T 0553/02 (Stain removal method/PROCTER & GAMBLE) of 14.7.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T055302.20040714
Date of decision: 14 July 2004
Case number: T 0553/02
Application number: 97933429.9
IPC class: C11D 3/39
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 41 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method for treating plastic dishware and kitchenware surfaces with detergent compositions containing bleach
Applicant name: THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 52(2)(d)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
Keywords: Exclusion from patentability (Article 52(2)d) of the subject- matter of claim 7 (main and first auxiliary request) - no
Novelty of claim 7 (main and first auxiliary request) - no
Inventive step (second auxiliary request) - no: obvious application of a known method to different substrates
Inventive step (third auxiliary request) - yes: improved performance of the selected bleach on the specific substrate treated
Catchwords:

1. A claim directed to a product comprising a composition of matter (here: a bleaching composition) and to instructions for use of the product, wherein the instructions have no technical effect on the product, is not excluded from patentability according to Article 52(2) EPC since the claim has a technical meaning and defines the technical features necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter, i.e. a product comprising a composition of matter (reasons for the decision, points 1.2.2 and 1.2.3).

2. Instructions for use contained in a claim directed to a product comprising a composition of matter and which provide no technical contribution to the claimed product are not a technical feature of that product, do not limit in any way the scope of such a claim, and cannot be considered in the evaluation of novelty (reasons for the decision, point 1.3).

Cited decisions:
T 0931/95
T 1194/97
T 0959/98
Citing decisions:
T 0234/03
T 0690/11
T 2016/11
T 2191/13
T 1252/16

9 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Case Law Book: I Patentability

General Case Law