T 2255/10 () of 23.4.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T225510.20150423
Date of decision: 23 April 2015
Case number: T 2255/10
Application number: 01998993.8
IPC class: H01L 21/322
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 465 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: METHOD FOR PRODUCING SILICON WAFER AND SILICON WAFER
Applicant name: SUMCO CORPORATION
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 52(1)
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
Keywords: Inventive step - closest prior art
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes)
Catchwords:

In accordance with the established case law of the Boards of Appeal the closest prior art for assessing inventive step is normally a prior art document disclosing subject-matter conceived for the same purpose as the claimed invention and having the most relevant technical features in common. (Reasons, point 2.2.2, citing T 482/92, Reasons, point 4.1, third paragraph.)

In establishing the closest prior art, the determination of the purpose of the invention is not to be made on the basis of a subjective selection from among statements of purpose which may be set out in the description of the application, without any reference to the invention as defined in the claims. On the contrary, the question to be asked is, what, in the light of the application as a whole, would be achieved by the invention as claimed.

For this reason, statements of purpose must be read in conjunction with the claims. Merely inserting such a statement into the description does not entitle an applicant effectively to "veto" any inventive step objection based on a document which is unrelated to this purpose, if it is not plausible that the invention as claimed would actually achieve the stated purpose. (Reasons, point 2.2.4.)

Cited decisions:
T 0482/92
Citing decisions:
T 1076/16

4 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

Case Law Book: I Patentability

General Case Law