The Court held that in order to decide that a patented invention is novel, it is not sufficient that the wording in the patent description is different from the wording in the prior art. The technical subject-matter of the prior art must be different.

Moreover, it had to be assessed whether publicly accessible information could enable an expert in the field to comprehend the claimed features of the patented invention. When interpreting the state of the art, which presented the basis for comparison when assessing novelty, it had to be taken into account what an expert can directly comprehend from a publication, use, etc.

The Court revoked the patent Sl-20216A due to lack of novelty.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.


This page as PDF