European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1981:T001981.19810729 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 29 July 1981 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 0019/81 | ||||||||
Application number: | 78100869.3 | ||||||||
IPC class: | - | ||||||||
Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
Distribution: | |||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | - | ||||||||
Applicant name: | Roehm | ||||||||
Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
Board: | 3.2.02 | ||||||||
Headnote: | Where a patent specification is used to support an assertion of prejudice, it must be borne in mind that technical information in a patent specification may be based on special premises or on the view of the drafter. For that reason, even if the patent specification has been issued by an examining patent office, such information can often be accorded general validity only where further corroboration is available. This holds particularly where the information given in the patent specification is not readily compatible with the notions currently accepted in the art. | ||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
Keywords: | Evidence Inventive step denied - prejudice Prejudice - skilled in the art Tubular extrudate |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t810019ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
8 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.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)