T 1099/16 of 11.12.2020
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T109916.20201211
- Date of decision
- 11 December 2020
- Case number
- T 1099/16
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 08797940.7
- 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
- Use of an adhesion enhancer in a polymer jacket material of a metal cord and corresponding method of making a cord assembly comprising a jacket
- Applicant name
- Otis Elevator Company
- Opponent name
- Inventio AG
- Board
- 3.2.06
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 21(4) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 56 (2007)European Patent Convention R 99(2) (2007)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4) (2007)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 9 (2020)
- Keywords
- Grounds for opposition - Inventive step
Grounds for opposition - use claim
Grounds for opposition - new technical effect
Grounds for opposition - functional feature (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Competence of the boards of appeal - composition of the board of appeal
Competence of the boards of appeal - enlargement (no)
Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes) - Catchword
- In order to decide whether a claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, based on a technical effect which is described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature according to G 2/88, the Board finds that G 2/88 does not require the technical effect to be described in the patent in a manner sufficiently clear and complete to make the actual achievement of that technical effect credible (Reasons 17).
This finding applies even to a case where the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC cannot be considered in the appeal proceedings (Reasons 24).
If, for the assessment of inventive step, it has to be determined whether the purpose defined in the claim can be interpreted as a limiting functional feature, the question whether the technical effect is described in the patent merely involves considering whether a skilled person can recognise what technical effect underlies the new purpose claimed (Reasons 20). - Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.