| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T240311.20140430 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 30 April 2014 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2403/11 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 01974996.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23L 1/0532 A23L 1/0526 A23P 1/12 A22C 13/00 A23P 1/08 A23L 1/317 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR COATING FOODSTUFFS | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Ruitenberg Ingredients B.V. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | CARGILL, INCORPORATED ISP INVESTMENTS LLC |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.09 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (yes) | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
An ill-defined parameter in a claim may lead to insufficiency of disclosure if this parameter is relevant for solving the problem addressed in the patent (T 593/09 followed). If, in such a situation, the patent specification states that the ill-defined parameter is relevant and the patent proprietor initially argued along those lines, then, normally it cannot argue, later on in the proceedings, that this parameter does not matter (points 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t112403eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021