6. 7. Examination of novelty

In determining novelty of the subject-matter of claims, the examiner must have regard to the guidance given in F‑IV, 4.5 to F-IV, 4.21. Particularly for claims directed to a physical entity, non-distinctive characteristics of a particular intended use are to be disregarded (see F‑IV, 4.13.1). For example, a claim to a substance X for use as a catalyst would not be considered to be novel over the same substance known as a dye unless the use referred to implies a particular form of the substance (e.g. the presence of certain additives) which distinguishes it from the known form of the substance. That is to say, characteristics not explicitly stated, but implied by the particular use, are to be taken into account (see the example of a "mold for molten steel" in F‑IV, 4.13.1). For claims to a first medical use, see G‑II, 4.2.

A claim defining a compound as having a certain purity lacks novelty over a prior-art disclosure describing the same compound only if the prior art discloses the claimed purity at least implicitly, for example by way of a method for preparing said compound, the method inevitably resulting in the purity as claimed. Such a claim, however, does not lack novelty if the disclosure of the prior art needs to be supplemented, for example by suitable (further) purification methods allowing the skilled person to arrive at the claimed purity.