T 0553/02 (Stain removal method/PROCTER & GAMBLE) du 14.07.2004
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T055302.20040714
- Date de la décision
- 14 juilliet 2004
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0553/02
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 97933429.9
- Classe de la CIB
- C11D 3/39
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Method for treating plastic dishware and kitchenware surfaces with detergent compositions containing bleach
- Nom du demandeur
- THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.3.06
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 52(2)(d) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
- Mots-clés
- Exclusion from patentability (Article 52(2)d) of the subject- matter of claim 7 (main and first auxiliary request) - no
Novelty of claim 7 (main and first auxiliary request) - no
Inventive step (second auxiliary request) - no: obvious application of a known method to different substrates
Inventive step (third auxiliary request) - yes: improved performance of the selected bleach on the specific substrate treated - Exergue
- 1. A claim directed to a product comprising a composition of matter (here: a bleaching composition) and to instructions for use of the product, wherein the instructions have no technical effect on the product, is not excluded from patentability according to Article 52(2) EPC since the claim has a technical meaning and defines the technical features necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter, i.e. a product comprising a composition of matter (reasons for the decision, points 1.2.2 and 1.2.3).
2. Instructions for use contained in a claim directed to a product comprising a composition of matter and which provide no technical contribution to the claimed product are not a technical feature of that product, do not limit in any way the scope of such a claim, and cannot be considered in the evaluation of novelty (reasons for the decision, point 1.3).
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 grant a patent on the basis of the third auxiliary request filed during oral proceedings and a description to be adapted thereto.