The invention is that defined each claim in the specification document. Each claim is for a separate invention. But subsequent claim includes additional features to make their invention more specific.
Novelty/new is not the same as inventive/not obvious.
New or novelty question - is there any disclosure that describe or disclose the idea.
On question of inventive or not obvious - if there is some difference between the claim invention and the prior art, is this difference considered as inventive
Or not obvious to the skilled person
So if you conclude that the invention is not new, you don't have to go on to consider inventiveness.
But if you think that there is any difference at all , then the claim passes the novelty test for that publication, then the next question is whether the difference or new addition is inventive over the prior art.
When you consider novelty question, you usually cannot combine ideas from different publications. So you cannot take ideas a,b from document X , and ideas c,d from document Y, to say that they reveal features a,b,c,d when combined, and therefore the claim with features a,b,c,d is not new.
Each claim is for a separate invention. You will notice that they add more features with subsequent claims. So claim 2 will have one or two additional feature than claim 1 , this is what they do to improve the chances of making the invention new -as you add more features - it is harder to find a single document that discloses all the features in the claim.
On the second question of inventiveness, this is usually a question for the skilled person in the industry to answer - whether it is obvious to him to bridge the difference based on the disclosure in the prior art.
No comments:
Post a Comment