European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1984:T006983.19840405 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 05 April 1984 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 0069/83 | ||||||||
Application number: | 78101145.7 | ||||||||
IPC class: | - | ||||||||
Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
Distribution: | |||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | - | ||||||||
Applicant name: | Bayer | ||||||||
Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
Headnote: | I. The mere fact that the disadvantage resulting from the omission of a component of a mixture recognised in the art as advantageous is accepted does not mean that a prejudice has been overcome. II. Where, because of an essential part of the technical problem being addressed, the state of the art obliges a skilled person to adopt a certain solution, that solution is not automatically rendered inventive by the fact that it also unexpectedly solves part of the problem. |
||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
Keywords: | Closest state of the art Inventive step - omission of a component of a mixture Obvious effect Prejudice (denied) |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t830069ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
14 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)