| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T058702.20020912 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 12 September 2002 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0587/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99966434.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04N 5/00 G06F 9/46 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method and apparatus for operating system kernel operations | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | PowerTV, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Substantial procedural violation (yes); refund of appeal fee (yes) International Preliminary Examination Report sufficiently reasoned (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
If the only communication preceding the decision to refuse an application merely draws attention to an International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER), the requirements of Article 113(1) EPC are met provided the IPER constitutes a reasoned statement as required by Rule 51(3) EPC, using language corresponding to that of the EPC; in the case of an inventive step objection this will require a logical chain of reasoning which can be understood and, if appropriate, answered by the applicant. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t020587eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021