| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T067791.19921103 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 November 1992 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0677/91 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 83307458.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H01J 49/42 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method of mass analyzing a sample by use of a quadrupole ion trap | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Finnigan Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Bruker-Franzen Analytik GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Novelty (yes) Inventive step (yes) Novelty - prior disclosure - sufficiency (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
Not sufficient for a finding of lack of novelty that the claimed features could have been derived from a prior document - necessity for clear and unmistakable teaching (T 204/83 (OJ EPO 1985, 310) and T 56/87 (OJ EPO 1990, 18) followed) (paragraph 1.2). In assessing inventive step, evidence of the practical impact of the claimed invention considered (paragraph 3.3). No different standard of inventiveness between opposition proceedings and national courts - no benefit of doubt for the patentee (paragraph 3.4). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t910677eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021