8.1. Novelty criteria for use claims and process claims containing a purpose feature
Overview
8.1. Novelty criteria for use claims and process claims containing a purpose feature
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
- T 1338/18
La découverte de l'ampleur d'un effet survenant lors de l'utilisation d'un produit de l'état de la technique, lorsqu'un tel effet était connu être exercé par ledit produit, ne justifie pas que cette ampleur, comparée à celle obtenue avec un autre produit qui était connu posséder le même effet, puisse à elle seule servir de base à une caractéristique technique d'ordre fonctionnel (cf. points 3.2 à 3.6.4 des motifs).
- T 1099/16
In order to decide whether a claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, based on a technical effect which is described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature according to G 2/88, the Board finds that G 2/88 does not require the technical effect to be described in the patent in a manner sufficiently clear and complete to make the actual achievement of that technical effect credible (Reasons 17). This finding applies even to a case where the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC cannot be considered in the appeal proceedings (Reasons 24). If, for the assessment of inventive step, it has to be determined whether the purpose defined in the claim can be interpreted as a limiting functional feature, the question whether the technical effect is described in the patent merely involves considering whether a skilled person can recognise what technical effect underlies the new purpose claimed (Reasons 20).
- T 2090/15
Novelty of non-medical use claims: the mere discovery of a new property or capability of a particular ingredient of a known composition used for a known purpose cannot confer novelty (reasons, 1.3)
- T 1385/15
Einem Anspruch auf eine weitere nicht-medizinische Verwendung kann Neuheit nicht abgesprochen werden, wenn die beanspruchte technische Wirkung des Stoffes und die beanspruchte Verwendungsweise nicht in Kombination im Stand der Technik offenbart sind (Punkt 2.4 der Begründung).
- T 116/14
Auslegung der Zweckangabe in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch und entsprechende Neuheitsprüfung (siehe Punkt 4.2.6 der Gründe).
- Case law 2021
- Case law 2020
- Case law 2019
-
In T 116/14 the board held it to be settled case law that an indication of a purpose in a device claim – a claim beginning, for instance, "device for" or "apparatus for" – had to be interpreted as meaning that the claimed device had indeed to be suitable for that purpose (see T 287/86, point 2.1 of the Reasons). Thus a device's suitability for the purpose indicated had to arise from the interaction of its claimed features alone. It could not depend on features not claimed, even if they were not excluded because the claim's wording was open-ended - for example because it used expressions such as "comprising" and "containing". Otherwise, the claim would lack clarity. This meant a citation could be considered to disclose a feature worded using an indication of purpose ("purpose feature") only if solely the interaction of the attributes of the device it described, as identified from the claimed features other than the purpose feature, gave rise to suitability for the indicated purpose.