European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T073614.20160225 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 25 February 2016 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 0736/14 | ||||||||
Application number: | 09163209.1 | ||||||||
IPC class: | H04L 27/26 | ||||||||
Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
Distribution: | C | ||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | Frequency division multiple access for wireless communication | ||||||||
Applicant name: | Qualcomm Incorporated | ||||||||
Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
Board: | 3.5.05 | ||||||||
Headnote: | - | ||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
Keywords: | Competence of the Legal Board of Appeal - (no) Violation of principle of good faith - (no) Correct exercise of first-instance discretionary power - (no) Violation of right to be heard - (yes) Remittal to first instance for further prosecution - (yes) Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes) |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
If an applicant whose application is non-unitary responds unclearly and/or in a misleading way to an invitation from the examining division to designate which searched invention it wishes to prosecute further (e.g. by submitting a main request covering one invention and an auxiliary request covering the other invention searched), it cannot be automatically assumed that the applicant selected the invention covered by the main request for examination. Rather, the examining division must clarify, e.g. via a further communication, which of the searched inventions the applicant actually wants it to examine. Confronting the applicant with an irrevocable decision not to admit an auxiliary request covering one of the inventions searched, without giving an opportunity to comment on its admissibility beforehand, is regarded as a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 3). |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t140736eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021