Error message

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in at_generate_html_classes() (line 69 of sites/all/themes/adaptivetheme/adaptivetheme/adaptivetheme/at_core/inc/generate.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

T 0493/95 () of 22.10.1996

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T049395.19961022

Datum der Entscheidung:

22 October 1996

Aktenzeichen:

T 0493/95

Anmeldenummer:

IPC-Klasse:

Verfahrenssprache:

DE

Verteilung:

C

Download und weitere Informationen:

Text der Entscheidung in DE (PDF, 872Â KB)
Alle Dokumente zum Beschwerdeverfahren finden Sie im Register
Bibliografische Daten verfügbar in:	DE
Fassungen:	Unpublished

Bezeichnung der Anmeldung:

EntlÃ¼ftungsvorrichtung fÃ¼r eine FlÃ¼ssigkeitspumpe

Name des Anmelders:

PROMINENT DOSIERTECHNIK GMBH

Name des Einsprechenden:

HENKEL KGaA

Kammer:

3.2.04

Leitsatz:

-

Relevante Rechtsnormen:

European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 122
European Patent Convention 1973 R 64
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 68(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 71(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 78(3)

Schlagwörter:

Form der Beschwerde - ausreichende BegrÃ¼ndung (verneint)
Wiedereinsetzung - Antragsfrist

Orientierungssatz:

-

Angeführte Entscheidungen:

J 0022/86
J 0003/87
J 0031/89
J 0006/90
T 0220/83
T 0213/85
T 0145/88
T 0014/89
T 0250/89
T 0516/91
T 0574/91
T 0961/93

Anführungen in anderen Entscheidungen:

T 0733/98
T 0283/01
T 0039/05
T 0743/05
T 1123/07
T 1407/08
T 0386/10
T 1617/13

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950493du1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

20 references found.

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

Case Law Book: III Amendments

X CLR III E 4.1.2 One-year time limit following the expiry of the unobserved time limit

X CLR III E 5.5.2.C Ignorance of or erroneous interpretation of a provision of the EPC

Case Law Book: V Priority

X CLR V A 2.6.3.D Statement of the legal or factual reasons

General Case Law

X J 0022/86 (Disapproval) of 7.2.1987

X J 0003/87 (Membranes) of 2.12.1987

X J 0031/89 () of 31.10.1989

X J 0006/90 (One-year period) of 22.10.1992

X T 0220/83 (Grounds for appeal) of 14.1.1986

X T 0213/85 (Grounds for appeal II) of 16.12.1986

X T 0145/88 (Statement of Grounds) of 27.10.1989

X T 0014/89 (Re-establishmentof rights/deficiency) of 12.6.1989

X T 0250/89 (Due care) of 6.11.1990

X T 0516/91 () of 14.1.1992

X T 0574/91 (Dental Adhesive/DENTSPLY) of 3.8.1993

X T 0961/93 (Revocation at the proprietor's request) of 14.1.1994

X T 0733/98 (Admissibility of the Appeal/SUMITOMO) of 14.12.1999

X T 0283/01 (Re-establishment/HERAEUS) of 3.9.2002

X T 0039/05 () of 22.11.2006

X T 0743/05 () of 12.10.2006

X T 1407/08 () of 20.3.2013