J 0003/09 () of 28.5.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:J000309.20100528
Date of decision: 28 May 2010
Case number: J 0003/09
Application number: 06758637.0
IPC class: H01M 8/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 45.787K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Fuel cells
Applicant name: The Gillette Company
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.1.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 82
European Patent Convention Art 153
European Patent Convention R 43(2)
European Patent Convention R 43(5)
European Patent Convention R 46
European Patent Convention R 161
European Patent Convention R 162(1)
European Patent Convention R 162(2)
European Patent Convention R 162(3)
European Patent Convention R 162(4)
European Patent Convention R 164(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 83
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 157(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 45
European Patent Convention 1973 R 46
European Patent Convention 1973 R 109
European Patent Convention 1973 R 110(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 110(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 110(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 110(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 112
Keywords: Refund of claims fees (no)
Abandonment of subject-matter (no)
Arbitrary delay by Office (no)
Permission to prosecute all claims subject to payment of additional search fees (no)
Catchwords:

1. Although the procedure on entry of an application into the European phase where the EPO has acted as the International Searching Authority has changed with the coming into force of EPC 2000, the responsibility for establishing whether or not the application meets the requirements of unity of invention still ultimately rests with the Examining Division, and the opinion of the EPO acting as the International Searching Authority on lack of unity is not final or binding on the Examining Division.

2. In the case of an a posteriori objection of non unity, even if justified, the claims may still usefully serve as a basis for later limiting the claimed subject-matter to a more specifically defined but now unitary and searched invention.

3. The payment of claims fees for claims exceeding the number of ten may thus have a useful purpose on its own independently of whether all the claims concern unitary subject-matter.

Cited decisions:
G 0002/92
J 0033/86
J 0010/07
T 0178/84
T 0631/97
Citing decisions:
J 0011/12
T 2052/10
T 1285/11
T 2495/11
T 0034/12
T 1981/12

11 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPC Implementing Rules

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

General Case Law