive step (yes) - non-obvious solution
Oral proceedings - absence of respondent (opponent) - final decision at oral proceedings (yes) - Exergue
- Where an opponent who has been duly summoned, chooses not to attend oral proceedings, a board of appeal may still consider prior art which may be an obstacle to the maintenance of the patent in suit, irrespective of by whom that prior art was put forward. Such prior art does not constitute new facts within the meaning of G 4/92, which may not be construed as extending or prolonging the rights of a voluntary absent party (see point 12 of the reasons).
- Affaires citantes
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form, namely:
claims: 1 to 9
description: pages 1 to 22
submitted as third auxiliary request at the oral proceedings on 3 August 1999.