European Case Law Identifier: |
ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T132904.20050628 |
Date of decision: |
28 June 2005 |
Case number: |
T 1329/04 |
Application number: |
94907259.9 |
IPC class: |
C12N 15/11 |
Language of proceedings: |
EN |
Distribution: |
B |
Download and more information: |
|
Title of application: |
Growth differentiation factor-9 |
Applicant name: |
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE |
Opponent name: |
- |
Board: |
3.3.08 |
Headnote: |
- |
Relevant legal provisions: |
|
Keywords: |
Main and auxiliary requests - inventive step (no) - no plausible solution of technical problem is provided |
Catchwords: |
The definition of an invention as being a contribution to the art, i.e. as solving a technical problem and not merely putting forward one, requires that it is at least made plausible by the disclosure in the application that its teaching solves indeed the problem it purports to solve. Therefore, even if supplementary post-published evidence may in the proper circumstances also be taken into consideration, it may not serve as the sole basis to establish that the application solves indeed the problem it purports to solve.
|
Cited decisions: |
|
Citing decisions: |
|
35 references found.
Click
X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.
Offical Journal of the EPO
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Case Law Book: I Patentability
Loading...
Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application
Loading...
General Case Law
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...