| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T045013.20150324 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 24 March 2015 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0450/13 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 07254468.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C09J 7/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Emulsion based adhesive | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Synthomer Deutschland GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.09 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Sufficiency (yes) Novelty (yes) Inventive step (yes) Admissibility of public prior use Admissibility of new novelty attack Admissibility of new inventive step attack |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
1. Submitting new documents together with the statement of grounds of appeal without discussing them may obscure any argument the appellant may have intended to make in the statement of grounds of appeal. It is in particular not acceptable if it is then necessary for the board and any other party to read the new documents, to identify the possibly relevant passages in them and then to knit them together to understand why, in view of these documents, the decision of the opposition division was in the appellant's view wrong (see in particular point 4.4 of the Reasons). 2. Not substantiating a public prior use in opposition proceedings but attempting to substantiate it in the statement of grounds of appeal may lead to the inadmissibility of this attack under Article 12(4) RPBA (see point 3 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t130450eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021