| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T125504.20050316 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 16 March 2005 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1255/04 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 98958069.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C09B 11/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Dibenzorhodamine dyes useful as fluorescent labelling agents | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Applera Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. In a case where there is a request considered allowable on which a Rule 51(4) EPC communication is to be sent, but there are also not allowed higher-ranking requests, the communication under Rule 51(4) EPC is deficient if it is not accompanied by reasons why the higher-ranking requests are not allowed. This communication should also expressly mention the option of maintaining the disallowed requests, thus reminding the Applicant and the Examining Division of the possibility for the Applicant of asking for a written appealable decision on these higher-ranking requests (see point 3 of the reasons) (decision T 1181/04 of 31 January 2005 followed). 2. If the Applicant maintains a still pending higher-ranking request discussed at the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, that request cannot be refused under Rule 86(3) EPC. The decision under appeal by merely stating that the application is refused because there is no version approved of by the Applicant in the sense of Article 113(2) EPC on which a patent could be granted is inadequately reasoned because it does not give the substantive reasons why what the Applicant does approve of is not in conformity with the patentability requirements of the EPC (see point 4 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Substantial procedural violation (yes) Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes) Rule 51(4) EPC communication - necessity for including reasons why higher ranking requests are not allowable |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t041255ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
8 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications
XCLR IV B 3.2.4 Examination procedure under the previous system (Rule 71 EPC and Rule 51(4) EPC 1973)