T 0766/91 (Decorative laminates/BOEING) du 29.09.1993

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:1993:T076691.19930929
Date de la décision: 29 septembre 1993
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0766/91
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 88200678.6
Classe de la CIB: B32B 7/02
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: Decorative laminates with heat release reducing and ink discoloration preventive protective layer
Nom du demandeur: The Boeing Company
Nom de l'opposant: -
Chambre: 3.3.02
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 116(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 96(2) 1973 European Patent Convention R 71 1973
Mots-clés: Inventive step (yes) - choice of solutions available - common general technical knowledge allegation - challenge to; document first referred to in decision - oral proceedings
Exergue: Substantiation of an allegation that something is common general knowledge is only required if this is challenged by another party or the EPO (reasons 8.1) - Information has usually not become common general knowledge because it was published in any particular handbook or textbook, but rather it appears in handbooks or textbooks because it was already common knowledge, thus such a publication is evidence both that the information is known and that it is common general knowledge (reasons 8.2).
Affaires citées: T 0020/81
Affaires citantes: R 0012/12 T 0939/92 T 0234/93 T 0378/93 T 0590/94 T 0438/97 T 0780/97 T 0919/97 T 0786/00 T 0564/02 T 0881/02 T 0890/02 T 0281/03 T 0263/04 T 0329/04 T 0895/04 T 0941/04 T 1253/04 T 0690/06 T 0341/07 T 1641/11 T 2059/13 T 0102/14 T 0103/14 T 0715/16 T 2703/17 T 1249/22

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 Claims 1 to 16 as submitted during the oral proceedings before the Examining Division on 9 April 1991 and the description on file.