Friday, August 28, 2015 T 1273/11 - Provoking appeal

Of interest in this opposition appeal is the request of the respondent that his costs are to be apportioned to the appellant as, according to the respondent, the costs related to the present appeal have been deliberately provoked by the appellant because he withheld relevant material from the first instance proceedings, and therefore prevented the opposition division from taking a complete decision encompassing also this material.

Of further interest is the Board deciding on admissibility of late filed requests, which according to the respondent should be admitted since they are a reaction to the communication of the Board and have been submitted timely before the oral proceedings, such that the appellant had enough time to do a search and prepare for discussing them.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (opponent) lodged an appeal against the decision rejecting the opposition against European patent EP-B-1 474 347, and requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

He also submitted further written evidence and offered two new witnesses.

II. The respondent (patent proprietor) requested that the appeal be dismissed, alternatively, that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained on the basis of any of the auxiliary requests 1 to 4, filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, or on the basis of any of the auxiliary requests 5 or 6, filed with the letter dated 23 June 2015.

Additionally the respondent requested not to admit the new evidence submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal, and that his costs be apportioned to the appellant.

Thursday, April 09, 2015 T 0972/13 - Costly absence

The decision is in German. Here first a short part is roughly translated into English.
The appellant does not turn up at oral proceedings, having announced before 'not to be represented'. Since this left open that the appellant would turn up himself, the responded had to prepare the case an turn up.This contributed to costs being awarded to the respondent. 

The appellant (patentee) has appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division, in which the European patent no. 1,127,712 had been revoked. The appellant and respondent II (Opponent 2) had requested oral proceedings.In the summons to the oral proceedings, the Board gives its preliminary opinion that the appeal of appellant is inadmissible. According to the Board the appeal boils down to the mere assertion that the contested decision is not right, without mentioning the legal or factual reasons why the decision should be repealed. This leaves it to the Board and Respondent to speculate about the extent to which appellant could view the contested decision to be defective. This is exactly what the filing of a statement of grounds should prevent.By letter, the appellant had announced that they would not be represented at the oral proceedings. But such an announcement leaves open the question whether the complainant would not actually be present. In exercising its responsibility for the duty of care to their client, the representative of the Respondent II was therefore forced to prepare and be present at the hearing for the simple reason that the appellant might still turn up. Reasons for the Decision1. AdmissibilityThe appellant has not responded to the preliminary opinion of the Board an did not participate in the oral proceedings.Even after a review of their preliminary opinion, the Board sees no reason to deviate from it. Since the statement of grounds does not state the legal nor the factual grounds for overturning the decision, it does not meet the requirements of Rule 99 (2) EPC and is in accordance with Rule 101 (1) EPC to be rejected as inadmissible.2. Request for ReimbursementAccording to Article 104 (1) EPC in opposition proceedings each party bears their won costs. This is also true in opposition appeal proceedings. However, reimbursement would be considered, if it is equitable. This is the case where a party has been lacking in the necessary care and consideration in the process procedure and therefore has caused the other party costs that could easily have been avoided without compromising their own legal position.By letter dated 12 December 2014, the appellant complainant has announced that they would not be represented at the hearing on 28 January 2015. Such announcement leaves open, however, whether the complainant herself will actually be present or holds open still to appear.In exercising its responsibility for the duty of care to their client the representatives of the Respondent II have been thus forced to prepare and to be present at the hearing, to avoid the case that the appellant would still occur.To prevent this, the appellant would have been able to withdraw their request for oral proceedings without further ado, what she did not do. Thus, it is equitable that the appellant bears the costs of respondent II  incurred by participating in the hearing (Article 104 (1) EPC).

For these reasons it is decided:1. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.2. The appellant shall bear the costs incurred by Respondent II by participating in the oral proceedings of January 28, 2015

In the original German text:

Friday, February 27, 2015 T 236/12 - Scope of protection extended by fax

Scope of protection extended by fax

This case concerns an opposition appeal. Both appellants appealed against the decision from the Opposition Division to maintain European Patent Nr. 1 728 658 in amended form.

During the examination proceedings, the original drawings (which were faxed, and thus of sub-optimal quality) were replaced by better quality drawings showing more constructional details. During the opposition proceedings, the European Patent was maintained in amended form, incorporating the drawings as originally filed (presumably to comply with Art. 123(2)).

The appellants now argue violation of Art. 123(3) EPC, with the reasoning being essentially the following: the claims are not clear (Art. 84), and the skilled person would thus have to consult the drawings (Art. 69(1)) which - by having a sub-optimal quality - omit constructional details present in the patent as granted. The skilled person may thus arrive at embodiments other than those following from the patent as granted. The protection conferred by the European Patent is therefore extended.

There appear thus to be all the ingredients of an Art. 123(2) - Art 123(3) trap.

The appellants further request a different apportionment of costs in accordance with Art. 104(1).

As reason given is the complexity of the preparation for the argumentation supporting the Art. 123(3) violation. Those costs could have been prevented if the proprietor did not at the beginning of oral proceeding request to maintain the patent based on the drawings as originally filed. 

Friday, January 23, 2015 1754/11: A fabric finished with a "mixture"

This appeal lies from a decision of the Opposition Division. There was an earlier appeal T0681/01 in this case. In decision T0681/01 the then pending third auxiliary request was remitted to the Opposition Division to decide on the issue of novelty over alleged prior use and the issue of inventive step. The Opposition Division decided to maintain the patent in accordance with the claims of the then pending main request, which are equal to the above mentioned third auxiliary request. Opponents 1 and 2 filed the appeal.
As the result of the submissions of the Appellants and the Respondent (patent owner) the
Board had to interpret the main claim, in particular the term "mixture". Also, the Board decided on inventive step and "for the sake of completeness" the Board discussed two inventive step approaches which each start from a different closest prior art.
The decision comprises also many other interesting points, like the admissibility of alleged public prior use and the apportionment of costs.  For those subjects, the interested reader is referred to the full text of the decision.

Summary of Facts and Submissions
 
(...) 

IV. Claim 1 according to said third auxiliary request reads as follows:"1. A pleated blind or roller shade comprising a fabric material having a first finish on a first side and a second finish on a second pearlescent side; said first finish comprising a mixture including a first pigment having a first particle size and said second finish comprising a mixture including said first pigment and a second, light reflective pearlescent pigment having a second particle size; said second particle size being larger than said first particle size; the particles of the first pigment being capable of permeating said fabric, whereas the particles of the second pigment remain substantially on the second side, and said second side of said fabric having substantially the same colour as said first side.".

Dependent claims 2 to 7 according to said request relate to specific embodiments of the pleated blind or roller shade of claim 1.

(...)

The Opposition Division decided, inter alia,
- to admit documents D7 and D11 despite their belated filing,
- not to admit documents E20 to E25 in view of their very late filing, their lack of prima facie relevance and their lack of completeness, in the sense that they did not prove up to the hilt the alleged public prior use of a fabric according to sample E5;
- that the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" belonged to the prior art under Article 54(2) EPC;
- that, however, the public prior use of the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" was not novelty destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1 at issue since said fabric did not comprise a second finish on the second side containing a mixture of pigment particles as required by claim 1;
- moreover, the claimed subject-matter was inventive with regard to the public prior uses of the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" and of fabrics for shower curtains corresponding to those of samples E3 and E4;
- hence the claimed subject-matter was novel and involved an inventive step over the cited prior art.
The Opposition Division also considered that the second oral proceedings of 1 April 2011 had to be held because of the late filing by Opponent 01 of documents E20 to E25, but that "no voluntary abuse of the proceedings was intended" by Opponent 01. Hence, for reasons of equity, the Opposition Division decided an apportionment to Opponent 01 of 70% of the costs endured by the Patent Proprietor in connection with the second oral proceedings of 1 April 2011.

VI. Appellants 01 and 02 (Opponents 01 and 02) submitted in their statements of grounds of appeal that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty or at least inventive step in view of the alleged prior uses.
In particular they invoked :
- lack of novelty over the alleged public prior use of a fabric according to sample E5;
- lack of novelty or inventive step over the alleged public prior use of a fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" and of other Louver-Lite SPC fabrics mentioned in exhibit SWB1; and
- lack of inventive step starting from the public prior uses of a fabric according to samples E3 or E4.
Appellant 02 also submitted as further evidence inter alia
D14: Declaration by Mr. Barratt dated 14 October 2011 including exhibits BLB3 to BLB5;
D15: Extracts from the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, fourth edition 2000, page 364, relating to the definition of "mixture"; and
D16: Printout (11/10/2011) of four web pages (1/4 to 4/4) from the Online Free Dictionary, relating to the definition of "mixture".
Appellant 01 also contested the decision on apportionment of costs.

VII. The Respondent (Patent Proprietor) re-submitted with its reply of 2 March 2012 the sets of claims (labelled "main request claims - filed 23 January 2009") held allowable by the Opposition Division, and also filed further sets of amended claims as auxiliary claim requests 1 to 11. It contested also the admissibility of documents that had been filed belatedly during the opposition and appeal proceedings by the Appellants and maintained that the claimed subject-matter was novel and inventive over the cited prior art. Moreover, it also contested the decision on apportionment of costs.

(...)
Reasons for the Decision
 
(...) 

Respondent's main request - Construction of claim 1

1. Interpretation of the term "mixture" in claim 1

1.1 Claim 1 concerns a "pleated blind or roller shade comprising a fabric material having a first finish comprising a first pigment on a first side and a second finish on the second pearlescent side". As regards said second finish the wording of the claim requires that it comprises "a mixture including said first pigment and a second, light reflective pearlescent pigment".
As regards the meaning to be given to the term "mixture" within the context of claim 1 there was no agreement among the parties. Therefore, the Board must decide which is the proper meaning of this term in the context of claim 1, in order to establish the breadth of the claim to be considered in the assessment of novelty and inventive step.

1.2 It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO that claims should be read giving the words the meaning and scope which they normally have in the relevant art unless the description gives the words a special meaning by explicit definition (see e.g. decision T 620/08, point 3.8 of the reasons).

1.3 It is undisputed that in the present case there is no explicit indication in the description of the patent in suit of any such special meaning to be attributed to the term "mixture" within the context of claim 1. Therefore, the term "mixture" has in the present case the meaning and scope that it normally has in the relevant art.

1.4 The Board agrees in this respect that dictionaries containing definitions for the term "mixture", as illustrated in documents D15 and D16, are a suitable basis for the correct interpretation of this term within the context of claim 1 insofar as the definitions are applicable to the specific technical field, which is the chemical technical field of pigment comprising compositions.

1.4.1 The Board remarks also that the admissibility of D15 and D16 was not contested by the Respondent (see point IX supra) despite their late filing. The Board has also no reason for disputing their admissibility.

1.4.2 Moreover, even though the filed pages of D15 and D16 relate to versions of dictionaries published after the priority date claimed by the patent in suit, it was not disputed that the definitions contained therein were already applicable at said priority date.

1.4.3 D15 is an excerpt from a chemical dictionary and defines a "mixture" as "a system of two or more distinct chemical substances" and specifies that there exist "homogenous mixtures...in which the atoms or molecules are interspersed" and "heterogenous mixtures which have distinguishable phases".

1.4.4 D16 is a collection of excerpts from various dictionaries. The definitions of the term "mixture", which are at first sight applicable also to the chemical technical field of pigments are the following:
- "1.a. The act or process of mixing: An alloy made from the mixture of two metals;
and
"5. Chemistry A composition of two or more substances that are not chemically combined with each other and are capable of being separated"
(excerpt from "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language", page 1 of D16);
- "1. the act of mixing or state of being mixed;
and
"3. (Chemistry) Chem A substance consisting of two or more substances mixed together without any chemical bonding between them"
(excerpt from "Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged", page 1 of D16);
- "A composition of two or more substances that are not chemically combined with each other and are capable of being separated"
(excerpt from "The American Heritage Science Dictionary" page 1 of D16);
- "(chemistry) a substance consisting of two or more substances mixed together (not in fixed proportions and not with chemical bonding)"
(excerpt from "Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection", page 2 of D16).
From the definitions listed above it can thus consistently be derived that the term "mixture" indicates normally in the chemical technical field a homogenous or heterogenous system formed by mixing together two chemical entities which do not bind chemically with each other.

1.5 Appellant 02 invoked inter alia the following special definition:
"lamellar mixture - a mixture in which substances occur in distinct layers"
(excerpt from "Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection", page 2 of D16).

1.5.1 However, it is clear for the Board that this definition concerns a very specific system occurring only under particular circumstances, which system would always be referred to in the relevant art as "lamellar mixture" and not simply as "mixture". Hence, this definition cannot be considered to represent the normal meaning that a skilled person would apply to the term "mixture" in the relevant art, let alone in the context of claim 1.

1.5.2 The Board remarks in particular that the wording of claim 1 requires said first pigment particles and said second pearlescent pigment particles to be present in a "mixture" comprised in one and the same finish.
Therefore, the Board concludes that the wording of claim 1 does clearly not encompass, on a proper interpretation, a mixture wherein said two types of pigments particles are not contained in the same layer but in different layers.

1.5.3 Consequently, a fabric comprising on one side a coloured first pigment and a pearlescent pigment in different layers, wherein both pigments are, in combination, responsible for the visual colour effect perceived by the observer on said side of the fabric, does not, for the Board, meet the criterion of claim 1 at issue, which requires instead two individual types of pigment particles mixed together in one and the same finish composition.

1.6 As regards the Appellants' submission that the "mixture" according to claim 1 at issue would also encompass embodiments wherein the pearlescent pigment comprises a coating consisting of a first pigment of smaller particle size, the Board remarks that such an interpretation is also not in agreement with the normal meaning to be given to the term "mixture" as set out above.

1.6.1 In such a case the pearlescent pigment is coated onto the particles of the first pigment but not "mixed" with the first pigment.

1.6.2 Moreover, the fact that at a microscopic level some admixing of the first pigment with the pearlescent pigment could anyway occur is irrelevant since the coating is an integral part of the pearlescent pigment and a pearlescent pigment comprising a coating is, on a proper interpretation, also clearly distinct from a mixture of a first pigment and a second pearlescent pigment.

1.6.3 This is confirmed by the use of the term "pearlescent pigment" in the prior art as, for example, shown in the brochure BLB3, submitted by Appellant 02 with the declaration D14, concerning the commercially available pearlescent pigments of the Iriodin® series, consisting of mica coated with titanium dioxide. This document reads, in fact, on page 2: "The mica serves as a carrier for the transparent titanium dioxide layer, which is solely responsible for the pearl lustre".

1.7 Therefore, the Board accepts the argument of the Respondent that a "mixture" of a first pigment with a pearlescent pigment in the sense of claim 1 must be understood to concern a composition comprising two types of distinct, individual pigments particles of different particle size mixed together (as opposed to one particle type coating the particles of the other type) within said finish composition without formation of any chemical bond between them.

Respondent's main request - Novelty and inventive step

2. Objections and evidence

2.1 Allegation of prior use relying on sample E5

(...)

2.1.2 The Board also sees no reason for calling into question the finding decision of the Opposition Division that said allegation of public prior does not meet the strict standard of proof applicable. Hence, this alleged prior use is not further considered as prior art in the following reasons.

2.2 Public prior uses of fabrics according to samples E3 and E4

(...)
2.2.2 These fabrics may thus be taken into consideration as prior art in the assessment of inventive step.

2.3 Alleged public prior uses of SPC fabrics

(...)


2.3.4 Therefore, in the following, the prior uses based on SPC fabrics are all dealt with by referring to the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" only.

3. Novelty

3.1 As confirmed by Appellant 02 at the oral proceedings, the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru", which can be used in a roller blind or shade as disclosed in SWB1 (see e.g. page 3, section Solar Protective Coating (SPC); section "Shades of Perfection"; sub-section "Roller Blinds" and Figure; Table on page 4), comprises a dyed fabric material containing a first pigment permeating the fabric, an intermediate heat-sealable layer coated on one side of the dyed fabric and a white layer of titanium dioxide coated mica (a pearlescent pigment) as outer layer on the heat-sealable layer.

3.2 Based on its interpretation of the term "mixture" as used in claim 1 (point 1.7 supra), the Board concludes that this SPC fabric does not contain on a second side a finish comprising a "mixture" of a pearlescent pigment and a first pigment of smaller particle size.

3.3 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 and, consequently, of claim 2 to 7 dependent thereon, is novel over a roller blind comprising the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" or any other SPC fabric made available to the public by prior use.

3.4 Since no other prior art was cited against the novelty of claim 1 according to the main request (see point XI supra), the Board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 and, consequently, that of claims 2 to 7 dependent thereon is novel (Articles 52(1) and 54(1)(2) EPC).

4. Inventive step

4.1 The invention

4.1.1 The invention concerns a pleated blind or roller shade.

4.1.2 As explained in the patent in suit (paragraph [0002]), pleated blinds and roller shades of the prior art usually incorporated fabric material coloured on the first side to enhance the decorative function of such window covering product, while being metallized on the opposite second side for reflecting sunlight or heat.

4.1.3 Therefore, according to the patent in suit (see paragraphs [0009], [0011] and [0016]), the invention aimed at providing alternative pleated blinds or roller shades which have substantially equal heat and light reflective properties as conventional metallized fabrics, have an improved resistance against damage and wear during use, may be prepared in a more economical way in a single operation and wherein both sides may have substantially the same colour.

4.2 Closest prior art

4.2.1 The Respondent considered the known metallized pleated blinds described in paragraph [0002] of the patent in suit as the most appropriate starting point for the evaluation of inventive step, i.e. pleated blinds which incorporate fabric material that is coloured on the first side to enhance the decorative function of such window covering product, while being metallized on the opposite second side to reflecting sunlight or heat.

4.2.2 For the Board, the starting points indicated by Appellant 01, i.e. the prior used fabrics according to samples E3 or E4 are a less appropriate starting point than the prior art cited by the Respondent, since they were made for use in shower curtains, i.e. they belong to a different technical field than that of the patent in suit and were not intended to have substantially equal heat and light reflective properties as conventional metallized fabrics.

4.2.3 As regards a roller blind according to SWB1 comprising the allegedly prior used fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru", the advertisement SWB1 clearly describes on its last page under the heading "Solar, Optical and Colour Fastness Properties" the outstanding heat and light reflective properties of the SPC fabrics described.
Therefore, the Board accepts that the public prior use of such a fabric, if proven, could well be considered to represent a suitable starting point for the evaluation of inventive step.

4.2.4 In the following assessment of inventive step the Board thus follows, for the sake of completeness, each of the two possible approaches, which, however, both lead to the same conclusion that the claimed subject-matter is not obvious. Approach A starts from a roller blind containing the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" (assuming for the sake of argument that it belongs to the state of the art to be considered) and approach B starts from a pleated blind comprising a metallized fabric as mentioned in the patent in suit.

Approach A

4.3 Technical problem underlying the invention

4.3.1 According to Appellant 02, the technical problem underlying the claimed invention, in the light of a roller blind comprising the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru", consisted only in the provision of an alternative roller shade having a fabric of substantially the same colour on both sides.

4.4 The solution
As the solution to the technical problem indicated above, the patent in suit proposes the roller shade according to claim 1 at issue, which is characterised in that it comprises " a fabric material having a first finish on a first side and a second finish on a second pearlescent side; said first finish comprising a mixture including a first pigment having a first particle size and said second finish comprising a mixture including said first pigment and a second, light reflective pearlescent pigment having a second particle size; said second particle size being larger than said first particle size; the particles of the first pigment being capable of permeating said fabric, whereas the particles of the second pigment remain substantially on the second side, and said second side of said fabric having substantially the same colour as said first side".

4.5 Success of the solution
The parties did not contest that the technical problem indicated above was successfully solved by means of the claimed solution. The Board has also no reason to doubt the success of this solution.

4.6 Non-obviousness of the solution

4.6.1 It remains thus to be decided whether it was obvious for the skilled person, starting from a roller blind comprising the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru", to modify such a fabric in such a manner as to arrive at a roller shade falling within the terms of claim 1 at issue.

4.6.2 As already noted above (point 3.1 supra) the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" has an intermediate heat-seal layer between the dyed fabric and the outer SPC pearlescent layer. Moreover, SWB1 explicitly discloses that (emphasis added) "As the SPC backing (the pearlescent outer layer) is white, blinds will always give a uniform appearance to the outside of a building irrespective of the colours chosen for individual work area".

4.6.3 Therefore, SWB1 does not induce the skilled person to modify the colour of the pearlescent outer layer. Consequently, it does also not suggest to modify the structure of the SPC fabrics, for example, by removing the intermediate heat-sealing layer in the attempt to allow the coloured first pigment present on the other side and in the fabric to migrate till the SPC layer, or by using a different pearlescent pigment which contains an appropriate coloured coating matching the colour of the other fabric side.

4.6.4 Furthermore, even if the skilled person were to consider replacing the white pearlescent pigment of "Dapple SPC Ecru" with a differently coloured one, the resulting fabric would still be different from the fabric of the roller shades according to claim 1 at issue, since it would not contain a finish comprising a mixture of a first pigment with a pearlescent pigment.

4.6.5 As was submitted by Appellant 02 the skilled person, faced with the technical problem mentioned above, could, in theory, try to modify the fabric "Dapple SPC Ecru" by maintaining the white pearlescent backing whilst replacing the coloured pigment used for dying the fabric with, for example, a white pigment like titanium dioxide (which is the coating material of the pearlescent pigment). According to Appellant 02, this approach was suggested by the listing of a product "Dapple SPC White" on the last page of SWB1.
However, the Board observes that further details of said fabric are not given in SWB1 and were not provided by Appellant 02. Moreover, even if the skilled person were to consider putting said theoretically possible concept into practice, the resulting fabric would still be different from the one defined in claim 1 at issue, since the latter must contain a mixture of two different pigments in the pearlescent finishing layer.

4.6.6 Therefore, the Board concludes that the skilled person, starting from a roller blind comprising "Dapple SPC Ecru" (or any of other SPC fabrics invoked), would not, without considerations based on hindsight, arrive in an obvious way at a roller shade falling within the terms of claim 1 at issue.

Approach B

4.7 Technical problem

4.7.1 In the light of the pleated blinds containing a metallized fabric (see paragraph [0002] of the patent in suit) taken as closest prior art, the technical problem was stated to consist in the provision of pleated blinds having improved properties and which can be produced in a more economical way (see point 4.1.3 supra).

4.7.2 In the following assessment, the Board considers, purely for the sake of argument and in favour of Appellant 01, that this technical problem was not convincingly solved.

4.7.3 Therefore, the technical problem formulated, accordingly, in less ambitious terms, can be seen in the provision of alternative pleated blinds having heat and reflective properties and comprising a fabric of substantially the same colour on both sides.

4.8 The solution

4.8.1 As the solution to this technical problem, the patent in suit proposes a pleated blind according to claim 1 at issue (see 4.4 supra as regards all the characterising features) wherein one side of the fabric is provided with a finish comprising a mixture of the first pigment, which is also present in the finish on the other fabric side, with a pearlescent pigment.

4.8.2 The parties did not contest that the stated technical problem is successfully solved by the claimed solution. The Board has also no reason to doubt this.

4.9 Non-obviousness of the solution

4.9.1 It remains thus to be decided whether it was obvious for the skilled person, starting from a pleated blind comprising a metallized fabric, to modify the metallized fabric side in a manner leading to a pleated blind falling within the terms of claim 1 at issue.

4.9.2 In the Board's judgement the skilled person faced with the less ambitious technical problem posed (point 4.7.3 supra), would not even take into consideration a fabric according to sample E3 or E4, intended to be used for a very different technical application which does not require the fabric to have solar and heat reflective properties.

4.9.3 Consequently, the argument invoked by Appellant 01 that such fabrics were prepared on the same machine by the same companies as fabrics for pleated blinds and roller shades, as allegedly derivable from document E14, is of no relevance. In fact, even if this would be the case, it would not amount to a suggestion to the skilled person to try the application of said fabrics, prepared for complying with the technical requirements of a shower curtain, in products belonging to a different technical field, requiring different technical properties.

4.10 Hence, in the Board's judgement, irrespective of the starting point considered (approach A or B), the subject-matter of claim 1 at issue and, consequently, of claims 2 to 7 dependent thereon, involves an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC).

(...)

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeals are dismissed.

This decision has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T175411.20141112. The whole decision can be found here. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo obtained from FreeDigitalPhotos.net.