Decisions citing T 12/81

T 0287/99 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = According to the consistent case law of the boards of appeal, when it comes to the evaluation of novelty or inventive step, the teaching of a cited document is not confined to the detailed information given in the examples of how the invention is carried out but embraces any reproducible technical teaching described in that document enabling a person skilled in the art to carry out the invention (see T 12/81, OJ EPO 1982, 296, see especially Reasons, point 7; confirmed, inter alia, by T 424/86 of 11 August 1988, see especially Reasons, point 4.1; T 250/87 of 11 October 1988, see especially Reasons, point 4; T 279/89 of 3 July 1991, see especially Reasons, point 4.4; T 522/90 of 8. September 1993, see especially Reasons, point 3.8; T 722/94 of 16 December 1997, see especially Reasons, point 2.2.2; T 839/95 of 23 June 1998, see especially Reasons, point 4.1; T 610/96 of 10 November 1998, see especially Reasons, point 4.3; T 743/96 of 4 April 2000; T 623/98 of 17 October 2001, see especially Reasons, point 4; T 799/98 of 29 August 2002, see especially Reasons, point 1.2.1; T 864/98 of 17 March 2003, see especially Reasons, point 2.3.2; T 941/98 of 30. March 1999, see especially Reasons, point 5.1; and T 664/00 of 28 November 2002, see especially Reasons, point 5.2.6).
}

T 0132/92 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = In analogy to the leading decision on novelty of chemical compounds T 12/81 (OJ EPO 1982,296), this argument would only be valid if D1 comprised a generical teaching to mix AMPS co-polymers with polyacrylic acid. In the absence thereof said two comparative examples with polyacrylic acid in D1 must be considered as isolated disclosures, which do not destroy the novelty of other mixtures with polyacrylic acid.
}

T 1075/96 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = 4.7. From the foregoing it follows necessarily that citation (10) cannot, contrary to the opinion given in the impugned decision, be considered as containing a „prior implicit disclosure“ either, in the sense that, in carrying out the teaching of (10), the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of present claim 1. On the contrary, as shown above, the exercise of a multiple conscious choice of parameters from the different options disclosed in the state of the art and their purposive combination would be necessary to arrive at such a result (see in this respect, for example, decisions T 12/81, OJ EPO 1982, 296, Reasons, points 7 to 10, T 124/87, OF EPO 1989, 491).
}

T 0226/98 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = 12.3. Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern gehört ein chemischer Stoff, der in einer Entgegenhaltung durch Nennung des Ausgangsstoffs und des im Zusammenhang damit beschriebenen Verfahrens beschrieben wird, dem Stand der Technik an (s. T 12/81, ABl. EPA 1982, 296, Nr. 13 der Entscheidungsgründe, und T 181/82, ABl. EPA 1984, 401, Nr. 7 der Entscheidungsgründe).
}

T 1100/01 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = The generic term PACE encompassed a large number of possible fragments, variants or analogues of the full- length PACE. A PACE lacking a transmembrane domain was only one out of several possible PACE fragments explicitly mentioned in the application as filed. In accordance with the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, the combination of elements from two or more lists or else from several possible options - a particular PACE fragment (PACE lacking transmembrane domain) with a particular method of exposing the PACE to a precursor polypeptide (co-expression) from the many methods discussed - led to added subject-matter, representing an individualized form, selection or combination that was not disclosed as such in the application as filed. The claimed subject-matter was an artificial combination - in the sense that the three embodiments were not similar and there were pointers to the contrary in relation to combining features - which could not have been contemplated by the skilled person reading the application as filed and which did not solve the problem addressed by the application. Explicit reference was made to decisions T 12/81 of 9. February 1982 (OJ EPO 1982, 296), T 181/82 of 28. February 1984 (OJ EPO 1984, 401), T 7/86 of 16. September 1987 (OJ EPO 1988, 381) and T 694/92 of 8. May 1996 (OJ EPO 1997, 408; in paragraph 24 of the Reasons) of the Boards of Appeal in support of this line of argumentation.
}

T 0944/04 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = However, the conventional way of describing a substance in chemistry is by giving its precise scientific designation, i.e. its name using (standard) chemical nomenclature (cf. T 12/81, OJ EPO 1982, 296, point 5 of the reasons), said chemical name identifying that compound, thereby disclosing it to the public. In the present case this compound was not only identified by its chemical name, but was also actually prepared, it being immaterial for the purposes of prejudice to novelty whether or not the compound was actually isolated, its isolation not being a requirement for making it available to the public.
}

T 0998/04 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = 2.2 According to the constant jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, the disclosure by description in a cited document of the starting substance as well as the reaction process is always prejudicial to novelty of the end-product because those data unalterably establish the end-product (T 12/81, OJ EPO 1982, 296, point 13). In the present case, the burden of proof is upon the Opponent (now Appellant) to establish that a person skilled in the art reproducing the process at issue would inevitably arrive at a composition containing Tizoxanide. Insofar as a party seeks to establish an inevitable result by carrying out a prior published example, which does not itself explicitly disclose the alleged invention, every detail of the prior art example must be duplicated, save for exceptional circumstances where it is not practicable, or not reasonable, to do so (see T 396/89 of 8 August 1991, point 4.5 and T 441/90 of 15 September 1992, point 4.8).
}

T 0635/06 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that subject-matter resulting from a specific combination requiring the selection of elements (e.g. within a document) from at least two lists or generic groups is normally be regarded as novel (see e.g. T 12/81, point 13 of the reasons, OJ EPO 1982, 296, and T 7/86, point 5.1 of the reasons, OJ EPO 1988, 381).
}

T 1194/06 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = It is, however, established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that subject-matter resulting from a specific combination requiring the selection of elements from at least two lists is normally regarded as novel (see e.g. T 12/81, point 13 of the reasons, OJ EPO 1982, 296 or T 7/86, OJ EPO 1988, 381, point 5.1 of the reasons). Applying this principle in the present case, to arrive at each of those individual compounds of claim 7 encompassed by the general disclosure of document (2), several selections are necessary, namely a) R1 is a phenyl group substituted with a substituent selected from R3, b) R2 is a benzyl group, c) p is 2 and d) the quinuclidine ring is substituted in position 3. Even considering the preferred definition for the group NR1R2 on page 7, lines 9-31 and page 8, line 22-23 of document (2), at least two further selections are required to arrive at compounds of claim 7, namely p is equal to 2 and the substitution on the quinuclidine ring is in position 3.
}

T 1753/06 citing T 0012/81:
{
  [1,1] = 9.3 Les requérantes n’ont pas contesté que l’exemple 3D du document (1) ne divulgue pas ce profil spécifique de refroidissement. Ils ont fait valoir que le procédé revendiqué est une invention de sélection et en tant que telle ne satisfait pas aux critères établis par les chambres de recours pour une invention de sélection, en particulier aux critères que la plage de valeurs sélectionnée soit étroite par rapport à la plage de valeur connu et ne soit pas extraite arbitrairement de l’état de la technique. Pour supporter leurs arguments les requérantes ont cité les décisions T 198/84 et T 12/81.
  [1,2] = La décision T 12/81 n’est pas considérée comme pertinente, car elle ne discute pas un procédé, mais la nouveauté d’un composé individualisé, où l’art antérieur divulgue en détail le produit de départ et les conditions réactionnelles de procédé. En outre, le cas d’espèce se distingue des faits à la base de la décision T 198/84 en raison du fait que dans cette décision l’art antérieur mentionnait déjà un domaine numérique relativement grand défini par des valeurs limites (>0 et < 100 moles) et le domaine revendiqué était une sélection limitée de ce domaine connu. Donc, dans la décision T 198/84 il s’agissait d’une sélection d’une plage de valeur limitée à partir de plages de valeurs connues.
}
max. number of citing decisions (10) reached ...