| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1998:T066894.19981020 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 20 October 1998 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0668/94 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 87305592.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07C 251/32 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Fungicides | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Zeneca Limited | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Ludwigshafen Novartis AG Patent and Trademark Dept. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Late-filed evidence - only relevant evidence admitted Novelty (yes) - individual compounds - selection from several lists Inventive step (no) - obvious solution |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
When only some and not substantially all claimed compounds exhibit a particular technical effect, then the conclusion must be drawn that the invention as broadly defined in the independent claim is not a solution to the technical problem of achieving this particular technical effect, with the consequence that the alleged technical effect of some of the claimed compounds is to be disregarded in the determination of the objective problem underlying the invention, and thus in the assessment of inventive step, (following T 0939/92, OJ EPO 1996, 309) (point 8.1 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t940668eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021