In this case the Court held that a previous patent application and other scientific publications which did not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, could not influence the novelty of the invention for which that patent application was later filed.
The Court confirmed that an improvement of the aforementioned invention by using one’s own scientific knowledge, technical experience and significant connection of the elements which are the part of the state of the art can lead to the creation of a new invention that fulfils the conditions of novelty and inventive step.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
