T 0921/94 (Aminoanthraquinone derivatives/CIBA) du 30.10.1998
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1998:T092194.19981030
- Date de la décision
- 30 octobre 1998
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0921/94
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 91810463.9
- Classe de la CIB
- C09B 1/20
- 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
- Process for the preparation of aminoanthraquinone derivatives
- Nom du demandeur
- Ciba Specialty Chemicals Holding Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.3.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 96(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Inventive step (yes, after amendment) - problem and solution approach - non-obvious alternative process
Procedural violation (yes) - refusal after one communication - legal obligation to issue a further communication under Article 96(2) EPC - obligation to deal with applicant's submissions in substance
Reimbursement of the appeal fee (no) - Exergue
- If an applicant provides bona fide submissions and/or technical information in reply to a communication of the Examining Division substantially changing the points at issue, the Examining Division has a legal obligation under Article 96(2) EPC to inform the applicant of the objections under the EPC arising from the new situation and to invite him to provide further observations before issuing a decision to refuse the application (see point 6.2.2 of the decision). A failure to do so amounts to a procedural violation.
A decision, which only comprises a mere formal acknowledgement of the applicant's submissions, without dealing with them in substance, contravenes the general principle of good faith and fair proceedings that reasoned decisions contain at least some reasoning on the crucial points of dispute in order to give the party concerned a fair idea of why his submissions were not considered convincing, and consequently also contravenes Rule 68(2) EPC amounting to a substantial procedural violation too (see point 6.2.3 of the decision). - Affaires citées
- T 0640/91
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 grant a patent with Claims 1 to 12 submitted with letter dated 25 August 1998 as main request and a description yet to be adapted.