Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

CLR I D Inventive step

Problem and solution approach

Closest prior art

Determination of closest prior art in general

Same purpose or effect

Similarity of the technical problem

Most promising starting point

Most promising springboard

Further criteria for determining the closest prior art

Defective disclosure

Confidential disclosure in the application

Speculative character

Old prior art documents

Improvement of a production process for a known product

Consequences of choosing a certain starting point

Technical problem

Determination of the technical problem

Alleged advantages

Formulation of the technical problem

No pointer to the solution

Problem formulated in the patent application as starting point

Formulation of partial problems – lack of unity

Reformulation of the technical problem

Subsequently invoked technical effect

Alternative solution to a known problem

Solving a technical problem – post-published documents

"Could-would approach"

Ex post facto analysis

Expectation of success, especially in the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology

Reasonable expectation of success

Try and see situation

Definition of the skilled person

Competent skilled person – group of people as "skilled person"

Definition of the person skilled in the art in the field of biotechnology

Identification of the skilled person in the case of computer-implemented inventions

Neighbouring field

Skilled person – level of knowledge

Everyday items from a different technical field

Assessment of inventive step

Treatment of technical and non-technical features

Technical character of an invention

Inventions having both technical and non-technical features

Problem and solution approach when applied to "mixed" inventions

The Comvik approach

Non-technical features and technical contribution

Non-technical features and interaction with technical subject matter

Technical implementation of excluded subject-matter

The aim to be achieved in the formulation of the technical problem

Credible technical effects

Assesment of features relating to a presentation of information

Mental activities based on data visualisation

Display of data and user preferences

Assesment of features relating to meta methods for software production

Assesment of features relating to mathematical algorithms

Combination invention

Existence of a combination invention

Partial problems

Combination of teachings

Technical disclosure in a prior art document

Features not contributing to the solution of the problem

Substitution of materials – analogous use

Combination of documents

Chemical inventions

Problem and solution approach in chemical inventions

Structural similarity

Intermediate products

Predictable improvements resulting from amorphous forms as compared to crystalline forms

Synergistic effects

Selection inventions

Problem inventions

New use of a known measure

Obvious new use

Need to improve properties

Optimisation of parameters

Small improvement in commercially used process

Analogy process – envisageable product

Examples of lack of inventive step

Foreseeable disadvantageous or technically non-functional modifications

Technical standards

Reversal of procedural steps

Purposive selection

Enhanced effect

Simplification of complicated technology

Choice of one of several obvious solutions

Several obvious steps

Selection from obvious alternatives

Putting the closest prior art device into practice

Animal testing and human clinical trials

Secondary indicia in the assessment of inventive step

Technical prejudice

Age of documents – time factor

Satisfaction of a long-felt need

Commercial success

Market competitors

Simple solution

Surprising effect – bonus effect

Comparative tests

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_d.htm

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

109 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Case Law Book

X CLR TOC OF CONTENTS

Case Law Book: I Patentability

X CLR I PATENTABILITY

X CLR I D 1 Introduction

X CLR I D 2 Problem and solution approach

X CLR I D 3 Closest prior art

X CLR I D 3.1 Determination of closest prior art in general

X CLR I D 3.2 Same purpose or effect

X CLR I D 3.3 Similarity of the technical problem

X CLR I D 3.4 Most promising starting point

X CLR I D 3.4.1 General

X CLR I D 3.4.2 Most promising springboard

X CLR I D 3.5 Further criteria for determining the closest prior art

X CLR I D 3.5.1 Defective disclosure

X CLR I D 3.5.2 Confidential disclosure in the application

X CLR I D 3.5.3 Speculative character

X CLR I D 3.5.4 Old prior art documents

X CLR I D 3.5.5 Improvement of a production process for a known product

X CLR I D 3.6 Consequences of choosing a certain starting point

X CLR I D 4 Technical problem

X CLR I D 4.1 Determination of the technical problem

X CLR I D 4.2 Alleged advantages

X CLR I D 4.3 Formulation of the technical problem

X CLR I D 4.3.1 No pointer to the solution

X CLR I D 4.3.2 Problem formulated in the patent application as starting point

X CLR I D 4.3.3 Formulation of partial problems – lack of unity

X CLR I D 4.4 Reformulation of the technical problem

X CLR I D 4.4.1 General

X CLR I D 4.4.2 Subsequently invoked technical effect

X CLR I D 4.5 Alternative solution to a known problem

X CLR I D 4.6 Solving a technical problem – post-published documents

X CLR I D 5 "Could-would approach"

X CLR I D 6 Ex post facto analysis

X CLR I D 7 Expectation of success, especially in the field of genetic engineering and biotechnology

X CLR I D 7.1 Reasonable expectation of success

X CLR I D 7.2 Try and see situation

X CLR I D 8 Skilled person

X CLR I D 8.1 Definition of the skilled person

X CLR I D 8.1.1 Definition

X CLR I D 8.1.2 Competent skilled person – group of people as "skilled person"

X CLR I D 8.1.3 Definition of the person skilled in the art in the field of biotechnology

X CLR I D 8.1.4 Identification of the skilled person in the case of computer-implemented inventions

X CLR I D 8.2 Neighbouring field

X CLR I D 8.3 Skilled person – level of knowledge

X CLR I D 8.4 Everyday items from a different technical field

X CLR I D 9 Assessment of inventive step

X CLR I D 9.1 Treatment of technical and non-technical features

X CLR I D 9.1.1 Technical character of an invention

X CLR I D 9.1.2 Inventions having both technical and non-technical features

X CLR I D 9.1.3 Problem and solution approach when applied to "mixed" inventions

X CLR I D 9.1.3.A General issues

X CLR I D 9.1.3.B The Comvik approach

X CLR I D 9.1.3.C Non-technical features and technical contribution

X CLR I D 9.1.3.D Non-technical features and interaction with technical subject matter

X CLR I D 9.1.3.E Technical implementation of excluded subject-matter

X CLR I D 9.1.4 The aim to be achieved in the formulation of the technical problem

X CLR I D 9.1.5 Credible technical effects

X CLR I D 9.1.6 Assesment of features relating to a presentation of information

X CLR I D 9.1.6.A Mental activities based on data visualisation

X CLR I D 9.1.6.B Display of data and user preferences

X CLR I D 9.1.7 Assesment of features relating to meta methods for software production

X CLR I D 9.1.8 Assesment of features relating to mathematical algorithms

X CLR I D 9.2 Combination invention

X CLR I D 9.2.1 Existence of a combination invention

X CLR I D 9.2.2 Partial problems

X CLR I D 9.3 Combination of teachings

X CLR I D 9.4 Technical disclosure in a prior art document

X CLR I D 9.5 Features not contributing to the solution of the problem

X CLR I D 9.6 Substitution of materials – analogous use

X CLR I D 9.7 Combination of documents

X CLR I D 9.8 Chemical inventions

X CLR I D 9.8.1 Problem and solution approach in chemical inventions

X CLR I D 9.8.2 Structural similarity

X CLR I D 9.8.3 Broad claims

X CLR I D 9.8.4 Intermediate products

X CLR I D 9.8.5 Predictable improvements resulting from amorphous forms as compared to crystalline forms

X CLR I D 9.8.6 Synergistic effects

X CLR I D 9.9 Equivalents

X CLR I D 9.10 Selection inventions

X CLR I D 9.11 Problem inventions

X CLR I D 9.12 New use of a known measure

X CLR I D 9.13 Obvious new use

X CLR I D 9.14 Need to improve properties

X CLR I D 9.15 Disclaimer

X CLR I D 9.16 Optimisation of parameters

X CLR I D 9.17 Small improvement in commercially used process

X CLR I D 9.18 Analogy process – envisageable product

X CLR I D 9.19 Examples of lack of inventive step

X CLR I D 9.19.1 Foreseeable disadvantageous or technically non-functional modifications

X CLR I D 9.19.2 Technical standards

X CLR I D 9.19.3 Reversal of procedural steps

X CLR I D 9.19.4 Purposive selection

X CLR I D 9.19.5 Automation

X CLR I D 9.19.6 Enhanced effect

X CLR I D 9.19.7 Simplification of complicated technology

X CLR I D 9.19.8 Choice of one of several obvious solutions

X CLR I D 9.19.9 Several obvious steps

X CLR I D 9.19.10 Selection from obvious alternatives

X CLR I D 9.19.11 Putting the closest prior art device into practice

X CLR I D 9.19.12 Animal testing and human clinical trials

X CLR I D 10 Secondary indicia in the assessment of inventive step

X CLR I D 10.1 General issues

X CLR I D 10.2 Technical prejudice

X CLR I D 10.3 Age of documents – time factor

X CLR I D 10.4 Satisfaction of a long-felt need

X CLR I D 10.5 Commercial success

X CLR I D 10.6 Market competitors

X CLR I D 10.7 Simple solution

X CLR I D 10.8 Surprising effect – bonus effect

X CLR I D 10.9 Comparative tests