4. Bestimmung der Offenbarung des einschlägigen Stands der Technik
Übersicht
4. Bestimmung der Offenbarung des einschlägigen Stands der Technik
Nachdem festgestellt worden ist, welche Information zum Stand der Technik gehört, ist es erforderlich, festzustellen, welchen technischen Inhalt sie hat und ob der technische Inhalt nachvollziehbar ist.
Die Rechtsprechung ist einheitlich der Auffassung, dass, um auf fehlende Neuheit erkennen zu können, sich der Gegenstand der Erfindung klar, eindeutig und unmittelbar aus dem Stand der Technik ergeben muss (vgl. u. a. T 465/92, ABl. 1996, 32; T 511/92) und dass alle und nicht nur die wesentlichen Merkmale aus dem Stand der Technik bekannt sein müssen (T 411/98). Dabei ist der Maßstab für den Offenbarungsgehalt einer Veröffentlichung, was von der Durchschnittsfachperson auf dem entsprechenden Fachgebiet an Kenntnissen und Verständnis erwartet werden kann und darf (T 164/92, ABl. 1995, 305, Korr. 387; T 582/93).
- T 1816/22
In T 1816/22 the appellant's objection of lack of novelty of claim 1 as granted was based on the disclosure provided in D1 and a sentence which referred to D2 by stating: "Perfumes are generally described in U.S. Patent No. 7,186,680 at column 10, line 56, to column 25, line 22". In the opinion of the appellant, this sentence disclosed all the perfumes mentioned in the portions of this document that were specifically identified above, thus also "ethyl vanillin", listed for example at the top of the table in column 13 of D2, which was also present in both of the only two fully formulated examples "Enduring Perfume A" and "Enduring Perfume B" disclosed in D2. Accordingly, a single selection — if any — among the perfumes implicitly disclosed in D1 (through its reference to D2) would be sufficient to arrive at the laundry product of claim 1 of the opposed patent.
For the board, the reference to D2 was so vague that it could not be equated to a (albeit implicit, but nevertheless) direct and unambiguous disclosure that the "perfume" components of the prior art fabric treatment composition described in D1 could be any one of the specific perfumes disclosed in the cited portion of D2.
According to the board, already upon reading the wording "generally described" in the reference to D2 per se, a skilled person might expect that such a reference pertains exclusively to the general definitions of groups/ classes of perfumes (e.g., in terms of their chemical classes, origin, type of scent, or other properties) possibly provided in D2.
This at least seemingly possible — if not more probable — interpretation of the reference to D2 made in D1 appeared also consistent with the actual disclosure in the specific portions of D2 identified in D1.
Even when considering the entire portion of D2 identified in D1, the board found the reference to D2 too vague, as it remained at least possible that the intention was to refer only to the groups or classes of perfumes described in general.
Since the reference to D2 did not render part of the direct and unambiguous disclosure of the prior art in D1 the possible use of any specific perfumes disclosed in D2 (including the "ethyl vanillin" cited by the appellant), the subject-matter of claim 1 was not anticipated in D1.