|
Date of decision
|
28 September 2000
|
|
|
Case number
|
T 0382/97
- 3.3.6
|
|
|
Application number
|
88113746.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title of the application
|
Dispenser for an article comprising a water soluble bag
containing a pelletized functional material, and methods for its
use
|
|
|
Applicant name
|
ECOLAB INC.
|
|
|
Opponent name
|
UNILEVER N.V. / UNILEVER PLC
|
|
|
|
|
Keywords
Main request: novelty - no
First auxiliary request: inventive step - yes
Procedural violation - no
|
|
|
|
Catchwords:
|
|
I. Whereas Rule 57a EPC establishes explicitly the patent
owner's right to amend its patent according to the criteria laid
down in this rule, it does not entitle a patent proprietor to
submit amendments of its patent at any time, i.e. also during
oral proceedings, without the need to give good reasons for such
late filing. Rules 57a and 71a EPC together govern the
procedural preconditions for the admissibility of amendments of
a patent by its proprietor before the Opposition Division.
However amendments not complying with the time limit set under
Rule 71a EPC may be admitted if good reasons can be acknowledged
for their late submission (point 6.6 of the Reasons for the
Decision).
II. A patent owner's right to amend its patent in accordance
with Rule 57a EPC cannot be equated automatically with a right
to file additional auxiliary requests. Any amendment has to be
carried out in the most expedient manner which has to be
established by the Opposition Division taking into due account
the interest of all parties concerned (point 6.7 of the Reasons
for the Decision).
|
|
|
