GL G VI 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 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).

GL G VI 6 Implicit disclosure and parameters

In the case of a prior-art document, the lack of novelty may be apparent from what is explicitly stated in the document itself. Alternatively, it may be implicit in the sense that, in carrying out the teaching of the prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of the claim.

GL G VI 5 Generic disclosure and specific examples

In considering novelty, it is to be borne in mind that a generic disclosure does not usually take away the novelty of any specific example falling within the terms of that disclosure, but that a specific disclosure does take away the novelty of a generic claim embracing that disclosure, e.g. a disclosure of copper takes away the novelty of metal as a generic concept, but not the novelty of any metal other than copper, and one of rivets takes away the novelty of fastening means as a generic concept, but not the novelty of any fastening other than rivets.

GL G VI 4 Enabling disclosure of a prior-art document

Subject-matter described in a document can only be regarded as having been made available to the public, and therefore as comprised in the state of the art pursuant to Art. 54(1), if the information given therein is sufficient to enable the skilled person, at the relevant date of the document (see G‑VI, 3), to practise the technical teaching which is the subject of the document, taking into account also the general knowledge at that time in the field (see

GL G VI 3 Relevant date of a prior-art document

In determining novelty, a prior-art document is to be read as it would have been read by a person skilled in the art on the relevant date of the document. By "relevant" date is meant the publication date in the case of a previously published document and the date of filing (or priority date, where appropriate) in the case of a document according to Art. 54(3) (see G‑IV, 5.1).

GL G VI 2 Implicit features or well-known equivalents

A document takes away the novelty of any claimed subject-matter derivable directly and unambiguously from that document including any features implicit to a person skilled in the art in what is expressly mentioned in the document, e.g. a disclosure of the use of rubber in circumstances where clearly its elastic properties are used even if this is not explicitly stated takes away the novelty of the use of an elastic material. The limitation to subject-matter "derivable directly and unambiguously" from the document is important.

GL G VI 1 State of the art pursuant to Art. 54(2)

An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. For a definition of "state of the art", see G‑IV, 1. It is to be noted that in considering novelty (as distinct from inventive step; see G‑VII, 8), it is not permissible to combine separate items of prior art together.

GL G VI – Novelty

1. State of the art pursuant to Art. 54(2)

2. Implicit features or well-known equivalents

3. Relevant date of a prior-art document

4. Enabling disclosure of a prior-art document

5. Generic disclosure and specific examples

GL G V 4 International exhibition

In instance G‑V, 1(ii), the application must be filed within six months of the disclosure of the invention at the exhibition if the display is not to prejudice the application. Furthermore, the applicant must state, at the time of filing the application, that the invention has been so displayed, and must also file a supporting certificate within four months, giving the particulars required by Rule 25 (see A‑IV, 3).

GL G V 3 Evident abuse

Regarding instance G‑V, 1(i), the disclosure might be made in a published document or in any other way. As a particular instance, the disclosure might be made in a European application of earlier priority date. Thus, for example, a person B who has been told of A's invention in confidence, might apply for a patent for this invention. If so, the disclosure resulting from the publication of B's application will not prejudice A's rights provided that A has already made an application, or applies within six months of such publication.