Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of /home/patently/domains/xepc.eu/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of /home/patently/domains/xepc.eu/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of /home/patently/domains/xepc.eu/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc).

T 1557/07 () of 9.7.2008

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T155707.20080709

Date of decision:

09 July 2008

Case number:

T 1557/07

Application number:

IPC class:

Language of proceedings:

EN

Distribution:

C

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 35Â KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	Unpublished

Title of application:

Medical apparatus with light flux for biological treatments

Applicant name:

Degeratu D. Ion Cristian
Constantinescu V. Vladimir

Opponent name:

-

Board:

3.4.01

Headnote:

-

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 111(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 83
European Patent Convention 1973 R 27(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 67

Keywords:

Basis of decision - opportunity to comment (yes)
Disclosure - sufficiency (yes)
Decision in support of appeals - remittal (yes)

Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:

T 0734/91
T 1019/99
T 0268/00

Citing decisions:

R 0019/10
R 0019/12
R 0002/14
R 0016/14
T 1969/07
T 0698/10
T 1199/10
T 1961/13
T 0231/14
T 0449/14
T 2097/14
T 1029/16
T 2012/17

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t071557eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

17 references found.

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

EPO Guidelines - E General Procedural Matters

X GL E X 2.1 Examples

Case Law Book: I Patentability

X CLR I D 4.3.1 No pointer to the solution

Case Law Book: III Amendments

X CLR III B 2.4.2 Decision must demonstrably show that arguments were heard and considered

X CLR III B 2.4.3 No obligation to address each and every argument

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

X CLR IV B 2.8.2 Arguments taken into account in the decision of the examining division

X CLR IV B 2.8.5 Fresh argument based on grounds and evidence communicated beforehand

General Case Law

X R 0019/10 () of 16.3.2011

X R 0019/12 (Ablehnung wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit) of 25.4.2014

X R 0002/14 (Objections to the Chairman and Members of the Enlarged Board of … of 17.2.2015

X R 0016/14 () of 21.10.2016

X T 0734/91 () of 7.4.1992

X T 1019/99 (Contrast enhancement/AGFA-GEVAERT) of 16.6.2004

X T 0268/00 (Purification/SYNGENTA) of 16.12.2003

X T 1969/07 (Managing entity data/DESCARTES SYSTEMS GROUP) of 2.10.2012

X T 0698/10 () of 27.4.2015

X T 1199/10 (Network message redirection/ORACLE AMERICA) of 23.10.2014

X T 1961/13 (Audio visual data signal description/COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY) of 16.9.2014