T 1110/03 () of 4.10.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T111003.20041004
Date of decision: 04 October 2004
Case number: T 1110/03
Application number: 92908256.8
IPC class: H02P 9/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 34 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Variable speed wind turbine
Applicant name: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Opponent name: I. Vestas Wind Systems A/S
II. NEC MICON A/S
III. Flygtekniska Försöksanstalten
IV. ENERCON GmbH
V. Lagerwey Windturbine BV
VI. ALSTOM UK Ltd
VII. SEG Schaltanlagen-Elektronik-Geräte GmbH & Co. KG
VIII. WEIER Elektromotorenwerke GmbH & Co. KG
IX. Südwind Energiesysteme GmbH
X. Pro + Pro Energiesysteme GmbH & Co. KG
Board: 3.5.02
Headnote: I. When evaluating evidence it is necessary to distinguish between a document which is alleged to be part of the state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC - in the sense that the document itself is alleged to represent an instance of what has been made available to the public before the priority date of the opposed patent - and a document which is not itself part of the state of the art, but which is submitted as evidence of the state of the art or in substantiation of any other allegation of fact relevant to issues of novelty and inventive step.
II. In the first situation, a document is direct evidence of the state of the art; its status as state of the art cannot normally be challenged except on authenticity. In the second situation, a document is also evidence albeit indirect; it provides a basis for an inference about, eg the state of the art, common general knowledge in the art, issues of interpretation or technical prejudice etc - an inference which is subject to challenge as to its plausibility.
III. Only a document of the first kind can be disregarded on the sole ground that it is postpublished; documents of the second kind do not stand or fall by their publication date even on issues of novelty and inventive step.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 117(1)
Keywords: Postpublished documents submitted as evidence of technical prejudice disregarded by opposition division - substantial procedural violation - remittal
Computer generated slideshow presentation in oral proceedings - danger of unfairness
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 1122/01
Citing decisions:
T 0023/02
T 0021/04
T 0555/06
T 0601/06
T 1556/06
T 1625/06
T 0277/07
T 0608/07
T 1098/07
T 0545/08
T 0777/08
T 0379/10
T 2436/10
T 0419/12
T 2294/12
T 0504/14
T 1271/15
T 2238/15
T 1436/17
T 2508/17

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t031110ex1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

24 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: I Patentability

Case Law Book: III Amendments

General Case Law