T 1255/04 (Dibenzorhodamine dyes/APPLERA) of 16.3.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T125504.20050316
Date of decision: 16 March 2005
Case number: T 1255/04
Application number: 98958069.1
IPC class: C09B 11/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 65 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Dibenzorhodamine dyes useful as fluorescent labelling agents
Applicant name: Applera Corporation
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.01
Headnote: 1. In a case where there is a request considered allowable on which a Rule 51(4) EPC communication is to be sent, but there are also not allowed higher-ranking requests, the communication under Rule 51(4) EPC is deficient if it is not accompanied by reasons why the higher-ranking requests are not allowed. This communication should also expressly mention the option of maintaining the disallowed requests, thus reminding the Applicant and the Examining Division of the possibility for the Applicant of asking for a written appealable decision on these higher-ranking requests (see point 3 of the reasons) (decision T 1181/04 of 31 January 2005 followed).
2. If the Applicant maintains a still pending higher-ranking request discussed at the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, that request cannot be refused under Rule 86(3) EPC. The decision under appeal by merely stating that the application is refused because there is no version approved of by the Applicant in the sense of Article 113(2) EPC on which a patent could be granted is inadequately reasoned because it does not give the substantive reasons why what the Applicant does approve of is not in conformity with the patentability requirements of the EPC (see point 4 of the reasons).
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 97(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 51(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 51(5)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 51(6)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 86(3)
Keywords: Substantial procedural violation (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes)
Rule 51(4) EPC communication - necessity for including reasons why higher ranking requests are not allowable
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 1181/04
Citing decisions:
T 1422/04
T 0308/05
T 1395/05
T 1351/06
T 0394/10

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t041255ex1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

8 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