| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T023403.20060518 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 18 May 2006 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0234/03 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 98945406.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C09D 11/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Jet ink composition | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Videojet Technologies Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | To be relevant for demonstrating that a technical improvement is achieved in comparison with the closest state of the art any comparative test presented for that purpose must be reproducible on the basis of the information thus provided, thereby rendering the results of such tests directly verifiable (T 494/99 followed, cf. point 5.2). That requirement implies, in particular, that the procedure to perform the test relies on quantitative information enabling the person skilled in the art to reliably and validly reproduce it. Vague and imprecise operating instructions render the test inappropriate and thus irrelevant (cf. point 8.4.4 of the Reasons). | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Main and first auxiliary request: novelty (no) - suitable for use not a technical feature of the composition Second auxiliary request: inventive step (no) - improvement (no) - test vague and imprecise - obvious solution |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t030234eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021