| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T032792.19970422 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 April 1997 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0327/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84106652.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B32B 27/08 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Oriented film laminates of polyamides and ethylene vinyl alcohol | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ALLIEDSIGNAL INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Wolff Walsrode AG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Jurisdiction of Board of Appeal to consider opposition grounds on appeal where patent revoked by first instance Novelty - main request (no) - auxiliary request (yes) Inventive step auxiliary request (yes) Substantial procedural violation (no) Refund of appeal fee (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
Where a patent has been revoked by the Opposition Division, then on appeal the Board of Appeal is entitled to consider all material in the opposition on all grounds originally alleged, even where the opponent no longer opposes the grant of a patent and the conclusion of the Board on a particular ground differs from that of Opposition Division (Reasons section 1). An intermediate product which exists only for some sixty seconds before being further processed, can destroy novelty of a claim where the intermediate product meets all the technical characteristics required by the claim (Reasons section 2.2). Reliance by the Opposition Division at oral proceedings on a document originally cited in the opposition against a dependent claim only, as closest prior art against an amended main claim, does not amount to a substantial procedural violation where patentee had the opportunity at oral proceedings to comment (Reasons section 5). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t920327eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021