| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1982:T000581.19820304 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 04 March 1982 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0005/81 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 78200324.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | - | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | FR | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Solvay | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | Under Article 97 (1) EPC, a European patent application which fails to meet one of the requirements of the Convention has to be refused in its entirety, without it being necessary to consider whether the application as a whole might contain material indicative of an inventive step. An alleged violation affecting a part of the decision other than its ratio decidendi cannot be a substantial violation within the meaning of Rule 67. An appeal may relate only to a decision subject to appeal within the meaning of Article 106 (1) and not to the preparatory measures referred to in Article 96 (2) and Rule 51 (3). A comparison of the problem indicated in the application with that indicated in a prior document must avoid an excessively abstract approach far removed from the practical thinking of the person skilled in the art. The teaching of a document may have narrower implications for a person skilled in the art and broader implications for a potential inventor who first perceives the problem which his future invention is intended to solve. The assessment of inventive step must look at the situation solely from the practical viewpoint of the person skilled in the art. | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | A posteriori analysis Decision subject to appeal Inventive step - person skilled in the art Inventive step - abstract approach Reimbursement of appeal fee Appeal fee - reimbursement |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t810005ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
25 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
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
Case Law Book: I Patentability
Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications
XCLR IV B 3.9 Refusal of a European patent application under Article 97(2) EPC (former Article 97(1) EPC 1973)