Decisions citing T 219/83

T 0184/00 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = The method of claim 1 of the main request was novel since D1 did not disclose the presence of silanol in the solution. The appellant’s experimental report filed on 8 October 1999 (hereinafter E1) showed that even in a solution containing 96% ethanol and 4% water no detectable amount of silanol was formed after 24 hours. Gas chromatography was a highly sensitive technology which was able to detect amounts to the level of ppm. The objective problem solved by the invention with respect to the closest prior art D1 was to provide a fluoroaluminosilicate glass (FAS glass) that could be used to produce improved glass ionomer cements in terms of the fluoride release while maintaining at least the level of strength achieved by the prior art. The improvement in fluoride release could be inferred from example 1 and comparative example 1 and from the experimental report E2. Respondent 3’s experiments in D9 had been conducted using a compomer rather than a glass ionomer cement and could not disprove the effects achieved with the present invention. Furthermore, according to D13 compomers were put on the market in late 1993, and thus D9 was based on a comparison with products which were not state of the art. The burden of proof that the said effect was not obtained in the whole ambit of the claim rested on the respondents and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the patentee (see T 219/83). Experiment 1B of report E2 showed that a slight improvement was obtained with respect to a neutral aqueous silanol solution. None of the cited documents gave a hint as to how the fluoride release of glass ionomer cements might be improved. The documents taught towards using silanes and, as acknowledged by respondent 3 himself, the skilled person would have expected a decrease in the fluoride release of the glass ionomer cement by effecting a more active silanisation of the glass powder. Therefore, the improvement of the fluoride release despite the use of an aqueous solution of silanol was surprising. The appellant contested respondent 3’s allegation that it was common general knowledge that the addition of an acid would improve the fluoride release.
  [1,2] = The appellant’s comparative experiments with the A-174 silane were, however, all performed at acidic pH <4. In example 18 involving the use of an acidic alkoxysilane at a pH of 4.2, no result of fluoride release is reported. In example 7 the pH of the treatment solution is 10.3, however both the glass and the cement forming copolymer seem to differ from those used in comparative example 1, which might have an influence on the fluoride release result. The respondents have contested that an improvement of the fluoride release would also be obtained with respect to the process of D1 in the whole ambit of claim 1, in particular at pH values close to 7 and at hydrolysis levels of about 0.1% or less, regardless of the silane used. The burden of proof for the allegation that the said improvement is not achieved over the whole ambit of the claim normally rests on the person who has made this allegation, ie in the present case the respondents/opponents (see T 219/83, OJ EPO 1986, 211, point 12 of the reasons, T 939/92, OJ EPO 1996, 309, point 2.6.1 of the reasons). According to T 585/92 (9 February 1995, point 3.2 of the reasons) which respondent 3 relied upon, once the opposition division has revoked the patent, the burden of proof is shifted to the proprietor of the patent to demonstrate on appeal that the reasons for revoking the patent were not justified, ie that the opposition division’s decision was wrong on its merits. However the situation is different in the present case in that the decision under appeal is silent as to why an improvement of the fluoride release was not taken into account (see point 5 below). Furthermore, the appellant filed experimental report E2 with the grounds of appeal to show that the said improvement was achieved. The question whether or not the said improvement is obtained in the whole ambit of claim 1 was briefly mentioned by respondent 2 in reply to the grounds of appeal (see the two first line on page 4 of the letter dated 16 October 2000), but detailed arguments concerning this issue were presented only at the oral proceedings before the board. In this context, the board also observes that the appellant contested respondent 3’s experimental report D9 only 6. weeks before the oral proceedings although D9 was submitted on 18 December 2000 as counter-evidence to disprove the improvement of the fluoride release reported in E2. Therefore, contrary to the appellant’s allegation the respondents did not have almost two years to file further evidence concerning the question whether or not an improvement was achieved. In view of Experiment 1B in appellant’s experimental report E2 and considering the minimal difference between the claimed process and that of D1, the board has itself doubts that the said improvement would be obtained in the whole range of claim 1, in particular at an acidic or a basic pH close to 7 and at low hydrolysis levels of 0.1% or less covered by claim 1 (see the value of 0.1% in dependent claim 3) for the following reasons. Experiment 1B was performed using as a neutral aqueous silanol solution. The appellant has confirmed at the oral proceedings that, under the conditions used to prepare the starting solution, complete hydrolysis of the silane had been achieved. From the comparison of the fluoride release obtained in Experiment 1B with that reported in Experiment 1A for the silane solution, it can be inferred that only a slight improvement is achieved as indicated by the appellant himself on page 6 of the letter dated 17 May 2000. In view of the slight improvement obtained with a neutral silanol solution at a very high degree of hydrolysis, the board doubts, in the absence of further evidence, that a treatment of the FAS glass with an aqueous silanol solution having a pH close to 7 (for example 6.9 or 7.1) and a hydrolysis level of 0.1% or less would also result in an improvement of the fluoride release of the final glass ionomer cement with respect the process disclosed in D1. It is observed in this respect that an aqueous silanol solution having a degree of hydrolysis of 0.1% or less as covered by claim 1 essentially contains a silane and, thus, differs from the silane solution of D1 by the presence of a relatively small amount of silanol. Under the very exceptional circumstances of this case, and considering that the question whether or not the said improvement is achieved in the whole ambit of claim 1 is an essential issue for the assessment of inventive step, the board has come to the conclusion that this issue should be clarified before taking a decision on inventive step and, thus, that the parties should be given the opportunity to provide further evidence in this respect. At the oral proceedings, respondent 2 offered in particular to submit further comparative experiments to show that the addition of a small amount of acid to the silane solution of D1 would not lead to an improvement of the fluoride release. For the reasons given above, the board, in the exercise of its discretionary power pursuant to Article 111(1)EPC, finds it appropriate to remit the case to the opposition division for further prosecution on the basis of the main request filed at the oral proceedings.
}

T 1056/01 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = If a material fact is not or cannot be proven, a decision must be taken on the basis of the relevant burden of proof, with the result that the fact that the real position cannot be established operates to the detriment of the party which carries the burden of proof for this fact. The appellant referred to decision T 219/83 which held that as a matter of principle the patent proprietor is given the benefit of the doubt if the parties made contrary assertions regarding facts barring patentability, which they cannot substantiate and the EPO is unable to establish the facts of its own motion. Furthermore, it followed from decision T 382/93 that the opponents should bear the burden of proof in this respect both in the first and the second instance, with the result that the same principles should be applied in the present case where the relevant official file at the UK Office has been destroyed (as is usual five years after withdrawal of an application).
  [1,2] = 2.10. This fact operates to the detriment of the appellant, because she carries the relevant burden of proof. Unlike facts barring patentability (see e.g. decision T 219/83 cited by the appellant) a timely withdrawal of a previous application is a positive precondition for claiming a valid priority from a subsequent application for the same invention. Hence, the date of (effect of the) withdrawal is a fact which can act in the applicant’s favour and she relied on it just as she relied on the filing date (and the content) of the subsequent UK application. The application of the principle that the burden of proof for a particular fact is to be borne by the party alleging it is even more justified in the present situation, where the alleged fact was a purposive act by the appellant(‘s representative).
}

T 0718/98 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = 2.2.3. Since in the present case the burden of proof is on the party which has brought the experimental evidence, i.e. on the Respondent (see T 219/83, OJ 1986, 211, Corr. OJ 1986, 328, point 10 of the reasons for the decision), and the Respondent has not brought any further evidence during appeal stage before oral proceedings, the partial technical problem of reducing carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides emissions during engine operation by adding MMT cannot be considered to have been credibly solved by the claimed subject-matter.
}

T 0268/90 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = 4.3.1. Die in Punkt 2.2.2 dargestellten Einwände der Beschwerdeführerinnen gegen die Berücksichtigung der im Streitpatent genannten technischen Aufgabe bei der Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit sind - soweit sie überhaupt greifen - durch die vorgenommenen Beschränkungen des Patentanspruchs gegenstandslos geworden. Soweit darüber hinaus eingewendet worden ist, es sei unglaubhaft, daß mit so geringen Mengen wie 2 Gew.-% 1-Isopropoxypropanol-2 eine Verkürzung der Zeit bis zur Klebfreiheit der Beschichtungsoberfläche und bis zum Erreichen einer ausreichenden Wasserbeständigkeit derselben erzielt wird, fehlt es an der erforderlichen Substantiierung. Der Vortrag der Beschwerdegegnerin, daß die in Tabelle 1 des Streitpatents gezeigten Verbesserungen auf die Verwendung von 1-Isopropoxypropanol-2 zurückzuführen sind und daß deshalb gegenüber den Bindemittellösungen des Standes der Technik immer dann eine Verbesserung eintritt, wenn nicht ganz unbedeutende Mengen an diesem Glykolether anwesend sind, wird durch die bloße Behauptung seiner Unrichtigkeit nicht widerlegt. Es ist auch weder dargetan worden noch für die Kammer ersichtlich, daß der Vortrag der Beschwerdegegnerin dem allgemeinen Fachwissen widerspricht. Auch wenn die Kammer nicht mit letzter Sicherheit feststellen kann, daß der Vortrag der Beschwerdegegnerin zutrifft, so trifft dieser Nachteil hier die beweispflichtige Beschwerdeführerin (siehe die Entscheidung T 219/83, ABl. EPA 1986, 211).
}

T 0716/91 citing T 0219/83:
{}(1x0)

T 0951/91 citing T 0219/83:
{}(1x0)

T 0207/93 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = 4.2.5. In a situation such as the present one, where there are contrary assertions from the parties and where the documents provide no clear information, it is up to the Appellant, who, as the Opponent has the onus of proof (T 219/83, OJ EPO 1986, 211 and 328, Reasons, point 12), to prove that the solubility properties of nonyl phenol with 7 ethylene oxide units fall within the terms of Claim 1. However, no such evidence has been provided. Therefore, the Board concludes that the use of an activator having the now required solubility properties cannot be clearly and unambiguously derived from D1.
}

T 0326/93 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = The Appellant (Opponent) however alleges that there was a public prior use of heaters with gold-foil-wrapped limiters at the Interbuild Exhibition on 30 November 1983. In assessing this issue, the Board notes that the burden of proof lies with the Appellant (T 219/83 OJ EPO 1986,211) and that he must show, on the balance of probabilities (T 270/90 OJ EPO 1993,725), firstly that such heaters were publicly demonstrated at that time and secondly that the skilled man would have taken the necessary teaching from the demonstration (T 208/88 OJ EPO 1992,22).
}

T 0855/96 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = 4.2. Der geänderte Anspruch 1 enthält gegenüber dem erteilten Anspruch 1 die zusätzliche Bedingung, daß das Reaktionsgefäß innen aus poliertem Edelstahl besteht. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat nicht geltend gemacht, daß Reaktionsgefäße aus Edelstahl, die ein Fachmann für die Herstellung eines UV-Reaktors gemäß D1 in Betracht ziehen würde, normalerweise polierte Innenwände aufweisen. Nach Angabe der Beschwerdegegnerin werde durch die Polierung die direkte Reflexion erhöht, was zu einer erhöhten Quantenausbeute führe. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat ausgeführt, es sei nicht glaubhaft, daß durch eine Verbesserung der direkten Reflexion die Quantenausbeute erhöht werde, da auch bei einer diffusen Reflexion die Strahlung wieder in die Flüssigkeit gelange und dort ihre Wirkung ausübe. Beweismittel hierfür wurden jedoch nicht vorgelegt. Die Beschwerdegegnerin erklärte die geltend gemachte erhöhte Quantenausbeute damit, daß bei einer diffusen Reflexion ein Teil der reflektierten Strahlung im Grenzgebiet zwischen Reaktorwand und Flüssigkeit gefangen bleibt und schließlich absorbiert wird, ohne in Wechselwirkung mit den in der Flüssigkeit gelösten oder suspendierten Teilchen zu treten. Die Kammer hat keine Möglichkeit, die widersprüchlichen Aussagen zum technischen Effekt der Polierung der Reaktorinnenoberfläche faktisch zu überprüfen. Sie berücksichtigt jedoch, daß das Streitpatent klar auf die Bedeutung des Polierens der Reaktorinnenseite hinweist (Spalte 5, Zeilen 4 bis 6). Bei dieser Sachlage trägt die Einsprechende die Beweislast dafür, daß der geltend gemachte Effekt nicht eintritt. Der Umstand, daß die Kammer den wahren Sachverhalt nicht aufklären kann, wirkt sich hier also zu Ungunsten der Beschwerdeführerin aus (siehe auch T 219/83, ABl. 1986, 211, Punkt 12 der Gründe). Die Kammer geht daher davon aus, daß durch die Polierung der Innenwand die Quantenausbeute bei niedriger optischer Dichte erhöht wird und damit zur Lösung der bestehenden Aufgabe (siehe 3.3) beiträgt und nicht als eine technisch irrelevante, willkürliche, Maßnahme zu betrachten ist.
}

T 0840/98 citing T 0219/83:
{
  [1,1] = 5.1.1. Concernant l’utilisation prétendument courante du terme polyéther bloc amide au lieu de polyétheresteramide, la requérante, qui en tant qu’opposante conserve la charge de la preuve (cf. T 219/83, JO OEB 1986, 211 corr. 328), n’a pas apporté la moindre évidence au support de ses allégations. De son côté, la Chambre malgré des recherches dans des ouvrages spécialisés n’a pas trouvé d’indice confirmant la thèse de la requérante.
}