European Patent Office

T 0694/92 (Modifying plant cells) of 08.05.1996

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T069492.19960508
Date of decision
8 May 1996
Case number
T 0694/92
Petition for review of
-
Application number
84302533.9
IPC class
C12N 15/00
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
Plant gene expression
Applicant name
Mycogen Plant Science
Opponent name
Unilever N.V.
Centerns Ungdomsförbund
Sandoz Ltd.
Monsanto Company
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.
Koninklijk Kweekbedrijf en Zaadhandel D.J. van der Have B.V.
Stichting Oppositie Plantoctrooi p/a Studium Generale
Gen-Ethisches Netzwerk
Godehard Graf Hoensbroech
Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne)
Board
3.3.04
Headnote

I. Where an invention relates to the actual realisation of a technical effect anticipated at a theoretical level in the prior art, a proper balance must be found between, on the one hand, the actual technical contribution to the state of the art by said invention, and, on the other hand, the terms in which it is claimed, so that, if patent protection is granted, its scope is fair and adequate (see point 3 of the Reasons).

II. In cases where the gist of the claimed invention consists in the achievement of a given technical effect by known techniques in different areas of application and serious doubts exist as to whether this effect can readily be obtained for the whole range of applications claimed, ample technical details and more than one example may be necessary in order to support claims of a broad scope. Accordingly, claims of broad scope are not allowable, if the skilled person, after reading the description, is not able to readily perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill (see points 5 and 19 of the Reasons).

Keywords
Main request - support by the description (no)
Sufficiency of disclosure (no)
First auxiliary request - support by the description (no)
Sufficiency of disclosure (no)
Second auxiliary request - added subject-matter (yes)
Third auxiliary request - support by the description (yes) - fair generalisation
Sufficiency of disclosure (yes)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes) - no reasonable expectation of success
Catchword
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of claims 1 to 7 according to the third auxiliary request and the amendment on page 9, line 21 of the description, both submitted during oral proceedings.