T 0016/87 (Catalyst) of 24.07.1990

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T001687.19900724

Date of decision

24 July 1990

Case number

T 0016/87

Petition for review of

Application number

80401328.2

IPC class

B01D 53/36 B01J 23/76

Language of proceedings

French

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Applicant name

Procatalyse

Opponent name

Degussa

Board

3.4.01

Headnote

1. It is for the opponent who invokes the invalidity of a patent on the ground that the invention cannot be carried out to indicate the facts, evidence and arguments in support of this ground (in the present case, to furnish the results of tests showing that the catalyst as claimed is not active) (cf. point 4 of the Reasons for the Decision).

2. A feature, added to a claim after the priority date, which does not constitute an essential element of the invention but a voluntary limitation of the scope of that claim does not invalidate the priority claimed (following Decision T 73/88 - 3.3.1) (cf. point 5 of the Reasons for the Decision).

3. The provision in Article 69(1) EPC stipulating that the description and drawings (if any) be used to interpret the claims also applies during opposition proceedings when an objective assessment of the content of a claim has to be made to judge whether its subject-matter is novel and not obvious (cf. point 6 of the Reasons for the Decision).

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 69 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973 European Patent Convention Art 88 1973 European Patent Convention Art 89 1973 European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973

Keywords

Priority - additional feature -
Opponent's obligation to indicate facts, evidence and arguments on which the opposition is based
Interpretation of claims during opposition proceedings

Catchword

Cited cases

Citing cases

G 0002/98 T 0536/92 T 0893/92 T 0026/93 T 0311/93 T 0356/93 T 0613/93 T 0669/93 T 1019/93 T 0274/94 T 0303/94 T 0277/95 T 0364/95 T 0404/95 T 0481/95 T 0532/95 T 0587/95 T 0684/95 T 0812/95 T 0707/96 T 0718/96 T 0740/96 T 0942/96 T 0053/97 T 0077/97 T 0468/97 T 0488/97 T 0874/97 T 0175/98 T 0427/99 T 0653/99 T 0393/00 T 0751/00 T 0438/01 T 0112/02 T 0556/02 T 0683/02 T 0854/03 T 0872/03 T 0001/04 T 0452/04 T 0063/06 T 0396/06 T 0516/06 T 0275/10 T 2319/11 T 0809/13 T 1889/15 T 0169/20 T 0056/21 T 0439/22

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The contested decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent as amended, on the basis of the following documents:

- Claims 1 to 12 submitted during oral proceedings on 24 July 1990 as the main request;

- description page 2, line 1, to page 8, line 42, accompanying the communication pursuant to Rule 58(4) EPC issued on 10 January 1986.