| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T041291.19960227 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 27 February 1996 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0412/91 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84306525.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C22C 33/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | An alloy steel powder for high strength sintered parts | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Höganäs | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty - prior disclosure - erroneous (yes) Inventive step (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
T 77/87, OJ EPO 1990, 280, defined the state of the art for the purposes of Article 54 EPC as including what had been made available to the skilled person as a matter of technical reality, and on that basis excluded from the state of the art a feature of a cited abstract shown to be wrong by reference to the patent on which it was based, and to which the abstract referred. Later decisions reflect that fact that published matter may also be excluded from the state of the art if it is so implausible in the eyes of the skilled reader that he would reject it as erroneous, or where, as in the present case, the same conclusion is based on the combined effect of internal contradiction and a readily accessible relevant external disclosure. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t910412eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021