| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T003993.19960214 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 February 1996 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0039/93 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 85304517.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C08J 3/12 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Polymer powders | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ALLIED COLLOIDS LIMITED | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | SNF Floerger | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. New Rule 71a EPC should not be construed as an invitation to file new evidence or other material departing from the legal and factual framework of issues and grounds pleaded and evidenced throughout the proceedings prior to the hearing of the appeal (point 3.3 of Reasons). 2. The technical problem as originally presented, in accordance with Rule 27(1)(c) EPC, in the application or patent in suit, which is to be regarded as the "subjective" technical problem, may require reformulation on the basis of objectively more relevant elements originally not taken into account by the Applicant or Patentee. This reformulation yields a definition of the "objective" technical problem. The latter represents the ultimate residue (effect), corresponding to the objective contribution provided by the subject-matter defined in the relevant claim (features)(Points 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 of Reasons). 3. Whilst generally accepted definitions of the notional "person skilled in the art" do not always use identical language to define the qualities of such a person, they have one thing in common, namely that none of them suggests that he is possessed of any inventive capability. It is the presence of such capability in the inventor which sets him apart from the notional skilled person (point 7.8.4 of Reasons). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step (yes) - combination of physical and compositional features not in accordance with the prior art teaching Problem solution approach - reformulation of technical problem - objective problem Late filed material confirming evidence previously submitted Limits on investigative function of the Boards of Appeal Effects of Rule 71a EPC considered |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t930039ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
51 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - B Search
Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
Case Law Book: I Patentability
Case Law Book: III Amendments
XCLR III C 6.3 Final date for written submissions in the preparation for oral proceedings and late submission of new facts and evidence – Rule 116 EPC