T 0228/16 - Remittal after withdrawal opposition

Key points

• The Board finds that the Main Request, as amended, is sufficiently disclosed.
• About the remittal: “ In view of the withdrawal of the opposition and of the above finding of the Board, a decision under Rule 84(2) EPC, whether the Office continues the opposition proceedings of its own motion, should be taken. The question arises whether this decision should be taken by the Board.”
• The Board remits the case “for further prosecution”.
• The decision is also interesting for the reasons why the claim amendments were admitted in appeal.

EPO T 0228/16 - link

3. Remittal

In view of the withdrawal of the opposition and of the above finding of the Board, a decision under Rule 84(2) EPC, whether the Office continues the opposition proceedings of its own motion, should be taken.

The question arises whether this decision should be taken by the Board.

In the present case, objections under Article 100(a) EPC based on lack of inventive step were raised with the notice of opposition but the opposition division has not yet had the opportunity to consider the issue of inventive step.

Therefore the Board is of the view that the most appropriate course of action under the circumstances of the present case is to exercise its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC and remit the case for further prosecution.

4. In light of the preceding reasoning, oral proceedings were not considered necessary and were thus cancelled.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.