| European Case Law Identifier: |
ECLI:EP:BA:1996:G000795.19960719 |
| Date of decision: |
19 July 1996 |
| Case number: |
G 0007/95 |
| Referral: |
T 0514/92 |
| Application number: |
85305391.6 |
| IPC class: |
A61B 17/08 |
| Language of proceedings: |
EN |
| Distribution: |
|
| Download and more information: |
| No PDF available |
| Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register |
| Bibliographic information is available in: |
DE | EN | FR |
| Versions: |
OJ | Published |
|
| Title of application: |
- |
| Applicant name: |
ETHICON INC. |
| Opponent name: |
United States Surgical Corporation |
| Board: |
EBA |
| Headnote: |
In a case where a patent has been opposed under Article 100(a) EPC on the ground that the claims lack an inventive step in view of documents cited in the notice of opposition, the ground of lack of novelty based upon Articles 52(1) and 54 EPC is a fresh ground for opposition and accordingly may not be introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee. However, the allegation that the claims lack novelty in view of the closest prior art document may be considered in the context of deciding upon the ground of lack of inventive step. |
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
| Keywords: |
No power to examine fresh grounds for opposition without agreement of patentee |
| Catchwords: |
-
|
| Cited decisions: |
|
| Citing decisions: |
|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
Reasons for the decision
7.3 Having regard to the particular facts of the case before the referring board in case G 7/95, it is not necessary for the Enlarged Board to answer the referred question insofar as it relates to a new allegation that the claims lack novelty in view of any other document than the previously cited closest prior art document.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The question of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is to be answered as follows:
In a case where a patent has been opposed under Article 100(a) EPC on the ground that the claims lack an inventive step in view of documents cited in the notice of opposition, the ground of lack of novelty based upon Articles 52(1), 54 EPC is a fresh ground for opposition and accordingly may not be introduced into the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee. However, the allegation that the claims lack novelty in view of the closest prior art document may be considered in the context of deciding upon the ground of lack of inventive step.
