|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:1986:T001384.19860515|
|Date of decision:||15 May 1986|
|Case number:||T 0013/84|
|IPC class:||H02M 7/04|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||-|
|Headnote:||1. The nature of the technical problem solved by the invention has to be determined on the basis of objectively established facts, in particular as appearing in the prior art revealed in the course of the proceedings, which may be different from the prior art of which the applicant was actually aware at the time the application was filed. A reformulation of the problem which then may become necessary is not precluded by Article 123(2) EPC if the problem could be deduced by the person skilled in the art from the application as filed when considered in the light of the prior art which is nearest to the invention.
2. Where a two-part form of claim is used the apparatus or process constituting the prior art which is nearest to the invention will in compliance with Rule 29(1)(a) EPC have to figure in the preamble of the claim, stating such features of it as are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter and which are, in combination, already part of this prior art.
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Prior art on which to base the preamble of a claim
Reformulation of the problem
Date retrieved: 30 December 2018