| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T001402.20031105 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 05 November 2003 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0014/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96200762.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B28B 3/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Isostatic die means | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Algeri, Maris | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Officine Meccaniche f.lli Rossi fu Cesare S.p.A. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Fresh grounds filed for the first time in appeal proceedings - not admitted Request at oral proceedings to file further auxiliary requests - not allowed Inventive step - main and auxiliary requests (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
During oral proceedings before the board a party, here the respondent, asked permission to file further requests aimed at defining more narrowly the claimed subject-matter. This request was refused for two reasons: firstly, the need for further requests had been foreseeable before the oral proceedings, since the Board, in a communication, had given a negative reasoned provisional opinion why the main request did not appear to involve an inventive step and secondly, the proposed subject-matter of the requests could lead to further searches being necessary by the other party with the possibility of remittal so that the requests were not prima facie allowable. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t020014eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021