| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T104993.19990803 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 August 1999 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1049/93 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 87900458.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C10M 173/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Water-in-oil emulsions | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | The Lubrizol Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Nitro Nobel AB | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Amendments (main 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests) - partly no support in application as filed Clarity - main 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests (no) - 3rd auxiliary request (yes) Novelty (3rd auxiliary request) (yes) Inventive step (yes) - non-obvious solution Oral proceedings - absence of respondent (opponent) - final decision at oral proceedings (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
Where an opponent who has been duly summoned, chooses not to attend oral proceedings, a board of appeal may still consider prior art which may be an obstacle to the maintenance of the patent in suit, irrespective of by whom that prior art was put forward. Such prior art does not constitute new facts within the meaning of G 4/92, which may not be construed as extending or prolonging the rights of a voluntary absent party (see point 12 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t931049eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021