T 0793/93 of 27.09.1995

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T079393.19950927
Date of decision: 27 September 1995
Case number: T 0793/93
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 86107119.9
IPC class: D01F 6/04
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: Very low creep, ultra high modulus, low shrink, high tenacity polyolefin fiber having good strength retention at high temperatures and method to produce such fiber
Applicant name: AlliedSignal Inc.
Opponent name: DSM N.V. Patent Department
Board: 3.3.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 117 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
Keywords: Law of evidence - standard of proof - content of disclosure
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Catchword: In deciding what is or is not the inevitable outcome of an express literal disclosure in a particular prior art document, a standard of proof much stricter than the balance of probability, to wit "beyond all reasonable doubt" needs to be applied. It follows that if any reasonable doubt exists as to what might or might not be the result of carrying out the literal disclosure and instructions of a prior art document, in other words if there remains a "grey area" then the case on anticipation based on such a document must fail.
Cited cases: T 0113/86 T 0383/88
Citing cases: T 0219/94 T 0415/95 T 1029/96 T 1059/96 T 0101/98 T 0641/99 T 0204/00 T 1105/00 T 0100/01 T 1075/01 T 1080/01 T 0030/02 T 0885/02 T 0920/02 T 0599/03 T 0653/03 T 0701/03 T 1236/03 T 0100/04 T 0201/04 T 0275/04 T 0282/04 T 0315/04 T 0148/05 T 0256/05 T 0413/05 T 1029/05 T 1121/05 T 0142/06 T 0392/06 T 0464/06 T 0859/06 T 1242/06 T 1753/06 T 0030/07 T 0094/07 T 0095/07 T 1605/07 T 0339/08 T 0807/08 T 0685/09 T 1142/09 T 1659/09 T 0534/11 T 1414/11 T 2043/12 T 0872/13 T 2431/13 T 2148/14 T 2255/15 T 1088/16 T 1657/16 T 2104/16 T 2732/16 T 1062/20 T 0358/22

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The cross-appeal (Patentee's appeal) is allowed.

2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent as granted.