T 2210/19 - Obvious alternative

 Key points

• In this opposition appeal, “the [objective technical] problem can only be defined as the provision of a further process for producing a chromium catalysed ethylene copolymer powder”
• The Board: “ The skilled person, looking for a further process, would consider variations of the process already known from the closest prior art, taking into account the common general knowledge in the field and the knowledge made available in the prior art. That includes variations of any of the parameters of the process that can be expected to be suitable to carry out alternative processes without exercising any inventive activity. As the problem is simply the provision of a further process, no further motivation is needed by the skilled person to perform the modified process.”
• “The choice of a fluidisation gas velocity in the range of 1.5-10 cm/s at an activation temperature of 600°C, would therefore be in view of the teachings of D7 or D8, a common measure that a skilled person could take to merely provide a further activation process that ultimately would provide a further process for producing a chromium catalysed ethylene copolymer powder.”
• The claims are found to lack an inventive step.

EPO T 2210/19

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t192210eu1.html

decision text omitted.