T 0016/87 (Catalyst) du 24.07.1990

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T001687.19900724

Date de la décision

24 juilliet 1990

Numéro de l'affaire

T 0016/87

En ligne le

14 septembre 1990

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

80401328.2

Classe de la CIB

B01D 53/36 B01J 23/76

Langue de la procédure

Français

Distribution

Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)

Téléchargement

Versions JO

Autres décisions pour cet affaire

Résumés pour cette décision

Titre de la demande

Nom du demandeur

Procatalyse

Nom de l'opposant

Degussa

Chambre

3.4.01

Sommaire

1. It is for the opponent who invokes the invalidity of a patent on the ground that the invention cannot be carried out to indicate the facts, evidence and arguments in support of this ground (in the present case, to furnish the results of tests showing that the catalyst as claimed is not active) (cf. point 4 of the Reasons for the Decision).

2. A feature, added to a claim after the priority date, which does not constitute an essential element of the invention but a voluntary limitation of the scope of that claim does not invalidate the priority claimed (following Decision T 73/88 - 3.3.1) (cf. point 5 of the Reasons for the Decision).

3. The provision in Article 69(1) EPC stipulating that the description and drawings (if any) be used to interpret the claims also applies during opposition proceedings when an objective assessment of the content of a claim has to be made to judge whether its subject-matter is novel and not obvious (cf. point 6 of the Reasons for the Decision).

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention Art 69 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973 European Patent Convention Art 88 1973 European Patent Convention Art 89 1973 European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973 European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973

Mots-clés

Priority - additional feature -
Opponent's obligation to indicate facts, evidence and arguments on which the opposition is based
Interpretation of claims during opposition proceedings

Exergue

Affaires citées

Affaires citantes

G 0002/98 T 0536/92 T 0893/92 T 0026/93 T 0311/93 T 0356/93 T 0613/93 T 0669/93 T 1019/93 T 0274/94 T 0303/94 T 0277/95 T 0364/95 T 0404/95 T 0481/95 T 0532/95 T 0587/95 T 0684/95 T 0812/95 T 0707/96 T 0718/96 T 0740/96 T 0942/96 T 0053/97 T 0077/97 T 0468/97 T 0488/97 T 0874/97 T 0175/98 T 0427/99 T 0653/99 T 0393/00 T 0751/00 T 0438/01 T 0112/02 T 0556/02 T 0683/02 T 0854/03 T 0872/03 T 0001/04 T 0452/04 T 0063/06 T 0396/06 T 0516/06 T 0275/10 T 2319/11 T 0809/13 T 1889/15 T 0169/20 T 0056/21 T 0439/22

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The contested decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent as amended, on the basis of the following documents:

- Claims 1 to 12 submitted during oral proceedings on 24 July 1990 as the main request;

- description page 2, line 1, to page 8, line 42, accompanying the communication pursuant to Rule 58(4) EPC issued on 10 January 1986.