• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

European Patent Office: When is an invention new?

29. May 2018

When is an invention new? Often even a small change decides whether a technical use can be improved. The European Patent Office recently defined the requirements for novelty of a patent claim.

Requirements for novelty using practical examples

Oldtimer inventionThe patent in dispute was presented to the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office. The case concerned a hinged closure with a precisely described closure part. In Decision T 0912/14, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office described further requirements for novelty of a patent claim.

The Board of Appeal first made it clear that the distance indicated “distance greater than or equal to 0 mm” in the patent claim did not indicate that the strap and film hinge were a single piece of continuous construction, i.e. not an integral, interconnected form. Rather, this description merely indicates that both parts may have contact in the circumferential direction or that their respective edges overlap in plan view.

In this respect, it is new with the claim of the patent in dispute in relation to that in an older publication in which the corresponding joint is only integrally formed.

An important feature of the claim is the distance

In one of the figures of another revelatory writing a distance between lock and hinge is also drawn.

The description was by no means intended to indicate the specific distance for the invention described in the publication. For the drawing used in the revelation is merely a schematic representation, not a scale representation of the construction elements. The corresponding description contains information on the ideal size or thickness of the materials used for the hinge and lid. However, these statements were so general that they cannot refer to the figure contained in the epistle, according to the Board of Appeal.

The opposition also challenged claim 12 of the patent in dispute with the same argument that the strap and hinge are made in one piece and that the invention is not new.

Effect of the invention by the arrangement?

The Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office also interpreted that claim 12 of the patent in dispute in such a way that it was by no means a formulation of the material used as integrally combined. The revelatory writings held against this claim also contained only schematic figures, so that claim 12 must also be regarded as new in the result.

The inventive effect of claims 1 and 12 of the patent in dispute lies in the fact that the arrangement reduces the risk of the hinge tearing due to repeated opening of the closure. The task to be solved would therefore be “to increase the operational safety of the known closure”.

The complainants argued that there is no evidence of improved operational safety of a closure according to claim 1. The solution described in the patent in dispute was therefore merely the provision of an alternative.

Since they have not explained, however, that a sophisticated distance between the tensioning strap and the film hinge arranged directly next to it is part of the specialist’s specialist knowledge or can be determined by a simple series of tests, the Board of Appeal rejected that argument.

Since the decisive characteristic of claim 12 is the distance, the chamber concludes with regard to the injection mold as in claim 1.

As a result, the Board assumes an inventive step for both claim 1 and claim 12 of the patent in dispute.

Do you want help for European patent application or protection for your patents?

Our Patent Attorneys and Attorneys at Law bundle various competencies for industrial property, patent- and trademark law, national and international.
Please take your chance and contact us:

 

 

 

Sources:

EPO: T 0912/14 () of 14.9.2017

Picture:

Gellinger /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

 

 

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law,  International Intellectual Property Tag iconEPO,  European Patent Office,  Patent Application,  new invention,  requirements for novelty,  Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office,  Patent Claim

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

28. January 2022
CFI: Intel rebate system – Intel successfull in legal dispute

CFI: Intel rebate system – Intel successfull in legal dispute

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]