1.3.7 Novelty test

In T 201/83 (OJ 1984, 481) it was stated that the test for compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC 1973 was basically a novelty test, i.e. no new subject-matter may be generated by the amendment (see also T 136/88). T 17/86 (OJ 1989, 297, Corr. 415) added that novelty could be found in a limitation, the addition to a claim of a further feature, or even in the absence of one of the elements of a device. In G 2/10 the Enlarged Board held that after the amendment the skilled person "may not be presented with new technical information" and stressed the importance of applying a uniform concept of disclosure (with reference to Art. 54, 87 and 123 EPC).

The boards have highlighted the limitations of the novelty test (see T 194/84, T 133/85, T 177/86, T 118/89, T 187/91, T 288/92 and T 873/94 below). They have seldom expressly applied the novelty test in their recent case law, but it was referred to in e.g. T 60/03, T 1374/07, T 2202/08, T 2270/09 (see also T 1710/09 where the board referred to the test of T 12/81 which was developed for novelty). According to T 2537/10, the novelty test is no longer relevant for the assessment under Art. 123(2) EPC (see also T 1525/15). However, reference is still made to this test in the March 2022 version of the Guidelines (H‑V, 3.2) for inclusion of additional features: If the resulting combination is novel over the application as originally filed, the amended claim does not fulfil the requirement of Art. 123(2) EPC.

Decision T 194/84 (OJ 1990, 59) related to amendments leading to the generalisation of the subject-matter of an application or to the omission of a feature. The patentee had taken the view that the amendment was admissible because the original application could properly be cited against the novelty of a more generic claim. The board took the view that this approach was based on a misapplication of the novelty test. The test for additional subject-matter corresponded to the test for novelty only in so far as both required assessment of whether or not information was directly and unambiguously derivable from that previously presented in the originally filed application or in a prior document respectively. An amendment was not allowable if the resulting change in content of the application, in other words the subject-matter generated by the amendment, was novel when compared with the content of the original application or, looked at another way, if the said change in content would be novelty-destroying for a hypothetical future claim when the original content would not be.

T 133/85 (OJ 1988, 441) pointed out that care was necessary when applying the law relating to novelty to questions which arose in relation to Art. 123(2) EPC 1973. In T 177/86 the novelty test was described as "not very useful" for examining the admissibility of broadening a claim (see also T 150/07 for a case where the preferred embodiments of an invention were combined with the more general teaching thereof).

In T 187/91 (OJ 1994, 572) the board conceded that there was clearly a close conceptual correlation between the assessment of novelty and the assessment of what was an allowable amendment under Art. 123(2) EPC 1973. It further explained, however, that the considerations which underlay Art. 123(2) EPC 1973 were different from those that underlay Art. 54 EPC 1973: One consideration which underlies Art. 123(2) EPC is that the content of the application as filed and as published determines the matter for which protection may be sought in the claims of that application and accordingly gives an indication to the public of the protection which may be granted. A further consideration underlying the relationship between the claims and content of the European patent application is that, after appropriate amendment if necessary, the granted claims should give a fair protection for the inventive subject-matter contained in the application as filed.

In T 288/92 the board considered that the examination of the allowability of an amendment according to Art. 123(2) EPC 1973 was directed to the process of "derivation" (see also T 383/88), as distinct from a simple comparison of the scopes of amended and unamended subject-matters. In the view of the board this provided a definitive method for deciding the allowability of an amendment. Any other "test", such as the "novelty test", necessarily posed hypothetical questions.

In T 873/94 (OJ 1997, 456) the board pointed out that where a proposal for amending an application involved the addition of a limiting feature to a claim, applying a "novelty test" was not appropriate for determining whether or not the amendment complied with Art. 123(2) EPC 1973.