| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T023393.19961028 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 October 1996 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0233/93 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84302988.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | D02J 1/22 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Improved process for annealing polyester filaments and new products thereof | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | EMS-INVENTA AG HOECHST Aktiengesellschaft Zentrale Patentabteilung |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Scope of appeal - defined by requests of appellant Novelty and inventive step (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
If the appellant II withdraws his appeal but not his opposition, he falls back into the role of a party as of right in the sense of Article 107 EPC, second sentence and the scope of the appeal is defined by the request of appellant I, which the non-appealing party may not exceed (G 9/92, OJ EPO, 1994, 875). As appellant I only objected to those parts of the impugned decision which relate to product claims the Board is not authorised to question the patentability of the process claims. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t930233eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021