| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T008708.20100211 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 11 February 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0087/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 01900995.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 7/48 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Shadow-effect cosmetic composition | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Color Access, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | L'OREAL | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.10 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | Article 56 EPC requires that the assessment of inventive step is made "having regard to the state of the art". Accordingly, a decision is not sufficiently reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC 1973 (Rule 111(2) EPC 2000) if the chain of reasoning to justify the finding of lack of inventive step merely states that a purported effect has not been achieved, i.e. this technical problem had not been solved, without reformulating the problem in a less ambitious way and without assessing obviousness of the claimed solution to that reformulated problem in the light of the cited prior art. | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty (yes) : selection within 2 lists Inventive step : fresh case, new closest prior art document Procedural violation (yes) : decision not reasoned Remittal (yes) : reimbursement of appeal fees (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t080087eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021