| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T064497.19990422 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 April 1999 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0644/97 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 88908377.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C08G 64/06 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Process for preparing crystallized aromatic polycarbonate and crystallized aromatic polycarbonate obtained by the process | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Asahi Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Bayer AG, Leverkusen Konzernverwaltung RP Patente Konzern | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of appeal (yes) Inventive step (yes) - different starting point in prior art - formulation of technical problem - solution non-obvious |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
The technical problem arising from a "closest state of the art" disclosure which is irrelevant to the claimed subject-matter in the sense that it does not mention a problem that is at least related to that derivable from the patent specification has a form such that its solution can practically never be obvious, because any attempt by the skilled person to establish a chain of considerations leading in an obvious way to the claimed subject-matter gets stuck at the start. It follows that the respective claimed subject-matter is non-obvious in the light of such art. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t970644eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021