T 0060/89 (Fusion Proteins) of 31.8.1990

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T006089.19900831
Date of decision: 31 August 1990
Case number: T 0060/89
Application number: 79301054.7
IPC class: C12P 21/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 986.558K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: -
Applicant name: Harvard
Opponent name: Hoechst, Unilvever, Gist-Brocades
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: 1. Under Article 114(1), when alleged facts, which had been put forward without proof as novelty destroying, occurred a long time ago and the question is no longer pursued by the parties, the Board is not obliged to investigate the matter ex officio (see point 3.1.1 of the Reasons).
2. The same level of skill has to be applied when, for the same invention, the two questions of sufficient disclosure and inventive step have to be considered (see point 3.2.5 of the Reasons).
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 83
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 114(1)
Keywords: Sufficient disclosure of an example
Common general knowledge
Novelty destroying lectures
Ex officio - obligation of the Board
Inventive step (yes)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
T 0951/90
T 0435/91
T 0455/91
T 0500/91
T 0104/92
T 0223/92
T 0694/92
T 0964/92
T 0441/93
T 0849/93
T 0911/93
T 0915/93
T 0193/94
T 0356/94
T 0373/94
T 0239/95
T 0251/95
T 0639/95
T 0013/96
T 0706/96
T 0188/97
T 1071/97
T 1099/99
T 0338/00
T 0663/00
T 0351/01
T 1080/01
T 0274/06
T 0519/07
T 0079/08

26 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPO Guidelines - G Patentability

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: I Patentability

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

General Case Law