| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T069492.19960508 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 08 May 1996 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0694/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 84302533.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12N 15/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Plant gene expression | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Unilever N.V. Centerns Ungdomsförbund Sandoz Ltd. Monsanto Company Koninklijk Kweekbedrijf en Zaadhandel D.J. van der Have B.V. Stichting Oppositie Plantoctrooi p/a Studium Generale Gen-Ethisches Netzwerk Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. Godehard Graf Hoensbroech Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. Where an invention relates to the actual realisation of a technical effect anticipated at a theoretical level in the prior art, a proper balance must be found between, on the one hand, the actual technical contribution to the state of the art by said invention, and, on the other hand, the terms in which it is claimed, so that, if patent protection is granted, its scope is fair and adequate (see point 3 of the Reasons). II. In cases where the gist of the claimed invention consists in the achievement of a given technical effect by known techniques in different areas of application and serious doubts exist as to whether this effect can readily be obtained for the whole range of applications claimed, ample technical details and more than one example may be necessary in order to support claims of a broad scope. Accordingly, claims of broad scope are not allowable, if the skilled person, after reading the description, is not able to readily perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill (see points 5 and 19 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Main request - support by the description (no) Sufficiency of disclosure (no) First auxiliary request - support by the description (no) Sufficiency of disclosure (no) Second auxiliary request - added subject-matter (yes) Third auxiliary request - support by the description (yes) - fair generalisation Sufficiency of disclosure (yes) Novelty (yes) Inventive step (yes) - no reasonable expectation of success |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t920694ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
52 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application
EPO Guidelines - G Patentability
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)