T 1621/16 (Hand dishwashing/Procter&Gamble) of 14.10.2019

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T162116.20191014
Date of decision: 14 October 2019
Case number: T 1621/16
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 09163237.2
IPC class: C11D 1/83 C11D 1/94 C11D 3/36 C11D 17/00 C11D 3/33
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition
Applicant name: The Procter & Gamble Company
Opponent name: Colgate-Palmolive Company
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
Board: 3.3.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 56
Keywords: Amendments - mutliple selections from lists of converging alternatives
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
Inventive step - (yes)
Catchword: 1) When fall-back positions for a feature are described in terms of a list of converging alternatives, the choice of a more or less preferred element from such a list should not be treated as an arbitrary selection, because this choice does not lead to a singling out of an invention from among a plurality of distinct options, but simply to a subject-matter based on a more or less restricted version of said feature.
2) A claim amended on the basis of multiple selections from lists of converging alternatives might be considered to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC if:
- the subject-matter resulting from the multiple selections is not associated with an undisclosed technical contribution, and
- the application as filed includes a pointer to the combination of features resulting from the multiple selections.
Cited cases: G 0001/93 T 0615/95 T 0727/00 T 0812/09 T 2237/10 T 2273/10 T 0027/16
Citing cases: R 0017/23 T 1465/15 T 1476/15 T 2251/16 T 2368/16 T 0336/17 T 0347/17 T 0640/17 T 1482/17 T 1937/17 T 0149/18 T 0650/18 T 1731/18 T 2645/18 T 2790/18 T 0531/19 T 3253/19 T 0446/20 T 1809/20 T 0648/21 T 1020/21 T 1133/21 T 1137/21 T 1261/21 T 1302/21 T 1408/21 T 2057/21 T 0147/22 T 0205/22 T 0563/22 T 0901/22 T 1766/22 T 1824/22 T 1925/22 T 2529/22 T 2572/22 T 0379/23 T 0579/23 T 1042/23 T 0025/24 T 0146/24 T 0983/24

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of the claims of the new main request filed during oral proceedings before the Board, and a description to be adapted where appropriate.