| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T078406.20100623 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 23 June 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0784/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 95906094.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12Q 1/68 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Automatic genotype determination | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Beckman Coulter, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Roche Diagnostics GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.08 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Main request: inventive step (no) Auxiliary requests 1 to 11: inventive step (no) Admission of auxiliary requests filed at the oral proceedings (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
In the present case, the board could not establish for the claimed method an interaction between the technical activity of step A with the mental activities of steps B to E leading to a tangible technical result. Thus, in the assessment of inventive step, features B to E were ignored (see points 5 to 7 of the reasons) and an inventive contribution based on step A was denied (see points 8 to 11 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t060784eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021