T 0951/91 (Late submission) of 10.3.1994

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T095191.19940310
Date of decision: 10 March 1994
Case number: T 0951/91
Application number: 84300759.2
IPC class: C08L 59/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 1.807M)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Toughened polyoxymethylene compositions
Applicant name: E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
Opponent name: Degussa AG, Frankfurt
Board: 3.3.03
Headnote: I. The discretionary power given to the departments of the EPO pursuant to Article 114(2) EPC serves to ensure that proceedings can be concluded switftly in the interests of the parties, the general public and the EPO, and to forestall tactical abuse. If a party fails to submit the facts, evidence and arguments relevant to their case as early and completely as possible, without adequate excuse, and admitting the same would lead to an excessive delay in the proceedings, the Boards of Appeal are fully justified in refusing to admit them in exercise of the discretion provided by Article 114(2) EPC (Reasons, point 5.15; T 0156/84, OJ EPO 1987, 372, qualified).
II. The fact that the Opposition Division relies on the arguments presented by the Patentee to reject the opposition cannot be equated with a substantial procedural violation. When the content of the file does not reveal any basically and/or conspicuously wrong analysis, nor anything manifestly unreasonable in the reasoning, there is no ground to suspect bias (Reasons, point 14.1).
III. Although an Opposition Division or Board of Appeal has the power under Article 104 EPC to make an award of costs against a party if it is equitable to do so, the Boards of Appeal have no power to make an award of costs against the EPO if (which did not arise) it regards the decision of an Opposition Division as unsatisfactory (Reasons, point 16).
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 19
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 24
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 83
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 104
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 114
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 117
European Patent Convention 1973 R 63
Keywords: Novelty (confirmed) - implicit disclosure (no)
Inventive step (confirmed) - non-obvious combination of known features
Disclosure - sufficiency (yes)
Announcement of late submission of unspecified experimental data - results not admitted
Decision adverse to a party - bias (no) - incompetence (no)


Cited decisions:
G 0007/91
G 0008/91
G 0009/91
G 0004/92
T 0014/83
T 0219/83
T 0122/84
T 0156/84
T 0258/84
T 0153/85
T 0117/86
T 0101/87
T 0301/87
T 0326/87
T 0026/88
T 0038/89
T 0182/89
T 0237/89
T 0430/89
T 0534/89
T 0097/90
T 0137/90
T 0270/90
T 0611/90
T 0017/91
T 0741/91
T 0010/92
Citing decisions:
T 0201/92
T 1002/92
T 0018/93
T 0566/93
T 0105/94
T 0322/95
T 0476/96
T 0569/96
T 0097/97
T 0610/97
T 0679/97
T 0894/97
T 0861/98
T 1063/98
T 0468/99
T 0962/99
T 1053/99
T 0140/00
T 0210/00
T 0481/00
T 0788/00
T 1034/01
T 0994/02
T 0120/03
T 0215/03
T 0227/03
T 0651/03
T 0610/04
T 0692/04
T 0081/05
T 0087/05
T 1421/05
T 0418/07
T 0730/07
T 2290/08
T 2424/09
T 0966/11
T 1572/11
T 1756/11
T 0416/12
T 1674/12
T 1528/13

52 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Case Law Book: III Amendments

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law