Key points
- Art. 57 is not discussed in this opposition appeal.
- ""1. A method for processing hair, which comprises mixing while stirring a hair processing composition comprising [compound X and Y] and applying the composition to hair to allow a silanol compound [having formula Z], to penetrate into the hair.""
- Now, as a question to readers, how is this method susceptible of industrial application, as required by Art. 52?
- The same question can be asked about T1486/20, wherein claim 1 was about: "A process of treating the hair comprising the following consecutive steps..."
- The answer is T 144/83: " It is the view of the Board that the invention also complies with the requirements of Article 57 EPC. According to the article the invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry. That this is the case of the present invention is not in doubt since it can be used by enterprises whose object is to beautify the human or animal body. Such enterprises in the cosmetic field - such as cosmetic salons and beauty parlours - are part of industry in the sense of Article 57 EPC, since the notion of concept "industry" implies that an activity is carried out continuously, independently and for financial gain. The Board has already decided that "the professional use of such inventions in a cosmetic salon is an industrial application in the sense of Article 57 EPC" (cf. unreported decision in case T 36/83, of 6 May 1985)."
- T 36/83: "The applicants have chosen the phrase "use as a cosmetic product of thenoyl peroxide". The Board considers that this form of claim is acceptable in the case in suit. In the Board's opinion the question of industrial application does not arise, since professional use of the invention in a beauty parlour is an industrial application within the meaning of Article 57 EPC."
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
Incidentally, the application was filed in 2005, so the EPO proceedings were completed in patent year 18. EP entry 2006, supplementary ESR 2012 (!), grant in 2018 (two substantive Communications), decision OD in 2021. Appeal decision in 2023.
ReplyDelete