T 0934/02 () of 29.4.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T093402.20040429
Date of decision: 29 April 2004
Case number: T 0934/02
Application number: 95304228.0
IPC class: F16D 69/02
C08J 5/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 46.866K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Friction lining materials
Applicant name: BorgWarner Inc.
Opponent name: Verband der Reibbelagindustrie e.V
Board: 3.2.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 106
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108 Sent 3
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 57a
European Patent Convention 1973 R 64(b)
Keywords: Appeal of the patent proprietor based on a new request for amendment (admissible)
Main request rejected in the opposition division decision- formulation attempt, not partial surrender
Inventive step (yes)

I. An appeal of the patent proprietor is to be considered sufficiently substantiated within the meaning of Article 108, third sentence EPC by filing amended claims which deprive the contested decision of its basis, even though it does not state any specific reasons why the contested decision is wrong. It is therefore not necessary and would also be pointless for the purposes of adequately substantiating an appeal, to file grounds in support of a version of a claim that the appellant (patent proprietor) no longer defends in the appeal proceedings. (see point 2 of the reasons).

II. Where a patent proprietor appeals against an interlocutory decision, maintaining a patent in amended form in accordance with an auxiliary request the main request rejected by the opposition division is to be considered as a formulation attempt which does not prevent the patent proprietor from submitting in the appeal proceedings a new main request having a claim 1 broader in scope than that of the rejected main request but narrower than that of the granted version (see point 3 of the reasons).

Cited decisions:
T 0123/85
T 0105/87
T 0296/87
T 0717/01
Citing decisions:
T 0880/01
T 0655/03
T 1197/03
T 0386/04
T 1272/05
T 1394/05
T 0213/08
T 0760/08
T 1188/08
T 1370/08
T 1407/08
T 1708/08
T 0137/09
T 0360/09
T 0473/09
T 0573/09
T 0919/09
T 0933/09
T 1538/09
T 0028/10
T 0095/10
T 2532/11
T 0395/12
T 0918/12
T 0050/13
T 0835/13
T 1969/13
T 2226/13
T 0143/14

28 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

General Case Law