T 0367/96 of 03.12.1997

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T036796.19971203
Date of decision: 3 December 1997
Case number: T 0367/96
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 87402408.6
IPC class: B01D 53/22
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: No distribution (D)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: T 0367/96 Request of correction/L'AIR LIQUIDE 2001-06-21
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Process for membrane separation of gas mixtures
Applicant name: L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIETE ANONYME / GEORGES CLAUDE
Opponent name: THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Board: 3.4.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 102(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
Keywords: Main request: referring to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
1st auxiliary request: novelty (yes); inventive step (no)
2nd and 3rd auxiliary request: disregarded
4th auxiliary request: support by description (accepted)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Catchword: 1. An interest to oppose is not required for the admissibility of an opposition and, as long as said opposition has been correctly based in the notice of opposition on lack of novelty and/or lack of inventive step as grounds of opposition, this "prima facie" also applies to a case wherein the opponent argues that the invention in the impugned patent is "futile" and has no useful result (see point 2 of the reasons; decision T 0798/93, OJ EPO 1997, 363, followed).
2. Article 102(3) EPC does not allow objections of lack of support by the description of an amended main claim if said claim results in substance from the combination of claims of the patent as granted in accordance with the cross references therein and thus concerns a specific object which as such was already claimed in the patent as granted (see point 6.2 of the reasons; decision T 301/87, OJ EPO 1990, 335, followed).
Cited cases: T 0301/87 T 0222/89 T 0939/92 T 0798/93 T 1027/93
Citing cases: G 0003/14 T 1013/97 T 0973/98 T 0698/99 T 0717/99 T 0381/02 T 1076/02 T 0098/03 T 0262/03 T 0886/03 T 0515/04 T 1223/04 T 0839/05 T 1459/05 T 1016/06 T 0656/07 T 1855/07 T 0511/08 T 1440/08 T 1468/08 T 1782/08 T 0459/09 T 0630/09 T 1058/09 T 1439/09 T 0373/12 T 0447/22

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 in amended form on the basis of the fourth auxiliary request (filed as "Patentee's Fifth Request, with 5 claims, during the oral proceedings of 3 December 1997), with the description and drawings, if necessary, to be adapted.