T 0087/08 du 11.02.2010
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T008708.20100211
- Date de la décision
- 11 février 2010
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0087/08
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 01900995.0
- Classe de la CIB
- A61K 7/48
- 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
- Shadow-effect cosmetic composition
- Nom du demandeur
- Color Access, Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- L'OREAL
- Chambre
- 3.3.10
- Sommaire
Article 56 EPC requires that the assessment of inventive step is made "having regard to the state of the art". Accordingly, a decision is not sufficiently reasoned in the sense of Rule 68(2) EPC 1973 (Rule 111(2) EPC 2000) if the chain of reasoning to justify the finding of lack of inventive step merely states that a purported effect has not been achieved, i.e. this technical problem had not been solved, without reformulating the problem in a less ambitious way and without assessing obviousness of the claimed solution to that reformulated problem in the light of the cited prior art.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Novelty (yes) : selection within 2 lists
Inventive step : fresh case, new closest prior art document
Procedural violation (yes) : decision not reasoned
Remittal (yes) : reimbursement of appeal fees (yes) - Exergue
- -
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 for further prosecution upon the basis of claims 1 to 23 of the main request filed with a letter dated 12 March 2008.
3. The appeal fees of both parties are reimbursed.