| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T036791.19921214 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 December 1992 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0367/91 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 81109039.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F 15/40 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Electronic document information filing system | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Grundig E.M.V. Elektro-Mechanische Versuchsanstalt & Co. KG |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step - known element Patentable inventions - extent of exclusion Form of appeal - fee-refund (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
A decision based only on a wrong assessment of the prior art and/or of the claimed invention must be regarded as a substantive, but not as a procedural "violation". Moreover, in the present case the Board is not convinced that the decision under appeal was manifestly wrong, the "missing link" to a valid obviousness objection not having been submitted to the Opposition Division. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t910367eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021