T 1621/16 (Hand dishwashing/Procter&Gamble) du 14.10.2019

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T162116.20191014
Date de la décision: 14 octobre 2019
Numéro de l'affaire: T 1621/16
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 09163237.2
Classe de la CIB: C11D 1/83 C11D 1/94 C11D 3/36 C11D 17/00 C11D 3/33
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: Liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition
Nom du demandeur: The Procter & Gamble Company
Nom de l'opposant: Colgate-Palmolive Company
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
Chambre: 3.3.06
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 56
Mots-clés: Amendments - mutliple selections from lists of converging alternatives
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
Inventive step - (yes)
Exergue: 1) When fall-back positions for a feature are described in terms of a list of converging alternatives, the choice of a more or less preferred element from such a list should not be treated as an arbitrary selection, because this choice does not lead to a singling out of an invention from among a plurality of distinct options, but simply to a subject-matter based on a more or less restricted version of said feature.
2) A claim amended on the basis of multiple selections from lists of converging alternatives might be considered to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC if:
- the subject-matter resulting from the multiple selections is not associated with an undisclosed technical contribution, and
- the application as filed includes a pointer to the combination of features resulting from the multiple selections.
Affaires citées: G 0001/93 T 0615/95 T 0727/00 T 0812/09 T 2237/10 T 2273/10 T 0027/16
Affaires citantes: R 0017/23 T 1465/15 T 1476/15 T 2251/16 T 2368/16 T 0336/17 T 0347/17 T 0640/17 T 1482/17 T 1937/17 T 0149/18 T 0650/18 T 1731/18 T 2645/18 T 2790/18 T 0531/19 T 3253/19 T 0446/20 T 1809/20 T 0648/21 T 1020/21 T 1133/21 T 1137/21 T 1261/21 T 1302/21 T 1408/21 T 2057/21 T 0147/22 T 0205/22 T 0563/22 T 0901/22 T 1766/22 T 1824/22 T 1925/22 T 2529/22 T 2572/22 T 0379/23 T 0579/23 T 1042/23 T 0025/24 T 0146/24 T 0983/24

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of the claims of the new main request filed during oral proceedings before the Board, and a description to be adapted where appropriate.