T 0917/94 of 28.10.1999
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T091794.19991028
- Date of decision
- 28 October 1999
- Case number
- T 0917/94
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 88900658.1
- IPC class
- G03C 1/83
- 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
- Solid particle dispersion filter dyes for photgraphic compositions
- Applicant name
- Eastman Kodak Company (a New Jersey corporation)
- Opponent name
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
- Board
- 3.3.06
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
- Keywords
- Novelty (no) - technical term (here: dispersion) describing state of the art interpreted according to its normal scientific meaning (main request; see point 1.2.4)
Novelty (no) - incorporation of a redundant technical feature does not impart novelty to known subject-matter (auxiliary request 1; see point 2.2)
Inventive step (no) - obvious combination of technical features (auxiliary request 2)
Admissibility of an amendment (no) - disclaimer having no basis in the application as filed and excluding prepublished most relevant state of the art is inadmissible (auxiliary request 3; see point 4.) - Catchword
- 1. The omission of a feature of a claim does not contravene Article 123(2) EPC, if this feature is implicitly defined by two other features and, being therefore redundant, its omission creates no subject-matter extending beyond that of the application as filed (point 1.1 of the Reasons for the Decision).
2. An amendment having no basis in the application as filed and disclaiming subject-matter which the Board would still have to consider in the context of inventive step evaluation is not in compliance with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC and, therefore, inadmissible: only the exclusion of accidentally anticipatory prior art is admissible without having a basis in the application as filed, (point 4 of the Reasons for the Decision; see also T 170/87, T 645/95, T 863/96).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.