CABINET CHAILLOT

The appeal is against the decision of the opposition division rejecting the opposition against the patent EP 2 283 332.
The invention relates to a method for determining a suitable colour variant for painting a car without the need for expensive equipment and extensive colour fans. The method involves evaluating visual deviations based on predefined visual characteristics (e.g. brightness, hue, saturation and texture features such as graininess or gloss) from two different viewing and/or illumination angles. The best matching variant of the standard colour is determined from three to six variant colours.
E0 is the closest state of the art, because it discloses colour examination from two different viewing angles. 
E0 fails to disclose : (a) determination of the best matching variant of the standard colour from 3 to 6 variant colours; and (b) the predetermined visual properties comprise at least one texture property.
The objective technical problem is to improve the method of E0 so that an appropriate colour can be determined more precisely but still in a very simple manner even for complex effect colours.
When solving a single objective technical problem the skilled person cannot combine in the present context the teachings of three documents at a single stroke, but must first combine the teaching of E0 with the teaching of one of the documents E15 and E00 and then, in a second step, combine the result of this combination with the teaching of the other one of the documents E15 and E00.
In other words, when the teachings of three documents are combined, this has to be done - in circumstances such as the present ones - step by step, i.e. in a first step, the teaching of another document is combined on the basis of the teaching or embodiment of the closest state of the art. In a second step, it must then be examined whether the skilled person would also combine the result of this combination with the teaching of the third document. In doing so, the context of the initial situation as well as the complexity and specific technical context of each document or embodiment has to be taken into account.
In the present case none of the cited documents teaches both using three to six colour variants and evaluating the texture of the paint without any additional technical means except a swatch of variant colours.
E15 teaches the examination of texture only by using complex image processing software, while E0 and E00 teach the examination of colour only with the human eye from only one or two angles.
From the context of the contested patent, it is clear that E00 and E0 refer to different evaluation methods. E00 relates to a basic method and involves a method with examination of a single angle and a single visual property. E0 relates to a different, more sophisticated method with examination from two different angles and two visual properties. 
The board cannot see how the skilled person would arrive at a combination of all claimed features by combining the teachings of E0, E00 and E15. 
Therefore, the board agrees with the opponent only insofar as the skilled person might combine the teaching of E0 with the teaching of E00 or E15. However, in a second step, the skilled person would not take into account the teaching of the other document, since, depending on whether the skilled person would first turn to a simpler or more complex teaching, they would not consider the more complex or overly simplified teaching in a second step.
Therefore, the board comes to the conclusion that the person skilled in the art would not combine the teaching of E0 at the same time with the teachings of both E00 and E15, since in the latter the context is different from that in E0, being significantly more complex in one case (E15) and simpler in the other (E00). 
Consequently, the board comes to the conclusion that the subject matter of the patent as granted involves an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC).
The appeal is dismissed.