| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T193114.20180221 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 21 February 2018 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1931/14 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99905691.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | F02B 43/00 F01K 23/06 F25J 3/04 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | COMBINED CRYOGENIC AIR SEPARATION WITH INTEGRATED GASIFIER | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | GE Energy (USA), LLC | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | L'AIR LIQUIDE, Société Anonyme pour L'étude et L'exploitation des procédés Georges Claude | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty - main request (yes) Novelty - functional technical features of a process |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
In the context of a method it is important to differentiate between different types of stated purpose, namely those that define the application or use of a method, and those that define an effect arising from the steps of the method. Where the stated purpose defines the specific application of the method, in fact it requires certain additional steps which are not implicit in the remaining features, and without which the claimed process would not achieve the stated purpose. On the other hand, where the purpose merely states a technical effect which inevitably arises when carrying out the other remaining steps of the claimed method and is thus inherent in those steps, such a technical effect has no limiting effect because it is not suitable for distinguishing the claimed method from a known one. (point 2.2.4) |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t141931eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021