| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T003785.19870113 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 13 January 1987 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0037/85 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 80100163.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B22D 11/10 B22D 41/06 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Mannesmann | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | In assessing the inventive step involved in an invention based on a combination of features one must consider whether or not the state of the art was such as to suggest to a skilled person precisely the combination of features claimed. The fact that an individual feature or a number of features were known does not conclusively show the obviousness of a combination. | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step - combination of features | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t850037ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
20 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)