T 0327/92 (Oriented film laminates of polyamides and ethylene vinyl alcohol) of 22.4.1997

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T032792.19970422
Date of decision: 22 April 1997
Case number: T 0327/92
Application number: 84106652.5
IPC class: B32B 27/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 1 MB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Oriented film laminates of polyamides and ethylene vinyl alcohol
Applicant name: ALLIEDSIGNAL INC.
Opponent name: Wolff Walsrode AG
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 99
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123
European Patent Convention 1973 R 55(c)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 67
Keywords: Jurisdiction of Board of Appeal to consider opposition grounds on appeal where patent revoked by first instance
Novelty - main request (no) - auxiliary request (yes)
Inventive step auxiliary request (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (no)
Refund of appeal fee (no)
Catchwords:

Where a patent has been revoked by the Opposition Division, then on appeal the Board of Appeal is entitled to consider all material in the opposition on all grounds originally alleged, even where the opponent no longer opposes the grant of a patent and the conclusion of the Board on a particular ground differs from that of Opposition Division (Reasons section 1).

An intermediate product which exists only for some sixty seconds before being further processed, can destroy novelty of a claim where the intermediate product meets all the technical characteristics required by the claim (Reasons section 2.2).

Reliance by the Opposition Division at oral proceedings on a document originally cited in the opposition against a dependent claim only, as closest prior art against an amended main claim, does not amount to a substantial procedural violation where patentee had the opportunity at oral proceedings to comment (Reasons section 5).

Cited decisions:
G 0002/88
G 0001/92
T 0273/92
Citing decisions:
T 0401/95
T 0978/97
T 0217/98
T 0182/00
T 0247/04
T 1341/04
T 0392/06
T 0384/08
T 2147/10
T 0576/12
T 1216/12
T 0437/14

15 references found.

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

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: I Patentability

Case Law Book: III Amendments

Case Law Book: V Priority

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law