T 1254/11 () of 17.9.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T125411.20150917
Date of decision: 17 September 2015
Case number: T 1254/11
Application number: 02000191.3
IPC class: G01G 19/393
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 717.650K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Combination weighing apparatus
Applicant name: ISHIDA CO., Ltd.
Opponent name: Multipond Wägetechnik GmbH
Board: 3.4.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 19(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 112(1)(a)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
Keywords: Remittal to the department of first instance - special reasons for not remitting the case
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Novelty - main request (no)
Novelty - first and second auxiliary requests (no)
Admissibility - third auxiliary request (no)
Different apportionment of costs (no)

1. An opposition division enlarged to four members pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC 1973 can in principle be reduced again to three members. It is for the four-person panel to decide on the reduction. In this respect the board concurs with T 990/06. In deciding on the reduction, the opposition division consisting of four members must properly exercise its discretion. (See point 1.4)

2. The board assumes arguendo that the fact that no decision to enlarge nor a decision to reduce the opposition division was added to the publicly available file and the fact that the appointment of the new chairman could only be traced from the internal register of the EPO both constitute fundamental deficiencies of the proceedings before the opposition division.

However, different from the situation in T 990/06, it is possible to determine from the file that the division was lawfully enlarged and, at a later stage, lawfully reduced again. (See points 1.6 and 1.7)

The board considers that these circumstances constitute special reasons for not remitting the case within the meaning of Article 11 RPBA. The aforementioned fundamental deficiencies assumed arguendo are of a formal nature. They would, in the board's view, not justify substantially delaying the proceedings. (See point 1.9)

Cited decisions:
G 0005/91
J 0005/81
R 0001/13
T 0515/05
T 0990/06
T 0160/09
Citing decisions:
T 1088/11

9 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: III Amendments

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law