| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T070197.20010823 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 23 August 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0701/97 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 89103599.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C04B 35/10 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Ceramic shaped article and methods of making same | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | NORTON COMANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 3M Center Hermes Schleifmittel GmbH & Co. CERASIV GmbH Innovatives Keramik-Engineering |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Procedural status of a non-appealing opponent in the case of rejection of multiple oppositions (not decided) Fresh ground of opposition (no) New arguments on appeal (allowable) Subject-matter claimed in a patent granted in response to a divisional application not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in parent application as filed Experimental reproduction of an example unsuitable evidence for establishing implicit properties of a product in the absence of a clear and complete disclosure of the process steps necessary for obtaining that product |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
Where Article 100(c) EPC has been raised as a ground for opposition and has been considered in the appealed decision, it is the board's duty to assess correctly whether or not the respondent's requests comply with said Article. Hence, the board has to consider all arguments which are relevant, independently of - the point in time at which they were introduced into the proceedings, see e.g. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 1998, VI-F, 6, decision T 86/94 of 8 July 1997, reasons 2.2.2, and decision T 432/94 of 19 June 1997, reasons 5.4.1, - the procedural status of the party who actually introduced them, and - whether or not a given party, relying on these arguments, had based it's initial opposition on this ground. Once the board has become aware, during the prosecution of the case, of additional arguments not raised by one of the parties, and which are of decisive importance in the correct assessment of the case within the given framework of Article 100(c) EPC, it has the power and the duty to bring them into consideration in the course of the proceedings. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t970701eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021