| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T050192.19950601 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 01 June 1995 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0501/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84304457.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G09G 3/04 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | System for displaying alphanumeric messages | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ARTHUR G. RUSSELL COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | GRUNDIG E.M.V. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. If a new ground for allowing the appeal based upon the facts set out in the file record is raised by an Appellant for the first time as a new argument during oral proceedings at which the Respondent is voluntarily absent, it would be contrary to Article 113(1) EPC and contrary to the principles underlying decision G 0004/92 (OJ EPO 1994, 149) to decide to allow the appeal on the basis of this new ground without first giving the Respondent an opportunity to comment thereon. II. Any procedural request made by a party to first instance proceedings before the EPO is not effective or applicable within subsequent appeal proceedings (following decision T 0034/90, OJ EPO 1992, 454). III. In a Notice of Appeal, the statement pursuant to Rule 64(b) EPC of the "extent to which amendment or cancellation of the decision is requested" defines the legal framework of the appeal proceedings (following Decision G 9/92, OJ EPO 1994, 875). IV. In admissible opposition appeal proceedings, in the absence of a "request" or reply from a Respondent indicating that the decision of the Opposition Division should not be amended or cancelled, a Board of Appeal must still examine and decide whether the appeal is allowable, in accordance with Articles 110 and 111 EPC. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Absence of a request from the Proprietor for maintenance of the patent, during opposition appeal proceedings, not in itself a ground for allowing the appeal and revoking the patent Inventive step - (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t920501ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
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
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)