| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T044600.20030703 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 July 2003 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0446/00 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 94104710.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23L 1/09 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method for increasing expansion and improving texture of fiber fortified extruded food products | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | National Starch and Chemical Investment Holding Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Goodman Fielder Limited | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. It is an abuse of procedure not to comply with a procedural direction of the Board requiring a party to take a certain step or steps. This applies not only to a mandatory direction but also to a direction which only has effect if a party elects to respond to an opinion of the Board expressed in a communication. (See reasons, paragraphs 4.2.1 to 4.2.6 and 4.5.2) 2. It is an abuse of procedure for a party to adopt an unequivocal position on an issue and subsequently to depart from that position without explanation. This applies particularly in contested inter partes proceedings, in which another party is entitled to rely on that position as part of the case it has to meet, but can also apply in uncontested inter partes and ex parte proceedings in which the Board and the public must be able to rely on the applicant or proprietor's statement as to what is sought as part of a monopoly. (See reasons, paragraphs 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.5.3) 3. It is the duty of any party to proceedings, whether ex parte or inter partes, to make its own case and to formulate its own requests and it is therefore an abuse of procedure to file requests subject to conditions to be met by the Board, or to take any other step in the proceedings which amounts to asking the Board to make the party's case or to formulate its requests. (See reasons, paragraphs 4.3 and 4.5.4) |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Requests filed in abuse of procedure - inadmissible Late filed requests with no explanation for lateness - inadmissible Discretion to admit requests filed during oral proceedings (yes) Main and first auxiliary requests - non-allowable amendment Second auxiliary request - allowable amendment - novelty (yes) - inventive step (no) - solution obvious in the light of prior art |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t000446eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021