| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T022795.19960411 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 11 April 1996 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0227/95 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 85307532.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B60H 1/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Air conditioner for automobiles | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | NIPPONDENSO CO., LTD. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Robert Bosch GmbH Rodacher Autoklima GmbH Behr GmbH & Co. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | The order of the Board's decision not carried out by the Opposition Division - procedural violation Remittal of the case and reimbursement of the fee |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
I. An opponent who did not appeal the first decision by the Opposition Division to reject the oppositions may still be considered adversely affected in accordance with Article 107 EPC by a second decision of that division (after remittal) maintaining the patent in amended form. Such an opponent is entitled to appeal said second decision, if he originally had requested the revocation of the patent in its entirety. II. For a decision to be properly reasoned as required under Rule 68(2) EPC, the reasons must clarify the standpoints of the body responsible for the decision and be adequately connected to the resulting order. Where a remittal has taken place with the order to prosecute the case further, it is incumbent upon the first instance to examine all the patentability issues arising from this order, and give adequate reasons on each such issue. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950227eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021