T 0160/92 (Printing plate) of 27.1.1994 | XEPC: EPC and PCT resource

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T016092.19940127

Date of decision:

27 January 1994

Case number:

T 0160/92

Application number:

86308250.9

IPC class:

G03C 1/76
G03C 5/00
B41C 1/06

Language of proceedings:

Distribution:

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 1Â MB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	OJ \| Published

Title of application:

Method for making printing plates and assembly useful therein

Applicant name:

Mead Corporation

Opponent name:

Board:

3.4.02

Headnote:

1. The teaching of a prepublished abstract of a Japanese patent document, considered per se without its corresponding original document, forms prima facie part of the prior art and may be legitimately cited as such if nothing on file points to its invalidity. The party intending to contest the validity of said teaching on the basis of the original document teaching has the burden of proof (points 2.1 to 2.5 of the Reasons).
2. The answer to the controversial question whether the Applicant was misled about the possibility of imminent refusal of the application, must be sought by focusing on the procedurally relevant content of the file (points 3.2 to 3.4 of the Reasons).
3. A letter of reply to a communication of the Examining Division filed in due time by the Applicant and dealing with substantial points of this communication constitutes a reply in the sense of Article 96(3) EPC. Therefore, procedurally, it precludes deeming the application withdrawn; the further declaration: "This present letter is not to be treated as a formal response to that communication" is merely contradictory to the facts, the reality of which cannot be made null and void by such an expedient (point 3.5 of the Reasons).

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 96(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 111(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 44(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 51(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 68(2)

Keywords:

State of the art - abstract (yes)
Deemed to be withdrawn (no)
Substantial procedural violation (no)
Inventive step (no)
Decision re appeals - remittal (no)

Catchwords:

Cited decisions:

T 0077/87

Citing decisions: