T 0966/99 du 03.12.2002
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T096699.20021203
- Date de la décision
- 3 décembre 2002
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0966/99
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 92112711.4
- Classe de la CIB
- A61F 13/15
- 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
- Clean dry facing needled composite
- Nom du demandeur
- McNEIL-PPC, INC.
- Nom de l'opposant
- SCA MOLNLYCKE AB
- Chambre
- 3.2.06
- Sommaire
Rule 66(2) EPC implies that a decision should be reasoned in so far as the issues to be decided are concerned. Therefore, if the patent proprietor withdraws a request for maintenance of the patent on the basis of a set of claims, there is no longer a procedural basis for the Board to include reasons in the decision concerning the withdrawn request (point 7.1).
Rule 76(1) EPC does not require the Board to include statements, which are no longer directly related to the requests on file, in the minutes of oral proceedings for the sole purpose of providing ammunition to the opponent in possible future infringement proceedings. The exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts for infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 64(3) EPC should not be prejudiced by opinions and interpretations submitted during the appeal proceedings when they no longer relate to the patent in the form in which it is upheld by the Board (point 7.2.3).
A common practice of drafting the minutes of oral proceedings based on Rule 76(1) EPC has been established by the Boards of appeal from which practice the minutes drawn up by the present Board do not deviate. The present situation therefore does not give rise to a question of non-uniform application of the law under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (point 7.3.1).
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention R 65 1973European Patent Convention R 76(1) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Admissibility of the appeal (yes)
Admendments - admissible (yes)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Request to include in the decision certain reasoning in respect of the non-allowability of a request withdrawn by the patentee - rejected
Request to include in the minutes of oral proceedings the statements made by the parties concerning the withdrawn request - rejected
Referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - rejected - Exergue
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The written requests filed by the appellant during the oral proceedings are rejected.
3. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the following documents:
claims: 1 to 19, filed during oral proceedings;
description: columns 1 to 8 and the insert in column 2, filed during oral proceedings;
drawings: Figures 1 to 5, as granted.