| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T119215.20181030 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 30 October 2018 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1192/15 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 02765397.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B60H 1/32 B60H 1/00 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | AIR CONDITIONER FOR VEHICLE | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Japan Climate Systems Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | MAHLE Behr GmbH & Co. KG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Remittal to the department of first instance - adaptation of the description and figures | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the opposition division of the European Patent Office rejecting the opposition filed against European patent 1 424 228 pursuant to Article 101(2) EPC.
II. The opposition division held that none of the grounds for opposition under Article 100(c), Article 100(b) and Article 100(a) EPC prejudiced the maintenance of the European patent in the form as granted.
III. Oral proceedings before the Board of appeal were held on 30 October 2018. The appellant (opponent) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.
The respondent (patent proprietor) requested that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the main request, filed as auxiliary request XI with letter of 11 January 2016.
IV. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:
FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHICFORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC
V. The appellant had no objections regarding the main request filed as auxiliary request XI with letter of 11 January 2016.
The parties agreed that the description had to be adapted and that this could be done before the department of first instance following remittal of the case.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appellant had no objections regarding the main request, in which claim 1 is substantially restricted as compared to granted claim 1. The Board sees no objections either. The patent can therefore be maintained on the basis of the main request filed as auxiliary request XI with letter of 11 January 2016.
2. In view of the necessary amendments to adapt the description to the wording of the claims of the main request, the Board considers it appropriate to remit the case to the department of first instance for this purpose (Article 111(1) EPC). This course of action was expressly agreed by the parties.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of the claims of the main request filed as auxiliary request XI with letter of 11 January 2016 and a description and drawings to be adapted thereto.
