T 2255/10 of 23.04.2015
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T225510.20150423
- Date of decision
- 23 April 2015
- Case number
- T 2255/10
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 01998993.8
- IPC class
- H01L 21/322
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- METHOD FOR PRODUCING SILICON WAFER AND SILICON WAFER
- Applicant name
- SUMCO CORPORATION
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.4.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
- Keywords
- Inventive step - closest prior art
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes) - Catchword
- In accordance with the established case law of the Boards of Appeal the closest prior art for assessing inventive step is normally a prior art document disclosing subject-matter conceived for the same purpose as the claimed invention and having the most relevant technical features in common. (Reasons, point 2.2.2, citing T 482/92, Reasons, point 4.1, third paragraph.)
In establishing the closest prior art, the determination of the purpose of the invention is not to be made on the basis of a subjective selection from among statements of purpose which may be set out in the description of the application, without any reference to the invention as defined in the claims. On the contrary, the question to be asked is, what, in the light of the application as a whole, would be achieved by the invention as claimed.
For this reason, statements of purpose must be read in conjunction with the claims. Merely inserting such a statement into the description does not entitle an applicant effectively to "veto" any inventive step objection based on a document which is unrelated to this purpose, if it is not plausible that the invention as claimed would actually achieve the stated purpose. (Reasons, point 2.2.4.) - Cited cases
- T 0482/92
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to grant a patent in the following version:
- Claims 1 and 2 according to the 2nd auxiliary request, filed during oral proceedings before the Board;
- Description pages 1 to 22, filed during oral proceedings before the Board; and
- Drawing sheets 1/10 to 10/10, filed on 4 June 2003.