| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T098304.20060503 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 May 2006 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0983/04 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 95935472.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G07F 7/08 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Real time tele-payment system | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Vazvan, Behruz | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Nordea Bank Finland PLC Siemens AG Giesecke & Devrient GmbH Motorola Inc. Nokia Corporation |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | - | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This board gave a decision on 15 February 2006 in the appeal case T 983/04 to dismiss the appeal of the appellant proprietor.
II. In a letter dated 16 February 2006 and received on 23 February 2006, the appellant proprietor argued that he had been denied his right to be heard and to submit further requests at the oral proceedings before the board.
III. The appellant proprietor requested that the board refer the case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and allow the appellant proprietor to be heard properly by submitting his requests.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appellant proprietor's request to refer the case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal aims at a revision of the final decision of the present board by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Pursuant to decision G 1/97 (OJ EPO 2000, 322) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, such requests must be considered to be addressed to the board in question as the responsible judicial body (reasons 6).
2. As held in G 1/97, the European Patent Convention in its present version does not recognise requests for revision or reversal of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (reasons 6). In particular, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that it is not an appeal court under the European Patent Convention, and has no jurisdiction to hear cases relating to revision of a final decision of a board of appeal.
The request to refer the case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal must therefore be rejected as inadmissible.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The request of the appellant proprietor to refer the case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
