baygon
baygon bait is no longer available. baygon was great insect bait to use for indoor cricket infestation and to help eliminate large roaches .
baygon ec and baygon wp have been used for many years in household pest control but have been slowly replaced by safer, low odor synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in home pest control. many baygon products have lost their registration or are simply not being produced any longer. baygon ec and baygon wp (or wettable powder) are no longer available. baygon bait supplies have now run out will not be available again .
( ii) that baygon® moth - papers (
baygon® mottenpapier
) had, before the priority date with regard to both the active insecticidal ingredient and the cellulosic carrier material, a composition falling within the terms of the claimed fabric protectant in the patent .
( d) the formulation sheet (
formulierungs - spezifikation
) for
baygon mottenpapier
dated 28. september 1990 (4) relates to the production of baygon® moth - papers shown in the sales folders (6) and (7) and offered for commercial sale since 1991 ;
( g) neither the production process nor the formulation of
baygon mottenpapier
have ever been changed between its introduction on the market in 1991 and now .
baygon is a pesticide brand produced by s. c. johnson & son. it is an insecticide used for extermination and control of household pests such as crickets, roaches, ants, carpenter ants, spiders, silverfish and mosquitoes. in 1975, baygon introduced australia’s first surface spray for killing cockroaches and other crawling insects .
( 11) two diagrams comparing the claimed article with baygon® moth - papers and each of the blotting papers referred to under (9) and (10) .
no matter what your insects at home look like, you want a solution to battle that bug. get answers to help solve your pest control problems with a variety of baygon® products .
baygon is a carbamate class of insecticide used for extermination and control of many household pests and is very effective for bed bugs, crickets, roaches, ants, carpenter ants, spiders and silverfish .
urltoken conducted a study on baygon, and the result of the survey is set out below. it is noteworthy that the product of the survey is based on the perception and impressions of the visitors of the website as well as the views of baygon consumers. we, as a result of this, advice that you do not base your therapeutic or medical decisions on this result, but rather consult your certified medical experts for their recommendations .
baygon products contain the pyrethroids cyfluthrin, transfluthrin, prallethrin and the carbamate propoxur and organophosphorus chlorpyrifos, as active ingredients. pyrethroids can lead to a variety of ill effects if ingested in sufficient quantities, including tremors, dyspnea, and paralysis .
4. 1. furthermore, it was not disputed either by the opposition division or by the appellant that according to (4) [ see formulation sheet (
formulierungs - spezifikation
) for baygon® moth - papers (
baygon® mottenpapier
) dated 28 september 1990 ]
baygon® mottenpapier
was produced by impregnation of 88. 8% paper 80 g / cm2 with 11. 2% of a solution containing 2, 3, 5, 6 - tetrafluorobenzyl (+) - 1r, trans - 2, 2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2, 2 - dichlorovinyl) cyclopropanecarboxylate (
bayothrin
or
benfluthrin
) to obtain a moth - paper containing after drying 0. 498 %
bayothrin
.
baygon aerosol or cb - invader is still available for spraying cracks and crevices in homes and business, primarily used to kill crickets, centipedes, millipedes, cockroaches. this aerosol is a good crack and crevice tool for use in german cockroach elimination .
4. having regard to the sales brochures (6) and (7), there cannot be any dispute concerning the fact that baygon® moth - papers (
baygon® mottenpapier
) were introduced on the market in germany and some other countries by the respondent company without implicit or explicit secrecy provisions and offered for public sale and actually sold in and / or before 1991. thus, the introduction on to the market and the first sale occurred before 26 june 1992, the priority date of the patent .
4. 7. it follows that
baygon® mottenpapier
which forms part of the state of the art under article 54 (2) epc destroys the novelty of claim 1 and prejudices the maintenance of the european patent as granted. the main request must therefore fail .
( 8) statutory declaration (
eidesstattliche erklärung
) by mr manfred schütte concerning the parameters and production process and sale of baygon® moth - papers in the period from their introduction on the market in 1991 up to 29 march 1999, the date of signing the declaration .
the pieces of evidence (4) to (7) were, in the respondent' s opinion, appropriate and sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the product baygon® moth - papers (
baygon® mottenpapier
) had been offered for public sale in several countries before the priority date of the patent and that this product anticipated the subject - matter of all claims of the patent. the statutory declaration (8) filled the missing link between documents (4) and (5) which the opposition division had complained about in its communication .
( e )
baygon® mottenpapier
is produced by impregnating 88. 8% moth - paper 80 g / cm2 with 11. 2% of a solution containing
bayothrin
, to obtain after drying a moth - paper containing 0. 498 %
bayothrin
;
baygon was introduced by the german chemical manufacturer bayer in 1975. in 2003, bayer sold the brand to s. c. johnson & son. as part of the agreement, the active ingredients used in the pesticides are still manufactured by bayer and supplied non - exclusively to sc johnson .
depending on the reaction of the baygon after taken, if you are feeling dizziness, drowsiness or any weakness as a reaction on your body, then consider baygon not safe to drive or operate heavy machine after consumption. meaning that, do not drive or operate heavy duty machines after taking the capsule if the capsule has a strange reaction on your body like dizziness, drowsiness. as prescribed by a pharmacist, it is dangerous to take alcohol while taking medicines as it exposed patients to drowsiness and health risk. please take note of such effect most especially when taking primosa capsule. it' s advisable to consult your doctor on time for a proper recommendation and medical consultations .
further, it pointed out that the respondent' s assertion of public prior use was submitted after expiry of the opposition period and emphasised that this assertion was based on one of the respondent' s own products offered for commercial sale under the brand name baygon® moth - papers (
baygon® mottenpapier
) [ see the pieces of evidence (4) to (8) ]. the opposition division concluded that in the circumstances of the case the late - filing represented an abuse of the proceedings and breach of
good faith
. it further concluded that this kind of assertion of prior use could thus not be deemed to have been submitted in due time and should therefore be disregarded under article 114 (2) epc .
however, it contains no indication of facts, evidence or arguments and therefore no substantiation of the alleged prior use of the claimed fabric protectant by the production and sale of baygon® moth - papers. such facts, evidence and arguments were filed for the first time on 1 july 1998, ie about ten months after expiry of the opposition period, and were held to be inadmissible by the opposition division .
as is apparent from iv above and page 1, paragraph 3, of the minutes, at the oral proceedings before the opposition division the respondent introduced, without warning, the new pieces of evidence (9) to (11). these consisted of two pads of blotting paper (9) and (10) and two diagrams (11) purportedly comparing the claimed article in the patent with baygon moth - paper and each of the two samples of blotting paper .
the respondent protested against the appellant' s allegation that it had presented new facts and evidence for the first time during the oral proceedings before the opposition division. in this respect, it submitted that the relevant parameters of baygon® moth - papers (
baygon® mottenpapier
) had already been brought to the appellant' s attention with its letter 29 june 1998 and that the notice of opposition already contained references to blotting papers and copying paper. the diagrams (11) merely showed a summary of information which had, in the respondent' s opinion, already been introduced at a much earlier stage of the overall opposition procedure. the appellant' s objection that the samples (9) and (10) had been ex post facto purposely selected to attack inventive step, was not substantiated and could not stand. on the contrary, the two types of blotting paper presented during the oral proceedings were ordinary samples handed out to customers in a paper shop asking for blotting paper .
4. 3. by the submission of the further piece of evidence, the respondent succeeded in furnishing the alleged missing links in the chain of evidence relating to the exact composition of baygon® moth - papers prior to the priority date and in clearing any remaining doubts as to the identity of the paper described in (5) and that used in (4), if such doubts really existed. to this end, the respondent submitted document (8) which is a statutory declaration (
eidesstattliche erklärung
) signed on 29. march 1999 by the declarant, dr manfred schütte, who is an employee of the respondent .
3. as set out in ii and v above, during the written proceedings before the opposition division, more specifically about 19 months after the grant of the opposed patent, the respondent attempted unsuccessfully to introduce the pieces of evidence (4) to (7) to substantiate its assertion of lack of novelty and inventive step on account of its own public prior use based on the production and commercial sale of baygon moth - papers prior to the priority date of the patent. this evidence was completed later in these proceedings, as set out in iii above, by a statutory declaration (
eidesstattliche erklärung
) by mr manfred schütte (8), filed with the respondent' s letter of 13 april 1999, received on 15 april 1999 .
3. 5. in item 24 of the decision under appeal the opposition division pointed out
that the fresh grounds of opposition filed in relation to the prior use of the product baygon® were inadmissible not on the grounds of their being filed late [ emphasis added by the board ] but primarily on the grounds that the late filing was considered to be an abuse of the procedure very similar to that mentioned in t 17 / 91 (loc. cit .) i. e. the prior use which formed the basis of the fresh grounds of opposition was based on the opponent' s own activities
. the opposition division went on to say that
this decision [ to disregard the alleged prior use ] was reached despite the obvious relevance of the fresh grounds for opposition to the validity of the patent - in - suit
[ emphasis added by the board ] .
iii. in its communication of 14 october 1998, the opposition division communicated inter alia its view that the conditions which have to be satisfied by an allegation of prior public use had not been totally fulfilled by the evidence submitted. from the sales brochures (6) and (7) it seemed, in the opposition division' s judgment, clear that baygon® moth - papers of the type described in (4) were on public sale in and / or before 1991 and thus before the priority date of the patent. the opposition division found, however, that in (4) the paper was not specified as being that of (5) and concluded therefrom that the mere fact that both the paper mentioned in (4) and the paper described in (5) were of a quality 80 g / m2 did not prove such a connection. in the opposition division' s preliminary opinion, none of the pieces of evidence (1) to (7) prejudiced novelty according to the requirements of article 54 epc .
html public
- / / softquad / / dtd hotmetal pro 5. 0: : 19981022: : extensions to html 4. 0 / / en
hmpro5. dtd
pyrethroids are chemicals that kill insects, including mosquitoes. they can be an important tool in helping to prevent the spread of west nile virus. mosquito control professionals mix pyrethroids with water or oil and apply it as an ultra low - volume spray that kills flying adult mosquitoes. when used properly, pyrethroids have been found to pose very little risk to human health and the environment. if you want to reduce your exposure to pyrethroid spray, stay indoors during spraying and for about 30 minutes afterwards .
pyrethroids are a group of man - made pesticides similar to the natural pesticide pyrethrum, which is produced by chrysanthemum flowers. although more than 1, 000 pyrethroids have been made, only a few are used in the united states. these include permethrin (biomist®), resmethrin (scourge®) and sumithrin (anvil®). pyrethroids are found in many commercial products used to control insects, including household insecticides, pet sprays and shampoos. some pyrethroids also are used as lice treatments applied directly to the head and as mosquito repellents that can be applied to clothes .
most pyrethroid mosquito control products can be applied only by public health officials and trained personnel of mosquito control districts. mosquito control professionals apply pyrethroids as an ultra low - volume (ulv) spray. ulv sprayers release very tiny aerosol droplets that stay in the air and kill adult mosquitoes on contact. pyrethroids are often mixed with water or oil and applied at rates less than 1 / 100th of a pound of active ingredient per acre. these pesticides are approved by the u. s. environmental protection agency (usepa) for control of adult mosquitoes .
after spraying, pyrethroids settle onto the ground and flat surfaces. because pyrethroids are mixed with water or oil before being applied, the amount of residue left on surfaces is very small. pyrethroids are broken down by sunlight and other chemicals in the atmosphere. often, they last only one or two days in the environment .
pyrethroids are not easily taken up by the roots of plants because they bind to the soil. because of this, pyrethroids usually do not get into groundwater and do not contaminate drinking water supplies. pyrethroids are eventually broken down in the soil .
pyrethroids are applied at very low levels to control mosquitoes. usepa has evaluated these chemicals for this use and they have been found to pose very little risk to human health and the environment when used according to label directions. exposure to the spray may aggravate existing respiratory conditions or affect sensitive individuals. pyrethroids that enter the body leave quickly, mainly in the urine, but also in feces and breath .
persons who apply pyrethroids and are accidentally exposed to very large amounts of these chemicals may experience dizziness, headache, nausea and diarrhea. children exposed to large amounts of pyrethroids would be expected to be affected in the same way as adults. adverse health effects would not be expected when pyrethroids are used according to label directions .
there is no evidence that pyrethroids cause birth defects in humans or affect the ability of humans to have children. pyrethroids do not cause cancer in people .
the main way to reduce your exposure to pyrethroids is to stay indoors during spraying and for about 30 minutes afterwards. generally, there is no need to leave the area during mosquito control spraying. if you are outside during or shortly after spraying, you can breathe in air that contains pyrethroids. toys that small children may place in their mouths should be taken indoors before spraying occurs to avoid exposure. toys that are sprayed should be washed with soap and water. skin contact with pyrethroids does not pose a risk because these chemicals are not well absorbed .
you also can be exposed by using household products and insecticides containing pyrethroids. if you decide to use these products, carefully follow the instructions on how to apply them properly and how long to wait before re - entering the treated area. do not apply more than the recommended amount. the amount of pyrethroids used in gardening products can be two to three times more than what is used when fogging for insects .
because pyrethroids and other chemicals are present in gardening products, they may be on the skins of fruits and vegetables. make sure you wash fruits and vegetables thoroughly before eating them .
to reduce exposure, keep pets indoors during and for about 30 minutes after spraying. pets that remain outdoors could be exposed to small amounts of pyrethroids, but would not be expected to experience adverse health effects from spraying .
pyrethroids are broken down in water and in sunlight. no special precautions are necessary; however, to reduce pyrethroids entering your pool water, cover your pool before spraying .
yes. air conditioners may remain on. if you want to reduce possible exposure to pyrethroids in the air, set the air conditioner vent to the closed position, or choose the recirculate option .
call your local health department, the illinois department of public health at 217 - 782 - 5830, or visit the department' s web site, < urltoken > .
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd xhtml 1. 0 transitional / / en
urltoken
whether it’s crawling or flying, there’s a way to help prevent bugs from making themselves at home. learn how you can use tips and products to find the right product for the right bug .
did something scary just crawl across the wall? have no fear, our bug id tool will help you identify the insect and learn how to properly treat it .
this application requires javascript. please turn on javascript in order to use this application .
copyright © 2018. urltoken. all rights reserved. information on urltoken is provided for educational purposes only and is not to be used for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. support info @ urltoken .
alexander bain - bibliography... an enquiry into the definition of poetry english composition and rhetoric emotional qualities of style english composition and rhetoric intellectual elements ...
william bolcom - life and career 11, he entered the university of washington to study composition privately with george frederick mckay and john verrall and piano with madame berthe... olivier messiaen at the paris conservatoire, where he received the 2ème prix de composition... distinguished university professor of composition at the university of michigan, a position which he still holds ...
united states senate elections, 1972 - senate composition before and after elections... senate composition before the elections i d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ...
esa - pekka salonen - composing... among salonen' s compositions are... auf den ersten blick und ohne zu wissen... .. has helped him to be more
free
in his compositions... my focus moved from an ideological principle to a pleasure principle
is how he described the composition of his breakthrough piece ,
la variations ,
which the ...
united states senate elections, 2008 - results summary - change in composition... senate composition before the elections r1 r11 r21 r31 r41 d48 d38 d28 d18 d8 r2 r12 r22 r32 r42 d47 d37 d27 d17 d7 r3 r13 r23 r33 r43 d46 d36 d26 d16 d6 r4 r14 r24 r34 r44 d45 d35 d25 d15 d5 r5 r15 r25 ...
is first of all and above all a phenomenon of style, and it is from this flowered rim that i have surveyed its seep of arcadian country, the serpentine gleam of its imported brooks, the miniature blizzards imprisoned in round crystal, and the many - hued levels of literary parody blending in the melting distance .
of grass, of sheep, of cutlets, and of men. we do not like that kind of immortality, but what is to be done about it ?
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd html 4. 01 / / en
urltoken
please note that this medicine may be available in various strengths for each active ingredient listed above .
copyright © 2018 tablettree. trademarks & tradenames used herein are the property of their respective holders .
the content provided on this is for educational purposes only. it is not to be used for medical diagnosis, medical advice or treatment. while every effort is made to maintain correctness of content, no guarantee is made to that effect. use of this site is subject to terms of service and privacy policy. see additional information here .
the opinions expressed in the surveys shown on the medicine and other such pages of this website are those of the participants and not of tabletwise. com .
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd html 4. 01 / / en
urltoken
if swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control centre right away .
( tea tree) oil *, melaleuca quinquenervia (broad leaf paperbark gum) oil * .
apply thoroughly to dry hair or other affected area. for head lice, first apply behind ears
use a fine - tooth or special lice / nit comb. remove any remaining nits by hand using a
for head lice, part hair into sections. do one section at a time starting on top of head .
lift a 1 - to 2 - inch wide strand of hair. place comb as close to scalp as possible and
clean comb often. wipe nits away with tissue and discard in a plastic bag. seal bag
after combing, thoroughly recheck for lice / nits. repeat combing if necessary .
a second treatment must be done in 7 to 10 days to kill any newly hatched lice .
active ingredient is the part of the drug or medicine which is biologically active. this portion of the drug is responsible for the main action of the drug which is intended to cure or reduce the symptom or disease. the other portions of the drug which are inactive are called excipients; there role is to act as vehicle or binder. in contrast to active ingredient, the inactive ingredient' s role is not significant in the cure or treatment of the disease. there can be one or more active ingredients in a drug .
form of the medicine is the form in which the medicine is marketed in the market, for example, a medicine x can be in the form of capsule or the form of chewable tablet or the form of tablet. sometimes same medicine can be available as injection form. each medicine cannot be in all forms but can be marketed in 1, 2, or 3 forms which the pharmaceutical company decided based on various background research results. composition is the list of ingredients which combinedly form a medicine. both active ingredients and inactive ingredients form the composition. the active ingredient gives the desired therapeutic effect whereas the inactive ingredient helps in making the medicine stable. doses are various strengths of the medicine like 10mg, 20mg, 30mg and so on. each medicine comes in various doses which is decided by the manufacturer, that is, pharmaceutical company. the dose is decided on the severity of the symptom or disease .
destination is defined as the organism to which the drug or medicine is targeted. for most of the drugs what we discuss, human is the drug destination. drug category can be defined as major classification of the drug. for example, an antihistaminic or an antipyretic or anti anginal or pain killer, anti - inflammatory or so .
a medicine is classified depending on the organ or system it acts [ anatomical ], based on what result it gives on what disease, symptom [ therapeutical ], based on chemical composition [ chemical ]. it is called as atc code. the code is based on active ingredients of the medicine. a medicine can have different codes as sometimes it acts on different organs for different indications. same way, different brands with same active ingredients and same indications can have same atc code .
pharmaceutical companies are drug manufacturing companies that help in complete development of the drug from the background research to formation, clinical trials, release of the drug into the market and marketing of the drug. researchers are the persons who are responsible for the scientific research and is responsible for all the background clinical trials that resulted in the development of the drug .
dailymed .
eco. kid (piperonyl butoxide) shampoo [ fravin pty ltd ]
. urltoken (accessed may 21, 2018) .
medicines are not designed with the mind of creating an addiction or abuse on the health of the users. addictive medicine is categorically called controlled substances by the government. for instance, schedule h or x in india and schedule ii - v in the us are controlled substances .
please consult the medicine instruction manual on how to use and ensure it is not a controlled substance. in conclusion, self medication is a killer to your health. consult your doctor for a proper prescription, recommendation, and guidiance .
epo - t 0481 / 00 (
fabric protectants
/ sumitomo) of 13. 8. 2004
t 0481 / 00 (
fabric protectants
/ sumitomo) of 13. 8. 2004
i. european patent no. 576 270 (
the patent
), based on european application no. 93 304 910. 8 and concerning fabric protectants, was granted to its proprietor (hereinafter referred to as the
appellant
) on 27 november 1996. the claims as granted read as follows :
1. a fabric protectant comprising a cellulosic material having a bulk density of 0. 2 to 0. 7 g / cm3 and a thickness of 0. 1 to 4 mm and a composition containing as an active ingredient 2, 3, 5, 6 - tetrafluorobenzyl (+) - 1r, trans - 2, 2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2, 2 - dichlorovinyl) cyclopropanecarboxylate, said cellulosic material having the composition supported thereon or being impregnated with the composition .
2. a fabric protectant according to claim 1, wherein the amount of the active ingredient is 1 to 100 mg / cm3 of the cellulosic material .
3. a fabric protectant according to claims 1 or 2 in the form of a tablet or sheet .
4. a method for protecting fabrics, which comprises applying a fabric protectant as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3 to pest insects or fabric or to an environment in which fabric is stored .
5. a method for controlling pest insects, which comprises applying the fabric protectant as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3 to pest insects or fabrics or to an environment in which fabric is stored .
6. use of a fabric protectant as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3 for protecting fabric from attack by insects .
7. use of a fabric protectant as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3 for controlling pest insects .
ii. the opponent (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent
) opposed the patent requesting its revocation in full on the ground that the claimed subject - matter in the patent did not relate to an invention which satisfied the requirements of articles 52 to 56 and 83 epc. in its notice of opposition, the respondent relied on the following citations to support its contention that the subject - matter of the claims did not meet the requirements for patentability :
( 3) new polymer dictionary, 1989, pages 111 and 286, together with an english translation of the relevant parts .
by a letter dated 7 december 1999, received on 13. december 1999, the appellant filed further submissions and in particular objected to the admissibility of the opponent' s allegation of prior use on the grounds that it had been filed too late and was also insufficiently substantiated by the evidence submitted .
iv. oral proceedings before the opposition division were held on 9 february 2000. at the hearing, the respondent introduced new evidence. this consisted of :
( 9) a green pad of blotting paper (brunnen art. - nr. 41 556) ;
( 10) a blue pad of blotting paper (brunnen art. - nr. 41 550) ;
v. the opposition division, in its decision pronounced at the close of the oral proceedings and posted on 14 march 2000, revoked the patent pursuant to article 102 (1) epc .
it found that the opposition under article 100 (b) epc on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure was unfounded because document (3) provided adequate evidence that the term
bulk density
in claim 1 referred to a parameter which was readily comprehensible to those skilled in the art .
as regards novelty, the opposition division did not share the respondent' s opinion that the prior art of citation (1) or (2) anticipated the claimed subject - matter in the patent in suit .
the stated ground for the revocation of the patent was lack of inventive step of the appellant' s main request and of all its auxiliary requests before the opposition division, in the light of citations (1) and (2) in conjunction with the pieces of evidence (9) to (11) filed at the oral proceedings and common general knowledge. in particular, the opposition division pointed out that the active principle of the claimed fabric protectants, namely the insecticide 2, 3, 5, 6 - tetrafluorobenzyl (+) - 1r, trans - 2, 2 - dimethyl - 3 - (2, 2 - dichlorovinyl) cyclopropanecarboxylate (hereinafter referred to under its common names
benfluthrin
or
bayothrin
), and its use in prolonged release formulations in general and specifically in moth papers was already disclosed in citation (1). citation (2) disclosed the use of absorbent paper in the impregnating process for the production of mothproofing papers. the opposition division concluded therefrom that it would be a trivial matter to arrive at the claimed ranges of the parameters of the cellulosic material used as the carrier for the fabric protectant specified in claim 1 of the patent. the selection of a cellulosic carrier having a bulk density and a thickness within the ranges specified in claim 1 was, in the opposition division' s judgment, the result of a logical technical deduction obvious to the skilled person, familiar with the cited state of the art and faced with the problem of finding an optimum release system for
benfluthrin
, when using common general knowledge in the art .
vi. the appellant filed an appeal against this decision and paid the appeal fee on 16 may 2000. a statement of grounds for the appeal was filed on 21 july 2000 .
( 12) statement of the producer of the blotting papers (9) and (10) regarding their relevant parameters, including their bulk density and thickness .
vii. oral proceedings before the board took place on 13 august 2004. although duly summoned, the respondent did not attend these proceedings .
during the oral proceedings, the appellant withdrew its request for a refund of the appeal fee. it filed a new auxiliary request wherein the alternative in claim 1
said cellulosic material having the composition supported thereon
had been deleted and the claim had been restricted to the alternative
said cellulosic material being impregnated with the composition
( see i above) .
in the appellant' s opinion, the requirement under rule 55 (c) epc for the grounds on which the opposition was based and for evidence in support of these grounds to be indicated in the notice of opposition was not fulfilled. the opening sentence contained a blanket reference to there being no invention meeting the requirements of articles 52 to 56 and 83 epc. however, this could not be regarded as an allegation of any particular ground of opposition .
the first two paragraphs of the section headed
begründung
related to an alleged lack of clarity in the use of the term
bulk density
. this allegation did not relate to any ground of opposition mentioned in article 100 epc and was, moreover, in itself manifestly incorrect. it would also seem, from the respondent' s own calculations regarding standard copying paper, and from its comments on the prior art, that it was in itself in no real doubt as to the meaning of the disputed claims .
as regards the substantive issues of the patent, the appellant admitted that the notice of opposition went on to say that citation (1) was relevant to novelty. it was, however, clear from the account in (1) given in the notice of opposition that this citation entirely failed to disclose important features recited in claim 1 of the patent. an attempt was made to remedy this deficiency by reference to a packet of standard copying paper. plainly this did not provide, in the appellant' s judgment, even a prima facie case of lack of novelty against claim 1. citation (2) was brought in apparently to allege that claim 3 lacked novelty. claim 3 was appendant on claim 1, and there was no suggestion that (2) deprived claim 1 of novelty. in fact, citation (2) did not disclose the active ingredient or the thickness or the bulk density of the cellulosic material recited in claim 1 .
although the notice of opposition cited only one ground of opposition, namely lack of novelty, during the opposition proceedings, the ground of lack of inventive step somehow came to be considered. it was accepted by the appellant that, in some, limited circumstances, an opposition division could investigate of its own motion grounds of opposition not covered by the notice of opposition. however, in accordance with decision g 10 / 91 (oj epo 1993, 420), this should only take place where, prima facie, there were clear reasons to believe that such grounds were relevant and would prejudice the maintenance of the patent. since citation (2) was clearly irrelevant and citation (1) clearly failed to disclose significant features of the invention as claimed, this was plainly not a case where, prima facie, there were clear reasons to believe that such grounds would prejudice the maintenance of the patent. thus, the opposition division should not have considered inventive step in the written proceedings or at the oral proceedings .
the opposition was filed near the end of the period allowed by the epc for doing so. nearly a year after the end of the opposition period the opponent had written to the epo putting forward an allegation of prior use, based on one of its own products. in fact the material in that letter was clearly insufficient to substantiate an allegation of prior use, and the opponent therefore filed further material with a letter dated 13 april 1999. in the present case the respondent was seeking, in the appellant' s opinion, to add an entirely new ground of opposition far outside the period for opposition and to remedy deficiencies in that late - filed ground at an even later date. in the present case the opposition division was correct to decide that the opposition, insofar as it related to the allegation of prior use, was inadmissible .
the introduction of the respondent' s new evidence (9) to (11) during the oral proceedings before the opposition division was clearly contrary to proper procedure. there was no opportunity for the appellant to consider this new material and formulate a proper response. furthermore, this new material strongly influenced the decision of the opposition division to revoke the patent. it was clearly impossible for the appellant, during the oral proceedings, to produce counter - evidence. it did not know on what basis the respondent selected the blotting paper samples. it was quite conceivable, for example, that the two blotting paper samples were very unusual. it was certainly likely that blotting papers covered a wide range, some of which might meet the criteria of the patent and some of which might not. such matter would require careful investigation. instead, the opposition division allowed new, unchecked, evidence to be used and, in consequence, decided to revoke the patent. this was clearly an abuse of the appellant' s rights .
with regard to the disputed admissibility of its notice of opposition, the respondent essentially argued that opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole and based on the grounds of article 100 (a) and (b) epc. it had been substantiated by invoking in the notice of opposition lack of novelty and inventive step (articles 52, 54 and 56 epc) as well as lack of sufficiency of disclosure (article 83 epc) as grounds for opposition. in support of theses grounds the respondent had relied, inter alia, on the prior art of citations (1) and (2) in conjunction with the broad common general knowledge concerning various types of papers which might be less suitable for use in moth - proofing compositions, such as, for example, standard copying paper, and other types which might be more suitable, such as blotting paper .
the respondent submitted that the objection of insufficiency of disclosure was concerned with the term
bulk density
in claim 1. it argued that this term failed to provide an enabling disclosure of one of the essential features of the claimed fabric protectant in the patent, contrary to the requirements of article 83 epc .
citation (1) disclosed the active insecticidal agent of the patent, namely
benfluthrin
, and indicated in claim 4 its use as an insecticide. the respondent went on to say that the paragraph in (1) concerning ready - to - use formulations of the known insecticide
benfluthrin
( page 5, lines 34 - 41) included a reference to moth - papers. the respondent' s basis in the notice of opposition for its assertion of lack of novelty of the claimed subject - matter over the prior art of citation (1) was essentially that moth - papers were fabric protectants which were generally known to be in the form of a cellulosic material having a bulk density of 0. 2. to 0. 7 g / cm3 and a thickness of 0. 1 to 4 mm and which had been impregnated or soaked in the active ingredient. in support of its assertion, the respondent submitted calculations, based on standard copying paper, in an attempt to show that citation (1) inevitably implied a known cellulosic carrier of the form used in the patent .
citation (2) was directed to insecticidal compositions for the control of textile pests consisting of a carrier material and having at least one insecticidal substance deposited thereon. since citation (2) referred in its introductory portion to insecticidal papers as being the most widely used moth - proofing compositions and disclosed in this context that the insecticidal substance could be applied to cellulosic carrier materials, in particular to absorbent papers, for example by an impregnation process, the disclosure of (2) was, in the respondent' s opinion, similarly either novelty destroying or, at least, detrimental to inventive step .
x. the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained as granted, or, as an auxiliary request, that the patent be maintained on the basis of the auxiliary request filed in the oral proceedings .
2. the board of appeal is obliged, by virtue of article 101 (1) epc, to examine the admissibility of an opposition, even if the patent proprietors have not raised the question of its inadmissibility during either opposition or appeal proceedings. in the present case, the appellant strongly challenged the admissibility of the opposition during the opposition proceedings and continued in the course of the appeal proceedings in its written and oral submissions to press for the inadmissibility of the opposition .
2. 1. under rule 55 (c) epc the notice of opposition must contain three components: a statement (a) of the extent to which the european patent is opposed and (b) of the grounds on which the opposition is based as well as (c) an
indication of the facts, evidence and arguments
presented in support of these grounds .
2. 2. no question arises in relation to component (a) in the present case, since the notice of opposition contains in the opening sentence an explicit statement that the opposition is filed against the patent as a whole and that revocation in full of the patent is sought .
2. 3. as to requirement (b), in the introductory portion of the notice of opposition it is stated that, in the respondent' s opinion, the patent does not relate to an invention satisfying the requirements of articles 52 to 56 and 83 epc. this express reference to articles 52, 56 and 83 epc, coupled with the appellant' s explicit assertion in the notice of opposition that the content of citations (1) and (2) is prejudicial to the novelty of the claimed subject - matter in the patent (see notice of opposition, page 2, penultimate paragraph, and page 3, third full paragraph), makes it sufficiently clear for the purposes of rule 55 (c) epc that the grounds of opposition invoked by the respondent in its notice of opposition are lack of novelty and inventive step (articles 100 (a), 52, 54 and 56 epc) and insufficiency of disclosure (articles 100 (b) and 83 epc) .
2. 4. turning now to requirement (c): according to the established case law of the boards of appeal (see, for example, case law, 4th edition 2001, vii. c. 8. 5, pages 468 - 475), requirement (c) of rule 55 (c) epc is satisfied if the contents of the notice of opposition are sufficient for the opponent' s case to be properly understood on an objective basis by the patentee and the opposition division. in other words, the contents of a notice of opposition are considered sufficient if the proprietor and the opposition division are able to form a definitive opinion on at least one ground of opposition invoked by the opponent .
contrary to what the appellant appeared to suggest in its written and oral submissions, for an opposition to be admissible it is not necessary that the patent could have been revoked on the basis of the facts, evidence and arguments presented in the notice of opposition before the expiry of the nine - month opposition period. rule 55 (c) epc does not prescribe such a complete indication of the facts, evidence and arguments as to permit a conclusive examination on that basis alone. if these principles are applied to the present case it is found that :
- in the second paragraph on page 2 of the notice of opposition, the respondent gives a reasonable explanation why it considers the indication of the
bulk density
as one of the relevant parameters of the cellulosic carrier material in claim 1 as insufficient to disclose the claimed invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art as stipulated by article 83 epc .
- the patent relates to a fabric protectant comprising a cellulosic material, having a bulk density of 0. 2 to 0. 7 g / cm3 and a thickness of 0. 1 to 4 mm, and having
benfluthrin
as the active insecticidal ingredient supported thereon or being impregnated with
benfluthrin
. in the present case, the respondent made it sufficiently clear that it challenges the novelty and inventive step of the subject - matter of all of claims 1 to 7 by its finding that the insecticidal agent
benfluthrin
and its use as the active ingredient for moth - papers are already disclosed in citation (1) and by attempting to show that moth - papers are fabric protectants generally comprising a cellulosic carrier having a bulk density and thickness within the ranges specified in claim 1 and having the active principle (insecticide) supported thereon or being impregnated with an active insecticidal agent .
- further, adequate reasons are given in the notice of opposition as to why the respondent considers that the disclosure of citation (2) is likewise prejudicial to the novelty of dependent claim 3 and thus also to claim 1 on which claim 3 depends and which thus necessarily includes the subject - matter of claim 3 .
- moreover, reasonable arguments are given in the notice of opposition showing that, in the respondent' s judgment, dependent claims 2 and 4 to 7. merely relate to conventional properties and uses of moth - papers either disclosed in citation (1) or (2) or known from the general specialist knowledge and that such claims are thus devoid of an inventive step .
2. 5. in conclusion, the question whether an opposition fulfils the requirements of rule 55 (c) epc must be distinguished from the question of the strength of the opponent' s case. where - as in this case - such an opposition is supported by sufficient facts, evidence and arguments, that is to say the respondent' s allegation of insufficiency and lack of novelty or inventive step is based on certain prima facie relevant pieces of the state of the art and reference is made to the relevant passages thereof and to common general knowledge, there is no doubt as to the admissibility of such an opposition. it is quite another question whether that case, as made out in the notice of opposition, is also sufficient to bring about the patent' s revocation .
3. 1. certain previous decisions of the boards of appeal have established that if an opponent wishes to rely upon prior use as being part of the state of the art for the purpose of article 54 (2) epc and as part of the legal and factual framework within which the substantive examination of the opposition is to be conducted, the notice of opposition should indicate within the opposition period all the facts which make it possible to determine the date of prior use, what has been used, and the circumstances relating to the prior use. prior use is only adequately substantiated if specific details are given of what was made available to the public, where, when, how and by whom (see eg decisions t 328 / 87, oj epo, 1992, 701; t 93 / 89, oj epo 1992, 718; t 1002 / 92 oj epo 1995, 605). the notice of opposition should also indicate the evidence and arguments supporting the grounds of opposition on account of public prior use .
3. 2. although adherence of an opponent to the general principles set forth in the above - mentioned decisions would be highly desirable in the interest of the proper conduct and administration of proceedings before the epo, the boards of appeal have generated a substantial body of case law related to the question of admissibility of late submissions, including late - filed facts and evidence concerning public prior use (see case law, 4th edition 2001, vi. f. 2 to vi. f. 5, pages 324 - 334 )
baygon is a pesticide brand produced by s. c. johnson & son . it is an insecticide used for extermination and control of household pests such as crickets , roaches , ants , carpenter ants , spiders , silverfish and mosquitoes . in 1975 , baygon introduced australia ’s first surface spray for killing cockroaches and other crawling insects . baygon was introduced by the german chemical manufacturer bayer in 1975 . in 2003 , bayer sold the brand to s. c. johnson & son . as part of the agreement , the active ingredients used in the pesticides are still manufactured by bayer and supplied non-exclusively to sc johnson . 
baygon is a pesticide brand produced by s. c. johnson & son. it is an insecticide used for extermination and control of household pests such as crickets, roaches, ants, carpenter ants, spiders, silverfish and mosquitoes. in 1975, baygon introduced australia ’s first surface spray for killing cockroaches and other crawling insects. baygon was introduced by the german chemical manufacturer bayer in 1975. in 2003, bayer sold the brand to s. c. johnson & son. as part of the agreement, the active ingredients used in the pesticides are still manufactured by bayer and supplied non-exclusively to sc johnson.
baygon is a pesticide brand produced by s. c. johnson & son. it is an insecticide used for extermination and control of household pests such as crickets, roaches, ants, carpenter ants, spiders, silverfish and mosquitoes. in 1975, baygon introduced australia ’s first surface spray for killing cockroaches and other crawling insects. baygon was introduced by the german chemical manufacturer bayer in 1975. in 2003, bayer sold the brand to s. c. johnson & son. as part of the agreement, the active ingredients used in the pesticides are still manufactured by bayer and supplied non-exclusively to sc johnson.