Summary
The claimant applied for revocation of the EP patent based on lack of novelty and or lack of inventive step with respect to prior publications and common general knowledge. Expert evidence was provided by both sides. Two office Opinions in respect of validity had been issued before this request for revocation. The patent relates to processing stainless steel or other metallic surfaces with a processing medium, the medium being a suspension that includes a liquid (for example, water) and a mixture of a least two different types of products consisting of chemically inert abrasive particles. In examples described in the patent, the particles include irregularly shaped abrasive particles and spherically shaped abrasive particles. The patentee initially challenged the application but then during the course of proceedings sought to amend the patent on an unconditional basis in order to overcome the challenge. The hearing officer found that the case for lack of novelty failed but that the case for obviousness succeeded. The patent was revoked, and scale costs were awarded.
Full decisionO/049/22 252Kb