Quick Navigation

 

Case Law of the Boards of Appeal

 
 
2.2.1 Implicit features of the technical teaching of the subsequent application

In T 809/95, the opponents submitted that the "thin-walled" feature, which was disclosed in the first priority application as essential, was not contained in granted claim 1. The board of appeal was of the opinion that granted claim 1 was based on a "collapsible" plastic bottle "produced by the blow-moulding method" which had folds "to facilitate a reduction of volume upon the exertion of a pressure applied to the walls by hand". This description in itself implied that the bottle would have to be made from thin-walled plastic flexible enough to be collapsible by hand when empty, as required by independent claim 3 in the first priority application.