GL G VII 5.3 Could-would approach

In the third stage the question to be answered is whether there is any teaching in the prior art as a whole that would (not simply could, but would) have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem, to modify or adapt the closest prior art while taking account of that teaching, thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves (see G‑VII, 4).

In other words, the point is not whether persons

GL G VII 5.2 Formulation of the objective technical problem

In the second stage, one establishes in an objective way the technical problem to be solved.

GL G VII 5.1 Determination of the closest prior art

The closest prior art is that which in one single reference discloses the combination of features which constitutes the most promising starting point for a development leading to the invention. In selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it must be directed to a similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention.

GL G VII 5 Problem-solution approach

In order to assess inventive step in an objective and predictable manner, the so-called "problem-solution approach" is applied.

In the problem-solution approach, there are three main stages:

(i)determining the "closest prior art",

(ii)establis

GL G VII 4 Obviousness

Thus the question to consider, in relation to any claim defining the invention, is whether before the filing or priority date valid for that claim, having regard to the art known at the time, it would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claim. If so, the claim is not allowable for lack of inventive step.

GL G VII 3.1 Common general knowledge of the skilled person

Common general knowledge can come from various sources and does not necessarily depend on the publication of a specific document on a specific date.

GL G VII 3 Person skilled in the art

The "person skilled in the art" is presumed to be a skilled practitioner in the relevant field of technology who is possessed of average knowledge and ability and is aware of what was common general knowledge in the art at the relevant date (see T 4/98, T 143/94 and T 426/88).

GL G VII 2 State of the art; date of filing

The "state of the art" for the purposes of considering inventive step is as defined in Art. 54(2) (see G‑IV, 1). It is to be understood as concerning such kind of information as is relevant to some field of technology. It does not include later published European applications referred to in Art. 54(3).

GL G VII 1 General

An invention is considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the Art. Novelty (see G‑VI) and inventive step are different criteria. The question – "is there inventive step?" – only arises if the invention is novel.[Art. 56; ]