Übersetzung für "Mangelnde neuheit" in Englisch

That means, the patent can only be attacked because of lack of novelty and lack of inventive step.

That is because it is up to the opponent to prove a lack of novelty or individuality.

Most observations concern lack of novelty and/or lack of inventive step.

In the case of the present appeal, however, the latter condition is not fulfilled, since lack of novelty was not a ground for opposition.

Moreover, in the case under consideration, the opposition division in fact rejected the opposition, which was based on Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step), taking the view that "the subject-matter of the contested patent meets the requirements of novelty and inventive step".

The word "available" carries with it the idea that, for lack of novelty to be found, all the technical features of the claimed invention in combination must have been communicated to the public, or laid open for inspection.

On appeal, the Court, having dismissed Clinipro's request for revocation of claim1 for lack of novelty, went on to consider its auxiliary request for revocation for insufficiency of disclosure.

In arguing lack of novelty in respect of European patent (UK) 2229744, the defendants relied on a document called the Ericsson TDoc.

Opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole based on Articles 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty, Article 54 EPC, and lack of inventive step, Article 56 EPC) and 100(c) EPC.

II. The patent was opposed on the grounds that the subject-matter of Claim 1 lacked an inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC).

II. The patent as a whole was opposed on the grounds of Article 100(c) EPC, Article 100(b) EPC and Article 100(a) EPC for lack of novelty and inventive step.

Lack of novelty was also alleged having regard to European patent No. 2900 (document (2), in the name of the Patentee).

Although in decision G 7/95 (supra) it was decided that the grounds of lack of novelty and lack of inventive step are two different grounds for opposition, this does not mean that there is no substantive connection between these two grounds, at least in a case in which the claimed invention is to be compared with the same relevant prior art document in both respects.

The invention consists in the selection of a particular radical or particular group of radicals from amongst those referred to as the substituent "R" (the selected radical or group of radicals not being specifically disclosed in the prior-art document since the question would then be one of lack of novelty rather than obviousness).

Before addressing the substantive issue of novelty, the lack thereof being the ground for refusal of the present application stated in the decision under appeal, the compliance of the claims with the requirements of Article 84 EPC is to be examined.

Opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole based on Article 100(a) and (b) EPC (lack of novelty and inventive step and insufficiency of disclosure).

The board found that the new objections of added subject matter and lack of novelty had only been raised after the respondents had submitted their reply and were therefore late filed.

In addition, there is no reasoning in the notice of opposition to indicate why such numerous documents, which may or may not between them contain all the relevant features of the claims, should suggest any lack of inventive step, let alone lack of novelty.

Moreover, a brief statement of the ground is warranted because lack of novelty covers lack of inventive step.

Thus they could, and indeed did, lack novelty over the disclosure of the priority document even though they were not entitled to priority from it.

The document stated that the patent as a whole was attacked based on Article 100(a) EPC, i.e. lack of novelty and/or lack of inventive step.

Notice of opposition had been filed by appellants 1 and appellants 2 requesting revocation of the patent as granted in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and insufficient disclosure of the invention (Article 100(b) EPC).

II. The patent as a whole was opposed on the sole ground of lack of inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC).

II. The oppositions were directed against the patent in its entirety and were based on grounds under Article 100(a) EPC (alleged lack of novelty and of inventive step).

The statement setting out the grounds was received 25 October 2007. II. Opposition was filed against the patent as a whole and based mainly on Article 100 (a) together with Articles 52(1) and 54 EPC 1973, for lack of novelty.

In all of these cases the grant of a patent would have been refused anyway on other grounds - i.e. lack of novelty or inventive step - so that the outcome of a decision on this issue was immaterial.

II. The opponent had requested to revoke the patent in its entirety based on grounds under Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability).

Opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole based on Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty, lack of inventive step) and Article 100(c) EPC.

This applies during any proceedings before the EPO and applies especially to publications (for instance, an extract from a Russian periodical cited by an opponent to show lack of novelty or lack of inventive step).