| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T066109.20131022 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 October 2013 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0661/09 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97902876.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G02B 5/30 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | REFLECTIVE POLARIZERS HAVING EXTENDED RED BAND EDGE FOR CONTROLLED OFF AXIS COLOR | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Bismanns H. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step - (no) - obvious desiderata | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
The only features distinguishing the claimed device from the closest prior art express no more than a set of desiderata, without any indication of a causal link between the desired properties and the constitution of the claimed device. Insofar as the claim does not define any concrete measures on how to ensure that the claimed properties are effectively obtained, the claimed properties remain at an abstract or conceptual level. Accordingly, the issue of inventive step boils down to the question of whether or not the skilled person, in view of the available prior art and his/her common general knowledge, would in an obvious way have envisaged the claimed set of desiderata. See decision, point 2.1 (and point 2.7.2). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t090661eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021