T 1265/17 (Nanocellulose/Kemira Oyj) du 16.12.2021
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T126517.20211216
- Date de la décision
- 16 décembre 2021
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1265/17
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 09174967.1
- Classe de la CIB
- D21H 21/10
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Non distribuées (D)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Process for production of paper
- Nom du demandeur
- Kemira Oyj
- Nom de l'opposant
- Stora Enso AB OYJ
Hoffmann Eitle
SOLENIS LLC - Chambre
- 3.3.06
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 83Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
- Mots-clés
- New explanation not regarded as an amended case
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Inventive step - reformulation of the technical problem
Inventive step - main request (no)
Inventive step - auxiliary request (yes) - Exergue
- If a claim is unduly broadened with respect to the scope of the examples used to illustrate a technical effect, particularly when this broadening concerns the feature/s allegedly providing that effect, the burden of proof might shift back to the proprietor to prove that the effect observed in the examples would also be obtained throughout the entire scope of the claims. If no evidence is provided in this respect, a conclusion may have to be drawn on the basis of plausibility arguments (reasons 2.2.5-2.2.7).
- Affaires citées
- T 2579/11
- Affaires citantes
- -
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 claims 1 to 8 according to auxiliary request 1 submitted with the letter dated 21 December 2017 and a description to be adapted where appropriate.