| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T119209.20130628 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 June 2013 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1192/09 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 02719839.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G02B 5/22 C09C 1/00 B42D 15/00 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | MAGNETIC THIN FILM INTERFERENCE DEVICE OR PIGMENT AND METHOD OF MAKING IT, PRINTING INK OR COATING COMPOSITION, SECURITY DOCUMENT AND USE OF SUCH A MAGNETIC THIN FILM INTERFERENCE DEVICE | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | SICPA HOLDING SA | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step - after amendment | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
The skilled person would not have readily envisaged the claimed modification of the closest prior art, because he would not have realised that it would be beneficial in terms of a technical effect mentioned in none of the available prior art (see point 3, in particular points 3.4 to 3.7). Additional support in favour of an inventive step provided by the actual developments in the relevant technical field (see point 3.9) |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t091192eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021