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).

Generally, the principles laid down in section G‑VII, 12, in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO apply mutatis mutandis. The subject-matter of selection inventions differs from the closest prior art in that it represents selected sub-sets or sub-ranges.

GL-PCT G VII 11 Arguments and evidence submitted by the applicant

Section G‑VII, 11, in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO applies mutatis mutandis.

GL-PCT G VII 10.3 Long felt need; commercial success

See ISPE Guidelines 13.16-13.18.

GL-PCT G VII 10.2 Unexpected technical effect; bonus effect

Section G‑VII, 10.2, in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO applies mutatis mutandis.

GL-PCT G VII 10.1 Predictable disadvantage; non-functional modification; arbitrary choice

Section G‑VII, 10.1, in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO applies mutatis mutandis.

GL-PCT G VII 10 Secondary indicators

10.1 Predictable disadvantage; non-functional modification; arbitrary choice

10.2 Unexpected technical effect; bonus effect

10.3 Long felt need; commercial success

GL-PCT G VII 9 Origin of an invention

While the claim should in each case be directed to technical features (and not, for example, merely to an idea), in order to assess whether an inventive step is present it is important for the examiner to bear in mind that an invention may, for example, be based on the following:

(i)the devising of a solution to a known problem;

GL-PCT G VII 8 Ex post facto analysis

It should be remembered that an invention which at first sight appears obvious might in fact involve an inventive step. Once a new idea has been formulated, it can often be shown theoretically how it might be arrived at, starting from something known, by a series of apparently easy steps. Examiners should be wary of ex post facto analysis of this kind.

GL-PCT G VII 7 Combination vs. juxtaposition or aggregation

The invention claimed must normally be considered as a whole. When a claim consists of a "combination of features", it is not correct to argue that the separate features of the combination taken by themselves are known or obvious and that "therefore" the whole subject-matter claimed is obvious.

GL-PCT G VII 13 Dependent claims; claims in different categories

GL-PCT G VII 12 Selection inventions