| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1993:T009292.19930921 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 21 September 1993 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0092/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 87850111.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | F16C 13/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Glide-shoe arrangement for a variable-crown roll | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | VALMET PAPER MACHINERY INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Kleinewefers GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Sufficiency of disclosure (yes) Inventive step (yes) Late submitted material - argument admitted (yes). |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
1. The fact that the underlying problem of the patent has already been solved by the prior art does not necessarily require re- definition of the problem for the assessment of inventive step, if the subject-matter of the patent represents an alternative solution to this problem (point 4.5 of the reasons). 2. Article 114(2) EPC does not provide a legal basis for disregarding late filed arguments (point 2 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t920092eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021