| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T057797.20000405 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 05 April 2000 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0577/97 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 90908746.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B01D 53/70 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Catalytic destruction of organohalogen compounds | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | AlliedSignal Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | SIEMENS AG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty - no, no new choice Late filed evidence - admitted New claims filed during oral proceedings - admitted |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
There is no basis in the EPC to refuse auxiliary requests at oral proceedings because of the circumstance that the new claims are apparently "not clearly allowable". In contrast to the situtation in examining proceedings, where Rule 86(3) EPC requires that amendments after expiration of the time limit set in the first communication of the EPO are subject to the consent of the EPO, Rule 57a EPC does not contain such a requirement. The discretion not to admit auxiliary requests should in principle be limited to exceptional cases in which the filing of the auxiliary request can be said to amount to an abuse of procedural rights (point 3 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t970577eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021