T 1080/99 (Touch control/TEKTRONIX) of 31.10.2001

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T108099.20011031
Date of decision: 31 October 2001
Case number: T 1080/99
Application number: 94307386.6
IPC class: G06F 3/033
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 50 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Touch control of cursor position
Applicant name: TEKTRONIX, INC.
Opponent name: Mannesmann VDO AG
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: I. In a case where a Board in a letter, almost three months before appointed oral proceedings, makes clear that a request by a party for postponement of the oral proceedings, although meeting the requirement of filing the request as soon as possible after the summons to oral proceedings, does not meet the other requirements of the "Notice of the Vice-President Directorates-General 2 and 3 dated 1 September 2000 concerning oral proceedings before the EPO", OJ EPO 2000, 456, and that party, instead of attempting to supplement their original request as soon as possible, chooses to react to the Board's letter only one week before the appointed oral proceedings, it must be considered that the additional reasons and evidence for the request for postponement and the fixing of a new date for oral proceedings were received too late and that these reasons can therefore not be accepted (see points 2.1 to 2.3 of the reasons).
II. In view of its legal nature and intended purpose, a Japanese patent abstract in English ("Patent Abstracts of Japan") is a publication intended to reflect the technical content of the corresponding Japanese patent application for the purpose of quick prima facie information of the public, as is the purpose of any kind of abstract or summary of technical subject matter.
Hence, the contents of such abstracts are to be interpreted and possibly re-evaluated in the light of the original document if the latter is available. Indeed, if an abstract appears to add something to the original document then this points to an error in the abstract, or at least to an error in its interpretation (see point 4.6 of the reasons).
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 23(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 85
Keywords: Request for postponement of oral proceedings (not allowed)
Prior art status of Patent Abstracts of Japan
Inventive step (no)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 0077/87
T 0412/91
T 0160/92
T 0333/95
Citing decisions:
T 0606/06
T 0382/07
T 1011/09
T 0028/13

15 references found.

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

EPO Guidelines - E General Procedural Matters

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: I Patentability

Case Law Book: III Amendments

General Case Law