| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T038604.20070109 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 January 2007 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0386/04 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97100051.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | E02F 9/22 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Hydraulic drive system for construction machines | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY CO.,LTD. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | LINDE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | An appellant-proprietor, whose patent has been revoked, is entitled to seek maintenance of the patent as granted even though its main request before the opposition division had only been the maintenance of the patent in more limited form. The exception to this is where to allow the proprietor to revert to the amended claims would amount to an abuse of procedure. This long-standing principle is not contradicted by decisions T 528/93 or T 840/93, which are concerned with new claims raising new issues, and is not contrary to the statement by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 9/91 concerning the purpose of an appeal. Observed: In this context, there is no procedural logic in distinguishing between cases in which the patent has been revoked and cases in which the patent has been maintained. | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of main request (yes) Novelty (yes) Inventive step (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: | |||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t040386eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021