Transitional provisions - applicability of Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 to cases where the summons to oral proceedings were notified before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020 (see point 1 of the Reasons) Form of decision - abridged form in respect of one or more issues (see point 2 of the Reasons)

1. Ein Dritter im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ, der gegen die Entscheidung über die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents Beschwerde eingelegt hat, hat keinen Anspruch darauf, dass vor einer Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamtes mündlich über sein Begehren verhandelt wird, zur Beseitigung vermeintlich undeutlicher Patentansprüche (Artikel 84 EPÜ) des europäischen Patents den erneuten Eintritt in das Prüfungsverfahren anzuordnen. Eine solchermaßen eingelegte Beschwerde entfaltet keine aufschiebende Wirkung. 2. Mündliche Verhandlungen der Beschwerdekammern an deren Standort in Haar verstoßen nicht gegen die Artikel 113 (1) und 116 (1) EPÜ.

As set out in Art. 12(2) RPBA 2020, since the primary object of the appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner, a party's appeal case shall be directed to the requests, facts, objections, arguments and evidence on which the decision under appeal was based. In the explanatory remarks to Art. 12(2) RPBA 2020 (Supplementary publication 2, OJ 2020) it is stated that this paragraph provides a general definition of the nature and scope of the appeal proceedings in accordance with the established case law. The boards of appeal constitute the first and final judicial instance in the procedures before the European Patent Office. In this capacity, they review appealed decisions on points of law and fact. In T 1604/16 the board referred to the explanatory remarks to Art. 12(2) RPBA 2020 that the boards have competence to review appealed decisions in full, including points of law and fact. This was in accordance with Art. 6 ECHR, which stipulates that there must be at least one judicial instance that can review a case in full, i.e. the law and the facts, given that the boards of appeal are the only judicial body to review decisions by the departments of first instance of the European Patent Office. The board was well aware that there is case law on a restriction of the boards' competence when reviewing discretionary decisions taken by the departments of first instance in certain circumstances (G 7/93, OJ 1994, 775, and case law based on this decision). However, it did not consider the evaluation of evidence to be a discretionary decision. See also chapter III.C.1. "Evaluation of evidence by the department of first instance".