| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T120612.20121214 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 December 2012 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1206/12 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 06751882.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06N 5/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Optimization of decisions regarding multiple assets in the presence of various underlying uncertainties | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | LANDMARK GRAPHICS CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.06 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Decision sufficiently reasoned - no Substantial procedural violation - yes Remittal for further prosecution |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
The mere reference to jurisprudence of the boards of appeal does not, by itself, constitute or re place an argument in a first instance decision. If a de ciding body, in a decision, wants to rely on an ar gu ment put forward in a decision of the boards it is insufficient merely to refer to it or to recite it. The deciding body must also make clear that it adopts the argu ment and explain why, in what respect and to what extent this argument applies to the case at hand. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t121206eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021