Quick Navigation:
Home Page [Alt] + 0 |
Content [Alt] + 1 |
Search [Alt] + 7 |
Sitemap [Alt] + 8 |
Help [Alt] + 9
Sub Navigation
Main Content
EPO boards of appeal decision
Date of decision: 18 October 2007
Case number: T 1366/05 - 3.3.10
Application number: 98945462.4
IPC class: C09K11/06
Proceedings language: EN
| Title of the application Polymer electroluminescent device |
|
| Applicant name Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. |
|
| Opponent name Merck KGaA |
|
| Headnote 1. A written decision of an Opposition Division revoking a patent for lack of novelty to be reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC must contain a logical chain of reasoning starting with the identification of that portion of the prior art used to justify the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter lacks novelty. The sole statement of the conclusion reached does not constitute a reasoning within the meaning of Rule 68(2) EPC. 2. Any reasoning arriving at the conclusion that the subject-matter of a claim lacks novelty must be proper to the deciding body. The mere summary of a party's submission is not per se a reasoning proper to the deciding body. 3. A written decision which is based on such a deficient reasoning is not reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC, which failure amounts to a substantial procedural violation. |
|
| Articles and rules EPC R 67 EPC R 68(2) |
|
| Keywords Decision reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC (no) - absence of reasoning proper to the Opposition Division - sole statement of the conclusions of Division - mere summary of Party's submissions does not reason the decision Substantial procedural violation (yes) Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes) Remittal to the first instance for further prosecution | |
| Cited decisions T 0278/00 | |
| Catchwords - |
