| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T023007.20100505 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 05 May 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0230/07 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 01947491.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B01J 13/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method for the preparation of a colloidal silicate dispersion | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Paroc Oy Ab | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | ROCKWOOL INTERNATIONAL A/S | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | Novelty and inventive step are two distinct requirements for the patentability of an invention and therefore different criteria should apply for their assessment. So, when assessing novelty of an invention, the presence or absence of a technical effect within a sub-range of numerical values is not to be taken into account in the assessment of novelty. For establishing novelty of a sub-range of numerical values from a broader range, the selected sub-range should be narrow and sufficiently far removed from the known broader range illustrated by means of examples. A sub-range is not rendered novel by virtue of a newly discovered effect occurring within it. Reasons 4.1.6. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Sufficiency of disclosure (yes) Novelty (yes) Inventive step (yes): non-obvious alternative |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t070230eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021