|
Date of decision
|
24 March 2003
|
|
|
Case number
|
T 0824/00
- 3.5.2
|
|
|
Application number
|
88400267.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title of the application
|
Process for manufacturing a superconducting wire of compound
oxide-type ceramic
|
|
|
Applicant name
|
SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED
|
|
|
Opponent name
|
I. VACUUMSCHMELZE GMBH, Hanau
II. Siemens AG
|
|
Headnote
I. A request under Rule 88 EPC for correction of a document
filed at the EPO, the effect of which correction would be
materially to breach principles representing the fundamental
value of legal procedural certainty, should not normally be
allowed. One such principle is that a competent first instance
department of the EPO is empowered under Article 113(2) EPC to
take a decision which terminates the first instance procedure on
the basis of the ostensible final requests of the parties; a
second such principle is that a party is not to be regarded as
adversely affected within the meaning of Article 107 EPC by such
a decision which grants his final request. (Reasons 6).
II. The statement in J 10/87 (OJ EPO 1989, 323) at point 12 of
the reasons: "Legal certainty demands that the EPO can rely on
statements of the parties in proceedings" pinpoints the precise
procedural stage at which certainty prevails over intention and
Rule 88 EPC reaches the limit of its applicability, viz when a
party statement is relied on in a formal juridical act. (Reasons
8).
|
|
|
Keywords
Withdrawal of all requests before the opposition division
Retraction of withdrawal on appeal by way of Rule 88 EPC
correction - (not allowed; appeal inadmissible)
|
|
|
|
|