Biography, Inventions, & Facts

After the selection of the closest prior art, four difference features are identified between the closest prior art and the claimed invention. The auxiliary requests are thus also not allowable for the above reason. 2.9 The specific value of the penetration force is central to the invention as it attempts to give expression to the underlying qualitative idea (see above) in objectively verifiable terms. 2.8 In the light of the above the Board concludes that the skilled person is unable to determine the missing cone angle on the basis of the patent and his common general knowledge. Failing a specific value of the cone angle he will be unable to reliably measure penetration force and thus reproduce the claimed invention. Thus the Industrial Revolution was attributed to the emergence of a number of simultaneous factors, which included steam engine, electricity and cheap steel, which further accelerated the process of progress.

Claim 1 in this opposition comprises a number of ranges. 4.3 In the present case the process according to claim 1 is characterized to produce a L-lysine product. However, it was not possible to produce lysine products having a lysine content of 85% and an equivalent ratio of more than 0.71, although an equivalent ratio of 0.68 to 0.95 was claimed. Alongside, you may face air and gas barrier and take good care of all these things you can produce the exclusive bottles made of high-grade plastic. • Drive slower. Going over 120kph will use up much more gas. As it fails herein, the invention is inherently deficient and any attempt to formulate the invention more precisely must fail. 4.2 According to Article 100(b) EPC, the European patent must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by the skilled person. The women often carried them across their back. 4.4 Therefore, the Board concludes that the European patent discloses the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a skilled person in the sense of Article 83 EPC. 4.1 The Appellant objected that the subject-matter of claim 1 could not be carried out over the whole range claimed.

It confirms that the principle defined in T 609/02, for a Swiss type of claim, also apply to a further medical use claim defined under Art.54(5) EPC2000. Then the Board is of the opinion that the prior art relating to making a ham sandwich may be selected if the difference between the selected prior art and the invention is not inventive. And if there are two relatively close prior arts available, one relating to making a ham sandwich (similar purpose) and the other one making a salami sandwich (same purpose). The Board introduced a nice metaphor for the invention of this appeal: Assume the invention is making a salami sandwich. The first half of the decision relates to the prior art selection and whether “the salami” is inventive. More than 20 years after the AIDS virus was identified, the researchers developed the first vaccine to protect people against HIV infection.

The vaccine is not approved for use yet, but the first move against HIV, and that’s a start. The first approach requires including the functioning of the nuclear reactor to state the technical effect in the claim. In this appeal from the Examining Division the main question is whether the claimed method of determining a threshold value of an operational parameter of a nuclear reactor, based upon a simulation of the functioning of the reactor, is technical. However, in the present case, the Examining Division failed to identify which features were exactly considered to be anticipated by that well-known prior art. Selecting the closest prior art selection in the problem solution approach is not always straight forward. The patent application in this Examination appeal is refused under Art. Document D0 is more detailed and gives more enablement than the patent application. However, rather than further considering the inventive step over a standard computerised system, the Board proceeds with selecting a D2 document as CPA while considering the distinguishing features as non-technical administrative constraints which would be obvious for the skilled person. Note that document D3 is cited by article D0 as well.