Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventor Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)
    Image
    Patent Academy catalogue

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
Website
cancel
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • The PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa initiative (KT2A)
          • KT2A core activities
          • Success story: Malawi University of Science and Technology and PATLIB Birmingham
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Innovation against cancer
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 0684/98 (High-purity caprolactam/MITSUBISHI) 18-01-2001
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0684/98 (High-purity caprolactam/MITSUBISHI) 18-01-2001

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T068498.20010118
Date of decision
18 January 2001
Case number
T 0684/98
Petition for review of
-
Application number
89106200.2
IPC class
C07D 201/16
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 58.46 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Method for producing high-purity caprolactam

Applicant name
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Opponent name
Allied Signal Inc.
Board
3.3.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 54 1973
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973
Keywords

Insufficiency of disclosure (no) - exceptional failure

Novelty (yes) - claimed subject-matter not directly and unambiguously derivable from prior art

Inventive step (no) - obvious choice of process parameters

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0020/81
T 0435/91
Citing decisions
-

I. The Appellant (Proprietor of the Patent) lodged an appeal on 6 July 1998 against the decision of the Opposition Division posted on 11 May 1998 revoking European patent No. 337 323 and filed on 11 September 1998 a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

II. Notice of Opposition had been filed by the Respondent (Opponent), requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and for lack of sufficient disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC). The following documents were submitted inter alia in opposition proceedings:

(3) US-A-2 813 858

(4) DE-A-1 022 591

(6) Chemical Engineering, 22 February 1982, pages 91 and 92, and Figures 1 to 3 annexed thereto.

III. The decision under appeal was based on two alternative single claims, i.e. as main request on the claim as amended during opposition proceedings and as auxiliary request on the claim as granted.

The Opposition Division decided that the amendment made to the claim according to the then pending main request lacked original disclosure, thus, contravening Article 123(2) EPC. While the subject-matter claimed according to the then pending auxiliary request was novel, it did not involve an inventive step.

The Opposition Division held that the fresh upper limit of the water concentration of 2% in the claim of the main request represented an undue generalisation of the examples. The continuous process claimed according to the auxiliary request was novel over document (3) which disclosed a batch process and did not comprise any explicit disclosure of a continuous process. Starting from document (3) as closest state of the art in the assessment of inventive step the problem underlying the patent in suit was considered to be the provision of a process for the preparation of caprolactam having a decreased water content. That document directed the person skilled in the art to consider a water concentration in the melt, a temperature and a pressure falling within the scope of the then pending claim. Furthermore, going from a batch to a continuous process was conventional in the art, in particular in view of document (4) already describing a continuous process.

IV. At the oral proceedings before the Board, held on 18. January 2001, the Appellant defended the maintenance of the patent in suit in amended form on the basis of a single claim submitted during those oral proceedings superseding any previously submitted request. That claim read as follows:

"1. A method for continuously producing high-purity caprolactam from a mixture comprising a melt of crude caprolactam, which comprises supplying and cooling the mixture in a crystallizer under a reduced pressure by means of latent heat of evaporation, so that the cooling surface is not the wall surface of the crystallizer, but is the liquid surface constituting the mixture, while maintaining the water concentration in the mixture at a predetermined level, to crystallize high-purity caprolactam, and then separating the resulting crystals, characterized in that the mixture is continuously supplied, the water concentration in the mixture is maintained at a level of from 1 to 8 %, the reduced pressure is at a level of from 6.6 to 26.6 mbar (5 to 20 Torr), the temperature for crystallization is within a range of from 30 to 65 C and the crystal is large in size."

V. The Appellant argued with respect to novelty in particular that the claimed process was novel over document (3) since that prior art disclosed a discontinuous, not a continuous process. The numerical indication of specific amounts of caprolactam to be purified revealed the batchwise operation of the process of that state of the art.

Having regard to inventive step, the Appellant submitted that document (4), not document (3), represented the closest state of the art since the former referred to a continuous process, the latter, however, to a batch process. The claimed process provided high purity caprolactam with large crystal size, decreased water content and avoided sticking of the crystals to surfaces coming in contact therewith. The solution to these problems proposed by the patent in suit was neither disclosed nor suggested by the state of the art cited in the proceedings, in particular documents (3) and (4). Moreover, it was not to be expected that the water content in the crystals varied with the water content in the starting solution, hence rendering the claimed subject-matter inventive. Furthermore, the crystals obtained by the claimed process contained water occluded in the crystals as shown in the fresh document

(8) Journal of Crystal Growth, Vol. 177, pages 119 to 124 (1997).

In respect of the insufficiency of disclosure objected to by the Respondent for the reason that the claim embraced areas that could not operate, the Appellant argued that according to the continuous process of the present invention the cooling was carried out by reduced pressure in a non-equilibrium state. Therefore the Respondent's theory based on an equilibrium state of a batch process was not applicable in the present case. Furthermore the onus of proof for non-operability of the claimed process rested on the Respondent.

VI. The Respondent argued having regard to novelty that document (3) disclosed a continuous process since this was the only sensible way of conducting the multistage cyclic process specified by the flow diagram and of interpreting the indication to commercial scale installations.

In respect of inventive step, document (3) represented the closest prior art since it was the closest as regards its specific teaching and as regards its objectives, namely optimizing crystal size and purity and reducing the amount of entrained liquor. The evaporation cooling avoided sticking of the crystals at contact surfaces. The water content in the crystals prepared by the claimed process was roughly proportional to the amount of water present in the system during processing which was suggested to be small following the teaching of the table at column 4 of document (3).

With respect to the insufficiency of the disclosure, the Respondent argued that the claim embraced process conditions that could not operate successfully. Furthermore, the patent in suit gave no guidance on how to choose the water concentration, the temperature and the pressure in order to arrive at crystals being large in size.

VII. The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the claim submitted at the oral proceedings on 18. January 2001.

The Respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed.

VIII. At the end of the oral proceedings the decision of the Board was given orally.

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Amendments (Article 123 EPC)

In the claim the fresh feature of cooling "by means of latent heat of evaporation, so that the cooling surface is not the wall surface of the crystallizer, but is the liquid surface constituting the mixture" finds support on page 4, lines 18, 19 and 22 to 24 of the application as filed. Therefore the amendment made to the claim as granted complies with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

That amendment of the claim as granted brings about a restriction of the scope of that claim, and therefore of the protection conferred thereby, which is in keeping with the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC.

3. Insufficiency of disclosure of the invention (Article 100(b) EPC)

3.1. The Respondent argued that the claim embraced process conditions that could not operate successfully. Thus, the claim covered a water concentration down to the lower limit of 1% and a pressure up to the upper limit of 26.6 mbar (20 Torr). However, according to Figure 3 of document (6), which is a phase diagram of the vapour pressure of saturated lactam solutions versus the weight percentage of water therein, the claimed process was not feasible when operating at a water concentration of 1% and a pressure of 20 Torr. The Appellant challenged the validity of that diagram in the oral proceedings before the Board and indicated that the Respondent's objection referred to the borderline of the present invention which did not remove the feasibility of the whole process claimed.

The phase diagram of Figure 3 may be interpreted indeed to indicate that the process of the patent in suit is inoperational exclusively at the particular water concentration of 1% and the particular pressure of about 15 to 20 Torr. Even assuming the validity thereof for the present case, the Respondent's objection is not convincing. It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that the disclosure of an invention is sufficient if the skilled person can reasonably expect that substantially all embodiments of the claimed invention can be put into practice. Exceptional failures can be tolerated (see decison T 435/91, OJ EPO 1995, 188, point 2.2.3 of the reasons). In the present case, the Respondent did not challenge that substantially all embodiments of the claimed invention could be carried out by the skilled person. The inability to operate the claimed process at the particular combination of a water concentration of 1% and a pressure of 20 Torr objected to by the Respondent is in fact an isolated failure just at the combined limits of respective ranges claimed which, hence, does not impair the sufficiency of the disclosure of the present invention.

3.2. Furthermore the Respondent objected that the patent in suit gave no guidance on how to choose the three parameters water concentration, temperature and pressure in the claimed process in order to arrive at crystals being large in size.

However, the claimed invention specifies for each of those three parameters a particular range wherein the water concentration, the pressure and the temperature is to be selected. Moreover the patent in suit comprises several examples giving the skilled person detailed guidance on how to operate the invention. Additionally, the common general knowledge found inter alia in the phase diagram of Figure 3 in document (6) addressed by the Respondent gives the skilled person a clear indication about the interrelationship of pressure and water concentration. Furthermore, a particular selection of the values for those three parameters is a matter of routine trial and error experiments for the skilled person thereby arriving at successfully reproducing the claimed invention. The Respondent neither submitted nor provided any evidence that the skilled person would encounter serious difficulties when doing so, let alone that an undue burden was associated therewith. For these reasons, the Respondent's argument cannot convince the Board.

3.3. Consequently, the Respondent's challenge of the sufficiency of the disclosure of the patent in suit under Article 100(b) EPC is rejected.

4. Novelty

4.1. The Respondent challenged the novelty of the claimed invention exclusively with regard to document (3), not relying on any further document cited so far in the proceedings. Therefore, the Board limits its detailed considerations with respect to novelty to that document.

4.2. Document (3) is directed to a process for purifying caprolactam which comprises partially freezing molten caprolactam by evaporating water therefrom (claims 1 and 5). That process is exemplified in example 4 at column 8, lines 62 and following. At column 8, line 63, column 9, lines 50 and 75 and column 10, lines 7 and 19 it specifies numerically the quantity in parts by weight of caprolactam to be purified in that process, hence indicating the discontinuous operation of that process. The claimed process, however, is operated continuously.

4.3. While conceding the above finding, the Respondent argued that document (3) disclosed also the continuous operation of that process since this was the only sensible way of conducting the multistage cyclic process specified by the flow diagram and of interpreting the indication to commercial scale installations.

The flow diagram referred to is silent about whether to operate the process continuously or discontinuously; from a technical point of view it fits both operating possibilities. However, that flow diagram is explained in more detail at column 3, lines 6 to 9 indicating that it reflects a preferred multistage cyclic method described in detail in example 4. That example 4, however, discloses a discontinuous operation of the process as set out in point 4.2 above in detail. The term "cyclic" has the sole technical meaning of recycling product(s) in that process whether operated continuously or discontinuously. The reference to commercial scale installations at column 2, line 59 does not give any information about how to operate the process since both discontinuous and continuous operations are conventional in the art on a commercial scale.

According to established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal a document does not disclose a specific technical feature if it does not, for the skilled person, emerge clearly and unambiguously from that document. Applying that principle in the present case results in the conclusion that document (3) does not disclose clearly and unambiguously the continuous operation of the purification process with the consequence that it is not detrimental to the novelty of the process claimed.

4.4. To summarize, in the Board's judgement, document (3) does not anticipate the claimed invention. Therefore the Board concludes that the subject-matter of the claim is novel within the meaning of Articles 52(1) and 54. EPC.

5. Inventive step

5.1. According to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal it is necessary, in order to assess inventive step, to establish the closest state of the art, to determine in the light thereof the technical problem which the invention addresses and successfully solves, and to examine the obviousness of the claimed solution to this problem in view of the state of the art. This "problem-solution approach" ensures assessing inventive step on an objective basis and avoids an ex post facto analysis.

5.2. The patent in suit is directed to a method for continuously producing high-purity caprolactam from a melt of crude caprolactam which comprises cooling under reduced pressure by means of latent heat of evaporation. In relation to that particular process, a selection among the documents cited in the proceedings must be made as to which one is to be considered as the closest prior art. The Appellant and the Respondent concurred that this selection was to be made among either document (4) or document (3), since those documents referred to a purification process for caprolactam. However, the parties had divergent views on the matter which of those documents should be treated as the closest prior art.

While document (4) is directed to a continuous process, as is the patent in suit, document (3) refers to a batch, i.e. discontinuous, process. Since continuous and batch processes are two different types of operation requiring engineering distinct from one another, the discontinuous process described in document (3) is further away from the claimed invention than the continuous process of document (4).

Thus, the Board considers, in agreement with the Appellant, that in the present case document (4) represents the closest state of the art and, hence, takes it as the starting point when assessing inventive step.

5.3. Document (4) describes a continuous process (column 3, line 68) for the purification of a melt of crude aqueous caprolactam by cooling, which may be achieved directly or indirectly. The direct cooling is achieved by means of latent heat of evaporation by applying a vacuum to the crude caprolactam to evaporate water contained therein and to dissipate the heat of crystallisation (column 3, lines 10 to 13; claim 2). A reduced pressure of 18 Torr for that vacuum is exemplified (column 4, line 37). The temperature of below 50 C is suitable for the process (column 3, line 18). The lactam concentration is preferably between 75 to 95%, which means vice versa a water concentration of about 5 to 25%. A water concentration of 7,5% is exemplified (Column 4, line 10). That process results in caprolactams of high purity, of large crystal size and of low water content (column 3, lines 22 to 26 and 53 to 60; example 3, column 4, line 48).

5.4. In view of this closest state of the art, the Appellant submitted at the oral proceedings before the Board that the problem underlying the patent in suit consists in providing a purification process resulting in a caprolactam of high purity having a large crystal size, in lowering the water content thereof and in avoiding the sticking of the caprolactam crystals on surfaces coming in contact therewith.

The Respondent never disputed that the claimed process successfully achieves a caprolactam of high purity and of large crystal size, and avoids the sticking thereof on surfaces coming in contact therewith; and the Board is not aware of any reason for challenging this finding. However, the Appellant and the Respondent were divided on the matter whether or not the purported improvement of decreasing the water content in the resulting caprolactam crystals is successfully achieved by the claimed process vis-a-vis document (4). To this end the Appellant compared the water content of the caprolactams prepared in examples 1 to 3 of the patent in suit on the one hand with that of the caprolactam prepared in example 3 of document (4) on the other, in both cases the water content resulting after centrifugation. However, the way how the centrifugation step is operated is decisive for the aqueous mother liquor retained on the surface of and in between the crystals and, thus, has a strong impact on the water content thereof. Due to the complete lack of information in the patent in suit as well as in document (4) about the operation characteristics of the centrifugation step, the comparison made by the Appellant is unfair and cannot support the alleged fact that an improved, i.e. lowered, water content is achieved by the claimed invention.

According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, alleged but unsupported advantages cannot be taken into consideration in respect of the determination of the problem underlying the claimed invention (see e.g. decision T 20/81, OJ EPO 1982, 217, point 3, last paragraph of the reasons). Since in the present case the alleged advantage, i.e. lowering the water content, lacks the required adequate support, the technical problem as defined above needs reformulation.

Thus, the objective problem underlying the patent in suit can only be seen in providing a purification process resulting in a caprolactam of high purity having a large crystal size and low water content and in avoiding the sticking of the caprolactam crystals on surfaces coming in contact therewith.

5.5. As the solution to this problem, the patent in suit proposes a continuous process for purifying crude caprolactam which is characterised in that the water concentration is maintained at a level of 1 to 8% and the cooling is achieved under a reduced pressure of 5 to 20 Torr by means of latent heat of evaporation at a temperature of 30 to 65 C.

5.6. Finally, it remains to decide whether or not the proposed solution to the objective problem underlying the patent in suit is obvious in view of the state of the art.

5.6.1. The closest prior art document (4) used as starting point describes a purification process offering both direct and indirect cooling. Document (3) referring also to a process for purifying crude caprolactam addresses the aspect of the problem underlying the patent in suit of avoiding the sticking of the caprolactam crystals on surfaces coming in contact therewith (column 5, lines 65 to 68). As the solution to this problem that document teaches at column 5, line 65 to apply "evaporative freezing methods", i.e. the direct cooling of document (4) by means of latent heat of evaporation. Thus, document (3) gives a clear incentive to choose the direct cooling method described in the closest prior art document (4) in order to avoid the sticking of the caprolactam crystals on surfaces coming in contact therewith which is the solution proposed by the claimed process.

5.6.2. With respect to the aspect of the problem underlying the patent in suit of providing a purification process resulting in a caprolactam having low water content, the Appellant and the Respondent concurred on the matter that the person skilled in the art is well aware of the fact that the water content consists of two components, namely the aqueous mother liquor retained on the surface of and in between the crystals, and that occluded within the crystals. The Appellant, referring to document (8), and the Respondent, however, were divided on the matter which of the two components had the most impact on the overall water content of the resulting caprolactam. However, a decision on this point is unnecessary since it is irrelevant in the present case as shown below.

Document (3) gives a hint on how to keep low the water content which results from the aqueous mother liquor occluded in the purified caprolactam crystals. At column 4, lines 35, 42 and 43 it teaches that the "DF/DM ratio" should be preferably 4 or above in order to "avoid solvent occlusion". According to the table at that column 4 of document (3) the "DF/DM ratio" is reciprocally proportional to the water concentration in the melt of the crude caprolactam, e.g. the "DF/DM ratio" of 5.3 or 5.75 corresponds to a water concentration of 4.8 or 2.4%, respectively, thus hinting at maintaining a low water concentration therein. Having regard to the water content of the purified caprolactam crystals resulting from the aqueous mother liquor retained on the surface of and in between the crystals, the person skilled in the art is well aware that it is proportional to the amount of water present in the system during processing, i.e. that a low water concentration in the melt of the crude caprolactam necessarily results in a low water content of the caprolactam crystals, thus, also hinting at maintaining a low water concentration.

Thus, to keep low the water content of the purified caprolactam crystals, document (3) gives a clear incentive to choose a low water concentration of the melt of crude caprolactam within the range described in the closest prior art document (4) which is generally at least 5%, 7,5% being exemplified, which is within the water concentration range of 1 to 8% specified in the claimed process, i.e the solution suggested by the patent in suit.

5.6.3. The problem underlying the patent in suit of providing a purification process resulting in a caprolactam of high purity having a large crystal size has already been solved by the process described in document (4) operating generally at a temperature of below 50 C which lies within the claimed range of 30 to 65 C and at a reduced pressure of e.g. 18 Torr, which is within the claimed range of 5 to 20 Torr. Thus, these features cannot provide the claimed process with any inventive ingenuity, which was not disputed by the Appellant.

5.6.4. The Board concludes from the above that the state of the art, in particular documents (4) and (3), gives the person skilled in the art concrete incentives on how to solve the objective problem underlying the patent in suit as defined in the above point 5.4, last paragraph, namely by maintaining the water concentration at a level such as now claimed and by cooling by means of latent heat of evaporation at a temperature and a reduced pressure at values encompassed by the claimed ranges, thus arriving at the process of the claimed invention without involving any inventive activity.

5.7. Therefore, in the Board's judgement, the subject-matter of the claim represents an obvious solution to the problem underlying the patent in suit.

6. As a result, the Appellant's request is not allowable as the subject-matter of the claim lacks inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility