T 0890/02 (Chimeric gene/Bayer) of 14.10.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T089002.20041014
Date of decision: 14 October 2004
Case number: T 0890/02
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 96920888.3
IPC class: C12N 15/82
Language of proceedings: French
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in French
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Gène chimère comprenant une séquence ADN d'un gène de l'hydroxyphényl pyruvate dioxygénase et obtention de plantes contenant un gène de l'hydroxy-phényl pyruvate dioxygénase, tolérantes à certains herbicides
Applicant name: Bayer CropScience S.A.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: Whilst not being stricto sensu encyclopaedias or handbooks, databases (a) which are known to the skilled person as an adequate source for obtaining the required information, (b) from which this information may be retrieved without undue burden and (c) which provide it in a straightforward and unambiguous manner without any need for supplementary searches represent the common general knowledge of the skilled person as defined in the case law (see reasons, point 9), and can be taken into account as such in deciding whether the teaching of a document which prima facie destroys novelty is sufficient to be reproducible.
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 83 1973
Keywords: Main request - novelty (no)
Auxiliary request - novelty (yes) - inventive step (yes) - sufficient disclosure (yes)
Question referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - no
Substantial procedural violation - (no)
Catchword: -
Cited cases: T 0206/83 T 0171/84 T 0051/87 T 0772/89 T 0766/91 T 0234/93 T 0676/94
Citing cases: R 0012/12 T 0293/04 T 1372/05 T 0063/06 T 0699/06 T 0149/07 T 0904/07 T 0647/08 T 0718/08 T 1740/08 T 0018/09 T 0412/09 T 0967/09 T 0516/11 T 1155/12 T 2020/13 T 1033/14 T 1111/14 T 1957/14 T 1634/15 T 2491/16 T 2607/16 T 1153/17 T 2031/17 T 1269/18 T 2432/18 T 1087/19 T 0559/23 T 1783/23

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.

3. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution on the basis of the set of claims 1 - 30 of the auxiliary request filed on 6 September 2004.

4. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.