Sunday 25 March 2018 photo 6/30
|
Epo guidelines could-would: >> http://ddc.cloudz.pw/download?file=epo+guidelines+could-would << (Download)
Epo guidelines could-would: >> http://ddc.cloudz.pw/read?file=epo+guidelines+could-would << (Read Online)
The invention consists in the selection of a particular radical or particular group of radicals from amongst those referred to as the substituent "R" (the selected radical or group of radicals not being specifically disclosed in the prior-art document since the question would then be one of lack of novelty rather than obviousness).
A claim may broadly define a feature in terms of its function, i.e. as a functional feature, even where only one example of the feature has been given in the description, if the skilled readerperson would appreciate that other means could be used for the same function (see also F?IV, 2.1 and F-IV, 4.10). For example, "terminal
European Patent Convention - This area contains legal texts from the EPO, including the European Patent Convention, Ancillary regulations to the EPC, National law relating to the EPC, Guidelines for Examination, and much more.
In order to assess inventive step in an objective and predictable manner, the so-called "problem-and-solution approach" should be applied. Thus deviation from this approach should be exceptional. In the problem-and-solution approach, there are three main stages: (i). determining the "closest prior art",. (ii). establishing the
To determine whether the claimed invention, starting from the closest prior art and the objective technical problem, would have been obvious to the skilled person, the boards apply the "could-would approach" (see also Guidelines G?VII, 5.3 – November 2015 version). This means asking not whether the skilled person could
whether the content of the disclosures (e.g. documents) is such as to make it likely or unlikely that the person skilled in the art, when faced with the problem solved by the invention, would combine them – for example, if two disclosures considered as a whole could not in practice be readily combined because of inherent
In the third stage the question to be answered is whether there is any teaching in the prior art as a whole that would (not simply could, but would) have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem, to modify or adapt the closest prior art while taking account of that teaching, thereby arriving at
Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the
could improve by adopting features from the other. Both the. European and US patent systems are aware of the problem of hindsight in patent examinations, and a patent validity decision based on hindsight is technically improper in both systems.25. The examination guidelines of the European Patent Office (“EPO").
12 Jan 2017 Here is a commented summary extracted from the EPO
Annons