No. of citations: 66
"... in order to apply this approach for objectively assessing inventive step, it is essential to establish the closest prior art. Generally, this requires that the claimed invention should be compared with the art concerned with a similar use which requires the minimum of structural and functional modifications." (point 2 of the Reasons)The Board pointed out that the closest prior art is not necessarily the document having the greatest number of features in common with the invention. Suitability of the prior art product for solving the underlying technical problem should be taken into account:
"Thus, in the present case, this involves not only comparing the claimed compositions with those of the prior art, but also giving consideration to the particular properties which render the compositions suitable for the desired use." (point 2 of the Reasons)The invention in that case related to "stock solutions" for detergent compositions, and this requires that all components of the stock solution are soluble and do not precipitate, so as to avoid phase separation and turbidity in the stock solution.
Document D3 disclosed a low-foaming detergent composition, which had the greatest number of components in common with the inventive stock solution, but it also included insoluble addition products. In the opinion of the Board, the fact that the foam depressant addition products were water-insoluble rendered the compositions of D3 unsuitable for the preparation of stock solutions which should not exhibit any turbidity and/or phase separation.
D6, on the other hand had less features in common with the invention, but did not contain the insoluble addition products. D6 was found more suitable for use as a "stock solution". The Board found that D6 was the proper starting point for the problem solution approach.
---
Headnote:
- none -The full text of the decision can be accessed here.
No comments:
Post a Comment