T 0056/87 - Technical teaching of a document must be interpreted as a whole - #47

Citation rank: 47
No. of citations: 95

The invention in the underlying opposition case related to a method of controlling a divergent beam of rays, in which method two sets of flat electrodes were placed at certain locations relative to the beam. One set of electrodes was placed in the centre of the beam (such that the entire electrode surface is hit my the beam), the other set of electrodes was placed such that a part of the electrode surface is hit by the beam, another part of the beam being "in the shadow of the collimator".

The opponent alleged lack of novelty over D1, which also disclosed a method of controlling a divergent beam of rays with two sets of flat electrodes. Figure 1 of D1 was a schematic drawing of an apparatus for carrying out the method of D1. It was almost identical to a Figure in the patent in dispute. The schematic drawing in D1 was such that the features, according to which one set of electrodes is fully hit by the beam and the other set of electrodes is only partially hit, could be said to be deducible from the drawings. The Opposition Division had revoked the patent on the basis of what was shown in Figure 1 of D1.

The Technical Board of Appeals took a different standpoint. They conceded that the relevant features indeed appeared to be deducible from Figure 1 of D1, however, only if it had stood on its own. When the description of the invention of D1 was properly taken into account, it was apparent that the second set of electrodes could not have been arranged such that they are partially hit by the beam of rays. Instead, it was deducible from the description of D1 that these second electrodes must be entirely within the radiation field of the beam to fulfil their function according to D1.

The Board stated:

"It is generally accepted that for deciding on the novelty of a feature claimed in a patent or in a patent application it is necessary to determine whether this feature may be derived directly and unmistakenly from a prior art document by a person skilled in the art (see point 4 of decision T 204/83 already mentioned). In the Board's opinion, the skilled person who studies a document does not consider individually the various single items described therein but looks at their technical interrelation in order to try to understand the functioning of the disclosed apparatus or process. The skilled person is thus used to seeing all the detailed information contained in a document in their technical context. Therefore, the technical disclosure in a prior art document should be considered in its entirety, as it would be done by a person skilled in the art. It is not justified arbitrarily to isolate parts of such document from their context in order to derive therefrom a technical information, which would be distinct from or even in contradiction with the integral teaching of the document." (point 3.1 of the reasons)

The Board concluded that Figure 1 of the D1 should not be interpreted in isolation from the remainder of the document, and - in view of the express teaching of the description - the skilled person would interpret D1 such that the second set of electrodes is not partially, but fully, hit by the beam of rays.

For this reason, D1 was considered not novelty destroying for the claimed invention.

The opposition was rejected.

---

Headnote:

The technical teaching in a prior art document should be considered in its entirety, as it would be done by a person skilled in the art. It is not justified to arbitrarily isolate parts of such document from their context in order to derive therefrom a technical information, which would be distinct from or even in contradiction with the integral teaching of the document. Thus, a technical feature which is derived from or based on dimensions obtained from a diagrammatic representation and which technically contradicts the teaching of the description, does not form part of the disclosure of this document.

The text of the decision can be found here.