T 0275/86 03-10-1990

1. The appeals comply with Articles 106-108 and Rule 64 EPC and are, therefore, admissible. In relation to the missing notice of appeal it is observed that the completed "Abbuchungsauftrag" (EPO Form 4212 05.80), which was received within two months after the date of notification of the decision of the Opposition Division, contains essentially the same information that is required in a notice of appeal in the sense of Rule 64 EPC, i.e. name and address of the Appellant, the number of the patent to identify the decision which is impugned and that the purpose of the payment is to pay the fee for the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of Appellant OII is also considered to be admissible.

2. The only issue to be dealt with is whether the subject- matter of Claim 1 involves an inventive step as required by Article 56 EPC.

2.1. Considering the prior art documents cited during the proceedings, it is the Board's opinion that document (10) represents the closest state of the art.

This document discloses a solid detergent bleach composition comprising a detergent active compound, a bleaching agent, which is effective at temperatures from about 30°C up to boiling, comprising an organic peroxy acid and an inorganic peroxy compound generating hydrogen peroxide in solution and optionally a sequestering builder, such as a salt of ethane-1-hydroxy-1,1- diphosphonic acid (EHDP) (see Claim 1; page 1, lines 33-42 and lines 59 to 64; page 3, lines 77-120; page 4, lines 116-121; and page 5, lines 22-31). However, the bleaching action of these prior art combinations was considered not to be entirely satisfactory, particularly at lower temperatures.

2.2. In the light of this closest state of the art, the technical problem underlying the subject patent may be seen in providing detergent bleach compositions having an improved bleaching efficiency at substantially all washing temperatures and, in particular, at lower temperatures.

2.3. According to Claim 1 of the subject patent, this technical problem is solved by the specific selection of stabilising sequestering agents as defined in the characterising part of Claim 1 (component (d)).

In view of the examples, the comparative examples and the results filed on 26 June 1987 and 21 February 1989, the Board is satisfied that the above technical problem is solved. Moreover, the Appellants did not deny that the stabilising sequestering agents have a positive effect on the bleaching action of components (b) and (c).

2.4. The Respondent defended the inventive step by arguing that it was not obvious to a skilled person to start from a composition containing a bleaching agent which comprises an organic peroxy acid (component (b)) and an inorganic peroxy compound (component (c)) if a detergent composition having an improved bleaching action, in particular, in the lower temperature range, i.e. at those temperatures whereby substantially the organic peroxy acid develops the bleaching activity, is desired, because it is indicated in document (10) that a bleaching agent comprising components (b) and (c) shows less bleaching activity than a bleaching agent comprising component (b) alone, and document (10) only concretely discloses compositions containing bleaching agents which comprise precursors of component (b) and components (c).

2.5. In the Board's view, this argumentation cannot be accepted for the following reasons:

It is true that document (10) discloses that a bleaching agent comprising components (b) and (c) provides slightly less bleaching action than an equivalent amount of (b) alone, nevertheless, this combination is stated to be a preferred bleaching agent because it provides considerably more bleaching action in domestic laundering conditions than component (c) alone and because the tendency of the low temperature active components (b) to cause some overall fading of colours is reduced by the presence of component (c) (cf. page 3, lines 92-108).

Furthermore, document (10) not only discloses the combination of components (b) and (c) as a preferred bleaching agent in a solid detergent composition, but it also indicates the preferred ratio of the components, suitable examples of both components, and the properties of the combination (see page 3, lines 78-108 and Claim 22).

Therefore, in the Board's judgement, even in the absence of specific examples, a solid detergent bleach composition containing such a bleaching agent forms part of the state of the art and may be considered by a skilled person to be a suitable starting point for the development of detergent bleach compositions providing an improved bleaching action.

2.6. It was also argued by the Respondents that the claimed subject-matter was not obvious, since it was surprising that the use of a stabilising sequestering agent (d) as defined in Claim 1 in a detergent bleach composition according to document (10), i.e. containing components (b) and (c), provides a better bleaching action.

2.7. However, in the Board's judgement, the use of a stabilising sequestering agent (d), e.g. ethylene diamine tetra(methylene phosphonic acid) (EDTMP), does not involve an inventive step in the view of the teaching in documents (5) and (b) (which is the priority document of (5)).

These documents disclose that stabilising sequestering agents, such as EHDP (which is indicated in document (10) as an optional component), are necessary in detergent bleach compositions containing bleach components of type (c) to prevent damage to textiles during washing (see document (5), page 1, lines 9-35 and document (b), page 2, lines 6 to 27). Furthermore, it is disclosed that compositions containing the stabilising sequestering agent EDTMP (or its salts) falling under the scope of component (d) and sodium perborate (c) show better bleaching properties than similar compositions containing known stabilising agents, e.g. EHDP and EDTA, in particular an improved bleaching action (cf. document B, the column headed % BE AFTER 1 WASH in the Table on page 6) and a reduced fabric damage (cf. the column headed LOSS IN TENSILE STRENGTH AFTER 40 WASHES in Table I of document (5)).

It is true that the improvement of these bleaching properties as disclosed in documents (5) and (b) have only been shown in relation to bleaching component (c) alone.

However, it is clearly indicated in document (5) (cf. page 2, lines 19 to 25) that the invention as disclosed therein also contemplates the use of bleaching components of type (b) which are known (see e.g. document (10), page 1, lines 32-58) to develop their bleaching activity at lower temperatures.

Furthermore, document (14) discloses that a combination of components (b) and (d) enhance bleaching performance at all washing temperatures (see Claims 1, 8, 9 and 10; and page 1, lines 11-15).

Therefore, in the Board's judgement, documents 5, B and 14 clearly teach that stabilising sequestering agents corresponding to component (d) of the present compositions improve the bleaching performance of both organic peroxy acids (component (b)) and inorganic peroxy compounds generating hydrogen peroxide in solution (component (c)). Thus, the combined teaching of documents 5, B and 14 would provide the skilled person, faced with the problem of improving the bleaching action of the compositions disclosed in document (10), with the incentive to use stabilising sequestering agents falling within the terms of the definition in the present Claim 1.

Moreover, it is credibly demonstrated in the tests filed on 17 November 1986 by Appellant OII that the effect of component (d) on a combination of components (b) and (c) is not synergistic as suggested in the subject patent (see page 2, lines 33 to 35). The results for the combination b + c + d are those that the skilled person would have expected from those obtained for the combinations (b) + (d) and (c) + (d), i.e. the combinations disclosed in documents (5), (b) and (14).

Additionally, the results of Example II and III of the disputed patent and those reported in the Respondents' letters of 26 June 1987 and 21 February 1989 are unsuitable to substantiate the allegation that a mixture of components (b) + (c) + (d) is synergistic.

2.8. Therefore, the subject-matter of Claim 1 does not involve the required inventive step (Article 52(1) and 56 EPC). In this connection it is observed that the ratios of the components as indicated in Claim 1 would be obvious to a skilled person since they are essentially disclosed in document (10) (cf. the ratio of components (b) and (c) on page 3, lines 96-100); and in document (5) (cf. the amount of the stabiliser (d) as indicated on page 2, lines 44-46).

3. Dependent Claims 2-4 relate to preferred embodiments of the compositions in accordance with Claim 1. It was not argued that these claims contain any independent features, nor can any such features be recognised. Therefore, these claims are unacceptable in the absence of an allowable main claim.