Friday, January 22, 2016 T 2191/13 - Recognition doesn't confer novelty

In this opposition appeal, the proprietor argues that the prior art does not disclose a particular claim feature, namely a selection of a component of a glue-system being made in dependence on knowledge of the substrate and processing condition under which the glue-system is to be used.

The Board considers this difference as follows:

Orientierungssatz:
Ein rein auf gedanklicher Ebene bestehender, nämlich sich ausschließlich auf das Vorhandensein einer Erkenntnis gründender Unterschied zum Stand der Technik kann, ohne dass dieser einen Niederschlag in den technischen Merkmalen des Anspruchsgegenstandes findet, die Neuheit nicht begründen (Punkte 12.3 und 12.4 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Headnote (translated and paraphrased)

A difference with respect to the state of the art which exists solely in an abstract recognition, without there being a manifestation of the abstract recognition in the technical measures of the claimed object, does not confer novelty (points 12.3 and 12.4 of the Reasons)

Of further interest is point 12.4 in which the Board hypothesises that if such a difference were to confer novelty, this would imply that in order to demonstrate infringement, it would have to be proven that such knowledge (on the substrate and processing conditions) would have been in the mind of an infringer when performing the selection, which according to the Board demonstrates the invalidity of this hypothesis.