The Closest Prior Art and its Neighborhood

One of the important differences between the assessment of inventive step at the EPO and in the German case-law lies in the definition of the starting point for inventive step. While the EPO usually focusses on a particular document selected as the "closest prior art", the Bundespatentgericht and BGH usually take a more holistic view on the prior art as the summary knowledge of the skilled person, which may be exemplified and proven by one or more documents.

The decision T1841/11 seeks to find an intermediate solution by defining a broader field of suitable starting points rather than a single one. The headnote reads as follows (emphasis added):

The closest prior art should relate to the same or at least a similar purpose (or objective) as the claimed invention. Even if prior art relating to the same purpose is available, it is not excluded that a document relating to a similar purpose might be considered to represent a better - or at least an equally plausible - choice of closest prior art, provided that it would be immediately apparent to the skilled person that what is disclosed in the document could be adapted to the purpose of the claimed invention in a straightforward manner, using no more than common general knowledge (Reasons, point 2.6).

If, despite the availability of prior art relating to the same purpose as the claimed invention (here: manufacturing a semiconductor substrate comprising a silicon-germanium film), it is nevertheless considered appropriate to select as closest prior art a disclosure relating to a similar purpose (here: manufacturing a semiconductor substrate comprising a germanium film), at least one claimed feature corresponding to the purpose of the invention will generally appear as a difference over the closest prior art (here: silicon-germanium). However, this difference is not one which can legitimately be invoked in support of inventive step.

The problem-solution approach presupposes that the skilled person has a purpose in mind from the very beginning of the inventive process, which in this case is the manufacture of a known type of semiconductor substrate comprising a silicon-germanium film. Within this conceptual framework, it cannot be logically argued that the skilled person would find no motivation to incorporate silicon-germanium. Moreover, an argument that it would not be straightforward to incorporate this difference into the teaching of the document considered to be closest prior art, or that this would require more than common general knowledge, would not, in such a case, constitute an argument in favour of inventive step, but rather an argument that this document is not in fact a promising starting point (Reasons, point 4.1).

Conveying information and Inventive Step BGH "Entsperrbild"

In the case X ZR 110/13 "Entsperrbild", the BGH had do decide on a patent relating to the unlocking of a mobile phone. The key feature is that an icon (unlock image - the small arrow 402 in the figure on the rhs) is moved together with the finger when executing the unlock gesture.

The Bundespatentgericht had disregarded the icon in the assessment of inventive step and judged that it did not contribute to the solution of a technical problem.

The BGH did not agree. According to the headnote, features relating to the conveying of information in a patent claim need to be subject to a special treatment:

1. Statements relating to the conveying of certain information contents and hence aim at having impact onto the human imagination or intellectual power are, as such, disregarded in the assessment of inventive step. Statements relating to information which shall be conveyed according to the technical teaching of the invention are apt to support the patentability in view of inventive step only insofar as they determine or at least influence the solution of a technical problem by technical means.
2. Information-related features of a patent claim are to be examined as to whether the information to be conveyed is, at the same time, an embodiment of a means for a technical solution, which must not already be indicated as such elsewhere in the patent claim. In such a case, the means for the technical solution as to be considered in the assessment of inventive step.

This decision is likely to be discussed in more detail later on.

Limiting Factor - Transhydrogenase

The decision "Transhydrogenase (X ZR 115/09)" relates to the use of microorganisms for producing a target substance, wherein the metabolic system of the microorganism is modified "wherein productivity of said microorganism for reduced nicotinamide adenine dinu-cleotide phosphate is enhanced" (cited from original claim 1.

It was known that  nicotinamide adenine dinu-cleotide phosphate (NADPH) plays a role in the metabolic system producing the target substance. However, the prior art did not point out that NADPH is (one of) the limiting factor(s).

The BGH ruled that the skilled person "... has an incentive to consider an improvement of that particular factor in the complicated metabolic system only if it is not known or to be expected with a sufficient degree of certainty that this factor is limiting, i.e. not available in a sufficent amount in the known methods" (cited from the headnote).

Implicit Incentives - BGH Installiereinrichtung II

The German Federal Supreme Court (BHG) has recently ruled on the "pointers" or "incentives" known to be needed to find that it is obvious for the skilled person to furhter develop a known solution in the way indicated by that pointer.

Besides of noting that all this depends on the circumstances of the individual case, the court notes that not only explicit promptings are relevant:

Rather, the characteristics ofthe technical field under consideration, in particular relating to the education of the persons skilled in the art, the usual way of developing innovations, technical requirements resulting from the construction or the application of the subject-matter under consideration as well as non-technical requirements may play a role.

The Applicant is Kindly Requested to Dig His Own Grave

The "Guidelines for Examination at the European Patent Office" are just what the name says. They should guide the EPO Officers through the Examination procedure and are not addressed to the applicant.

Art. 56 EPC comprises a legal presumption of inventiveness in its formulation:

"An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art."

Inventiveness is something which has to be disproven and can not be positively proven. Else, the Article would read "An invention shall not be considered as involving an inventive step unless, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Trying to find a consistent chain of obvious steps to be taken by the skilled person disproving inventiveness is the job if the Examiner. In an attemt to avoid hindsight analysis, the EPO prescribes the problem-and-solution approach for this purpose.

These are the rules of the game: the examiner has to try establishing a logical chain of reasoning using the problem-and-solution approach and the appicant's task in the examination of obviousness is to point to the steps which are illogical or non-obvious in this approach.

It appears that some examiners have gotten this completely wrong. Many (according to my subjectiv impression mainly those from The Hague) use the following text block in their examination reports:

The applicant should indicate the difference of the subject -matter of the new claim vis- a- vis the state of the art and the significance thereof, i.e., which is the underlying technical problern that is solved in an inventive way by those features of the independent claim that form a contribution over the prior art (e.g. D1 ). ln the Ietter of reply, the applicant is requested to apply the problem-solution approach for inventive step as outlined in the Guidelines CIV 11.5, i.e. the applicant is requested to
- determine the closest prior art,
- identify the technical features distinguishing the claimed subject-matter from the closest prior art,
- identify the objective technical problern being solved by the claim, and
- provide a convincing argument as to why the solution to the above objective technical problern that is put torward by the claim would not have been obvious to the skilled person.

 When I read this text block, I always feel that the examiner on the other side has not really understood what the Examination procedure is all about. He actually wants the applicant to execute the tasks of the examining division.

E-Mail via SMS - BGH on Inventive Step

When establishing a logical chain of considerations leading the skilled person from the prior art to the subject-matter of a claim in order to challenge its inventiveness, the most difficult part consists often in finding the incentive of the skilled person to take a particular step. The case-law both in Germany and at the EPO requires such an incentive e.g. for the combination of different pieces of prior art.

In a decision issued last week, the German Federal Supreme Court BGH had to decide on a patent relating to a method for transmitting e-mails using the SMS-Standard. The method required a modification of the data structure according to the SMS-Standard and the solution employed mechanisms which had already been provided (though for slightly different purposes) in the same standard.

The BGH found that the skilled person faced with the problem of improving a standard has an incentive to use the mechanisms provided therein and - if the standard provides for a manageable (überschaubar) number of possible approaches for solving the technical problem - to take each of these approaces into consideration even if an unmanageable number of possible approaches would be imagineable outside of the standard.