W 0012/89 (Polysuccinate esters) du 29.06.1989
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1989:W001289.19890629
- Date de la décision
- 29 juin 1989
- Numéro de l'affaire
- W 0012/89
- En ligne le
- 25 septembre 1990
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- -
- Classe de la CIB
- C10M 145/22C10M 129/95
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Non distribuées (D)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- W 0012/89 1990-08-23
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Polysuccinate esters and lubricating compositions comprising same
- Nom du demandeur
- non publié
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.3.01
- Sommaire
The following questions of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Does an International Searching Authority have the power to carry out a substantive examination of an international application in respect of novelty and inventive step when considering under Article 17(3)(a) PCT whether the application complies with the requirement of unity of invention set forth in Rule 13.1 PCT?
2. If an International Searching Authority does have such power, in what circumstance does it have an obligation to carry out such a substantive examination?
3. Is the Agreement between EPO and WIPO dated 1 January 1988 binding either upon the EPO when acting as ISA, or upon the Boards of Appeal of the EPO?
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 154(3) 1973Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 17(3)(a)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 13Patent Cooperation Treaty R 33Patent Cooperation Treaty R 40
- Mots-clés
- Non-unity a posteriori
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
- Affaires citantes
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The following questions of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Does an International Searching Authority have the power to carry out a substantive examination of an international application in respect of novelty and inventive step when considering under Article 17(3)(a) PCT whether the application complies with the requirement of unity of invention set forth in Rule 13.1 PCT?
2. If an International Searching Authority does have such power, in what circumstances does it have an obligation to carry out such a substantive examination?
3. Is the above-identified Agreement dated 1 January 1988 binding either upon the EPO when acting as ISA, or upon the Boards of Appeal of the EPO?