2. In its decision the Board made no comment on a prior Mechanical Appeal Board decision ( T 461/88) that had held that computer programs that were embodied in a microprocessor chip that had been sold as part of some printing equipment did not form part of the state of the art because reverse engineering of the chip would have taken several man years of work. It seems, however that this decision must be treated with caution in view of the Enlarged Appeal Board's decision in G 01/92.
3. T 952/92 [1995] OJ EPO 756
4. Thus in the field of new chemical compounds having the possibility of different configurations, a claim to a compound of a particular configuration could only bee rejected for lack of novelty of the prior disclosure was unambiguous as to the configuration of the compound it described. This seems to be true even if the prior disclosure permitted a maximum of only two configurations and what is claimed is one of these possible isomers. (see Penem/Pfizer 1048/92 [1995] EPOR 207.
5. Enantiomers/Hoechst [1990] OJ EPO 195.
6. Guidelines C IV 7.3.
7. Alpha-interferon/Biogen T 301/87 [1990] OJ EPO 335.
8. T0128/92, decided 30 November 1994.
