European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T154408.20121116 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 16 November 2012 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 1544/08 | ||||||||
Application number: | 00927183.4 | ||||||||
IPC class: | H05B 3/86 H05B 3/84 |
||||||||
Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
Distribution: | B | ||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | Automotive glazing panel having an electrically heatable solar control coating layer | ||||||||
Applicant name: | AGC Flat Glass Europe SA | ||||||||
Opponent name: | Saint-Gobain Glass France | ||||||||
Board: | 3.5.02 | ||||||||
Headnote: | - | ||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
Keywords: | Admissibility of late-filed documents - no Sufficiency of disclosure - yes Added subject-matter (main request) - no, after amendment Novelty (main request) - yes Inventive step (main request) - yes Rule 106 EPC objections - one addressed, one dismissed |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
1. In some circumstances it can be appropriate to respond to an objection raised under Rule 106 EPC during oral proceedings before a board of appeal by (re-)opening the discussion of the issue in question (see point 10.2 of the reasons). 2. The wish to avoid giving commercially valuable information to competitors is not necessarily a valid reason for not complying with the requirement of Article 12(2) RPBA (see point 2.2 of the reasons). 3. If drawings are originally filed in colour at the date of filing of an application, then the technical content of these original colour drawings should be determined taking into account the available evidence when establishing the content of the application as filed for the purpose of examining compliance of amendments with Article 123(2) EPC (see points 4.4 and 4.5 of the reasons). |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t081544eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021