Decisions citing T 666/89

T 0635/06 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = 2.3 In this context, the Board firstly notes that according to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal regarding the examination of novelty, the teaching of a document is not confined to the detailed information given in the examples, but embraces the whole disclosure of that document. Nevertheless, the general principle consistently applied by the Boards of Appeal for concluding lack of novelty is that there must be a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the state of the art which would inevitably lead the skilled person to subject-matter falling within the scope of what is claimed. However, in deciding what can be directly and unambiguously derived from a document, its different passages can only be combined if the skilled reader would see a good reason for combining them (see e.g. T 666/89, OJ EPO 1993, 495; T 565/90 and in particular T 941/98, point 5 of the reasons; neither published in OJ EPO).
}

T 0204/00 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = Document D1 is directed to an oxygen permeation apparatus comprising a membrane consisting of an oxide of Sr, La, Co and Fe mixed with SrTiO3. According to the example described on page 8 of the document, the two oxides are „well mixed“ (page 8, line 6) and then sintered. The „Experimental Report“ annexed to the statement of grounds of appeal shows the results of experiments carried out following the procedure of the example described in the document. According to these results, the X-ray diffraction pattern of the mixed oxide material presents two distinct peaks before sintering (Figure 1 of the report) and one single peak after sintering (Figure 2), thus implying that the process according to document D1 results inherently in the formation of a predominant single phase oxide compound having the structure and the composition of claim 1. This conclusion is confirmed by the results of an analysis carried out using scanning electron microscopy and electron dispersive spectroscopy (Figures 3 to 6 of the „Experimental Report“) and showing that the sintered product includes, in addition to grains of SrTiO3 (Figure 6), large grains of an oxide of La, Sr, Ti, Co and Fe (Figures 4 and 5) resulting from the reaction of both starting oxides. Although document D1 mentions mixing with a mortar, the particular mixing conditions are not important as long as the oxides are well mixed in a powder scale. Therefore, the disclosure of document D1 inevitably results in a membrane including a mixed oxide material as defined in claim 1 and, following the decisions T 12/81 and T 666/89, the document is novelty destroying for claim 1. As to the tests submitted by the patent proprietor with his statement of grounds of appeal, the shift and the enlargement of the diffraction peaks after sintering shown in Figures 1a and 2a do confirm, rather than contradict, the submissions above since the shift and the enlargement of the peaks indicate that the two oxides have mixed together and that after sintering a new compound has been formed with a separate phase.
  [1,2] = The appellant, however, has submitted that the mixing and sintering process described in the example of document D1 results in a reaction mixture of the two starting oxides and that the resulting sintered body inevitably comprises a mixed metal oxide material according to the subject matter of claim 1, thus anticipating the claimed subject matter in the sense of decisions T 12/81 (OJ 1982, 296) and T 666/89 (OJ 1993, 495). The appellant has relied in support of his submissions on the results of an alleged repetition of the example of document D1 conducted by the appellant himself and shown in the „Experimental Report“. Figure 2 of this report shows in particular that the diffraction peaks associated with each of the two oxide phases before sintering are replaced after sintering by new peaks representing a new single phase. According to the appellant’s submissions, this result indicates that the two mixed starting oxides have reacted during sintering with each other to form a new oxide having the composition of the material defined in claim 1 as further confirmed by the results of the analysis carried out on the sintered material and shown in Figures 3 to 6 of the report.
}

T 0300/97 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = 1.4. Therefore, in the Board’s judgement, the Appellant’s interpretation of this passage is a misreading of the document, since it requires taking a single passage out of the context of the whole document, whilst the text of a prior art document should be more properly interpreted taking into account the teaching of the document in its entirety (see in this respect T 056/87, OJ EPO 1990, 188, point 3.1 of the reasons; T 666/89, OJ EPO 1993, 495, point 5 of the reasons).
}

T 0255/98 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = Daraus ergibt sich, daß das letzte Merkmal des Anspruchs im Sinne der Richtlinien C-IV, 7.2 und 7.5 implizit und eindeutig in den Dokumenten E1 bzw. E2 offenbart ist. Siehe auch die Entscheidung T 666/89, ABl. EPA 1993, 495, Nummern 5 und 6, wonach der gesamte Inhalt einer Entgegenhaltung zu prüfen ist, sowie die Entscheidung T 56/87, ABl. EPA 1990, 188, Nummer 3.1, zur schematischen Darstellung einer Zeichnung.
}

T 0941/98 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = 5.1. In this context, the Board firstly notes that according to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal regarding the examination of novelty, the teaching of a cited document is indeed not confined to the detailed information given in the examples, but embraces the disclosure of that document as a whole. However, in deciding what can be directly and unambiguously derived from a document, its different passages can only be combined if the skilled reader would see a good reason for combining them (see e.g. T 666/89, OJ EPO 1993, 495, and T 565/90, dated 15.09.92, not published in the OJ).
}

T 0357/00 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = The Board agrees that the nonionic surfactants of the examples of document (5) do not meet the requirements of Claim 1. In document (5) the nonionic surfactants of the examples are only defined by the ethoxylation degree (for instance „nonionic surfactant 7 EO“). However, the technical disclosure in a prior art document has to be considered in its entirety, as it would be done by a person skilled in the art (T 4/83, OJ EPO 1983, 498, paragraph 4 of the reasons; T 198/84, OJ EPO 1985, 209; T 56/87, point 3.1; and T 124/87, OJ EPO 1989, 491, paragraph 3.2 of the reasons; T 666/89, point 5). Therefore, the evaluation of document (5) must not be confined to its examples (T 323/87, paragraph 2.2, 23. November 1990, unpublished, confirming T 424/86, paragraph 4.2, 11 August 1988, unpublished) but the whole technical content of document (5) has to be taken into consideration.
}

T 1716/13 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = Der Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung in der angefochtenen Entscheidung, der Gegenstand der Ansprüche 1, 25 und 50 würde vom Inhalt der Entgegenhaltung (22) neuheitsschädlich vorweggenommen, könne nicht gefolgt werden. Die Entgegenhaltung (22) enthalte zwar Angaben zur Länge des zum Zielgen komplementären Bereichs I, jedoch keine explizite Aussage zu der Länge der gesamten dsRNA in Basenpaaren. Eine dsRNA, die 15 bis 49 Basenpaare aufweist, erschließe sich aus dieser Entgegenhaltung auch nicht implizit, insbesondere nicht aus den Angaben auf Seite 11, Zeilen 22 bis 24 bzw. dem Anspruch 10, die sich nur auf den Umfang der Identität des Bereichs I mit dem Zielgen bezogen. Die Offenbarung einer 25 Basenpaare langen dsRNA könne nur als „verborgen“ im Sinne der Entscheidung T 666/89 (OJ EPO 1993, 495) betrachtet werden.
  [1,2] = 1. In der angefochtenen Entscheidung stellte die Einspruchsabteilung fest, dass der Gegenstand der Ansprüche 1, 25 und 30[sic] von der Entgegenhaltung (22) neuheitsschädlich vorweggenommen wird (siehe Seite 10, erster vollständiger Absatz der Entscheidung). Gegen diese Feststellung hat die Beschwerdeführerin eingewendet, das Merkmal „ein 15 bis 49 Basenpaare aufweisendes Oligoribonukleotid mit doppelsträngiger Struktur (dsRNA)“ in den Ansprüchen 1, 25 und 50 lasse sich nicht eindeutig und unmittelbar aus der Entgegenhaltung (22) ableiten. Die Beschwerdeführerin stützte sich bei ihrer Argumentation auf die Dokumente (54), (55) und (76) und die Entscheidung T 666/89 (OJ EPO 93, 495).
  [1,3] = 4. Liest man die Angaben auf Seite 11, Zeilen 22 bis 24 zusammen mit denen in den Zeilen 27 und 28, so ist eindeutig zu erkennen, dass in der bevorzugten Variante, in welcher die dsRNA mit dem Zielgen 100% identisch ist, der zum Zielgen komplementäre Bereich I sich über die gesamte Länge des doppelsträngigen Ribonukleotids erstrecken muss. Somit ist in der Angabe in der Entgegenhaltung (22), dass der Bereich I mindestens 25 Basen aufweisen kann, die gleiche Länge für das doppelsträngige Ribonukleotid implizit mit offenbart. Diese Offenbarung ist nicht „verborgen“ im Sinne der Entscheidung T 666/89 (siehe oben), sondern kann von einem Fachmann eindeutig und unmittelbar der Entgegenhaltung (22) entnommen werden.
}

T 0988/95 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = En outre, il y a lieu de remarquer que les décisions citées par l’intimée, notamment les décisions T 12/81 et T 666/89, ne s’appliquent pas au présent cas dans la mesure où il s’agit ni de la sélection d’une plage de valeurs dans un domaine plus grand ni du choix d’une valeur particulière parmi des valeurs communes à deux plages qui se superposent.
}

T 0163/96 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = 4.2. Gemäß der ständigen Praxis der Kammern wird die Neuheit eines Erfindungsgegenstandes nicht nur durch eine wortwörtliche Vorveröffentlichung („photographischer Neuheitsbegriff“) zerstört, sondern auch durch implizite Offenbarung (cf. z. B. T 0666/89, ABl. 1993, 495). Allerdings muß der Gegenstand der jüngeren Erfindung klar und eindeutig in der Vorveröffentlichung offenbart sein (cf. T 0450/89 vom 15. Oktober 1991, nicht im ABl. veröffentlicht).
}

T 0786/00 citing T 0666/89:
{
  [1,1] = (ii.4) The need for highly pure reaction monomers also implied that the use of raw materials having a content of impurity between 0 and a very low value was known in the art. Thus, the subject-matter of the main request could not be considered as a selection invention, since, on the one hand, the selected subrange was not sufficiently far removed from the preferred part of the known range and since, on the other hand, the person skilled in the art would also apply this technical teaching in the range of overlap (cf. T 666/89; OJ EPO, 1993, 495; in particular paragraph 7).
  [1,2] = 3.8. The argument submitted by Respondent I with respect to the decisions T 288/90, T 990/96, and T 666/89 is also not convincing, since the facts on which these decisions are based are not comparable with those of the present case.
  [1,3] = 3.8.3. As stated in the decision T 666/89, in the case of overlapping numerical ranges of physical parameters between a claim and a prior art disclosure, one approach to determining what is „hidden“ as opposed to what has been made available is to consider whether or not a person skilled in the art would, in the light of all the technical facts at his disposal, seriously contemplate applying the teaching of prior art document in the range of overlap. This approach cannot be applied in the present case. First of all, documents D5, D7 and D8 are totally silent on the kind and amount of impurities present in the starting components used. Furthermore, the pertinent disclosures of D5, D7 and D8 are restricted to very specific examples in which the starting components would have exhibited respectively an individual (but undisclosed) total hydrolysable chlorine content in combination with a specific catalyst composition meeting the requirements of Claim 1 of the patent in suit. Thus, these documents do not at all define a numerical range of hydrolysable chlorine content in the starting components to be used in combination with a catalyst composition according to Claim 1 of the patent in suit. Even if, for sake of argument, it were considered that „highly pure“ starting components had been used in the specific examples of D5, D7 and D8, this wording would not, contrary to the submissions of Respondent I, define a range starting from 0 ppm since, as indicated in the decision T 990/96, it is not possible for thermodynamical reasons to obtain a compound completely pure. Thus, there is no overlapping range of total hydrolysable chlorine content between Claim 1 of the patent in suit and the prior art disclosures such as would render the application of the decision T 666/89 meaningful. The decision is therefore of no relevance in the present case.
}
max. number of citing decisions (10) reached ...