| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T061902.20060322 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 March 2006 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0619/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97943057.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G09B 19/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Odour evaluation method | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | QUEST INTERNATIONAL B.V. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. The perceptual processes taking place in the mind of a test person presented with odours in an odour selection test do not constitute mental acts within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) EPC (point 2.1 of the reasons). Nonetheless, human perception phenomena cannot be qualified as being of a technical nature (point 2.3.2). 2. The prerequisite of technical character inherent to the EPC cannot be considered to be fulfilled by an invention, as claimed, which, although possibly encompassing technical embodiments, also encompasses ways of implementing it that do not qualify as technical (point 2.2). 3. The technical character of an invention is an inherent attribute independent of the actual contribution of the invention to the state of the art and consequently the potential of a claimed method to solve a problem of a technical nature should be discernible from the aspects of the method actually claimed (point 2.6.1). 4. Neither the fact that the result of a method may be usable in a technical or in an industrial activity, nor the fact that the result may be qualified as being useful, practical or saleable expresses a sufficient condition to establish the technical character of the result of the method or of the method itself (point 2.6.2). 5. If, apart from a possibly commercially promising but purely aesthetic or emotional and therefore technically arbitrary effect, the distinguishing features of an invention over the closest state of the art do not, in the context of the claimed invention, perform any technical function or achieve any technical effect, no specific objective problem of a technical nature can be considered to be solved by the invention (points 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Methods of odour selection: only mental acts (no) - business methods (no) - technical character (no: methods devoid of technical aspects, non-technical aesthetic selection) Methods of making perfumed product having selected odour: technical character (yes) - inventive step (no: no objective problem of technical nature solved over the prior art) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: | |||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t020619ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
47 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - G Patentability
Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)