9. Assessment of inventive step
9.4. Combination of teachings
In T 1014/07 the examining division considered the subject-matter of claim 1 as obvious for the reason that each of the claimed features had been disclosed in the prior art. However, the board stated that the mere existence of teachings in the prior art was not a conclusive reason for explaining that the skilled person would have combined these teachings in order to solve the problem that they were confronted with. For the determination of the obviousness or non-obviousness of claimed subject-matter, it is not decisive that teachings are known – it must be decided whether or not the skilled person would have combined the known teachings such as to arrive at the claimed subject-matter when attempting to solve the underlying technical problem. Thus, the combination of known teachings may result in non-obvious subject-matter, namely when the skilled person is not motivated, for example by promptings in the prior art, to make such a combination. Under these circumstances the presence of any special effect arising from the combination is not necessary to establish an inventive step (see also T 1861/16).
In T 2695/18 the appellant submitted that the claimed method lacked an inventive step in light of the combined teaching of document D1 (closest prior art) and D17. The appellant submitted that the disclosure in D17 of using Mn**(2+) in the preferred range of "10 nm to 100 µM" motivated the skilled person to use Mn**(2+) across this entire range. The board agreed that normally the mentioning of a feature in a document as being preferred motivated the skilled person to apply this teaching for an intended purpose. However the skilled person seeking to increase sialylation of EPO/DPO would not ignore the experimental data and the explicit teaching in D17 that Mn**(2+) concentrations above 0.1 µM did not achieve this effect.
In T 2197/19 the board found that D2 was in line with the very essence of the teaching in the closest prior art, D3, which disclosed "a method for moulding hollow articles of thermoplastic material". The skilled person would thus have combined the teachings of documents D3 and D2 to solve the first partial objective technical problem.
In T 1246/21 the board noted that since Art. 56 EPC and the final stage of the problem-solution approach both considered what was obvious to a person skilled in the art, an inventive step could not be acknowledged solely on the finding that the claimed subject-matter was not directly and unambiguously disclosed from the combination of two documents. The skilled person's common general knowledge and skills also had to be taken into account when combining the two documents.
See also chapter I.D.5 "Could-would approach".
- T 0412/23
In case T 412/23, the invention related to a method for determining a suitable colour variant for painting a car without the need for expensive equipment and extensive colour fans. The only state of the art discussed by the appellant was the prior art discussed in the impugned patent itself (E0, E00, E15). Both parties agreed that E0 was the closest state of the art. The formulation of two partial problems was not appropriate.
According to the opponent (appellant), the skilled person would combine the teachings of the prior art discussed in the impugned patent in paragraphs [0002], [0005] and [0007] and therefore arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1. That is to say the skilled person would combine the teachings of E0, E00 and E15 especially because these different teachings were discussed in close relation to each other in the impugned patent, reflected the general common knowledge of the skilled person and could be easily combined with each other without technical difficulty.
The board essentially agreed with the reasoning of the opposition division. When solving a single objective technical problem, the skilled person could not combine in the present context the teachings of three documents at a single stroke, but must first combine the teaching of E0 with the teaching of one of the documents E15 and E00 and then, in a second step, combine the result of this combination with the teaching of the other one of the documents E15 and E00..
In other words, when the teachings of three documents are combined, this has to be done – in circumstances such as the present ones – step by step, i.e. in a first step, the teaching of another document is combined on the basis of the teaching or embodiment of the closest state of the art. In a second step, it must then be examined whether the skilled person would also combine the result of this combination with the teaching of the third document. In doing so, the context of the initial situation as well as the complexity and specific technical context of each document or embodiment has to be taken into account (see Catchword).
In the present case E15 taught the examination of texture only by using complex image processing software, while E0 and E00 taught the examination of colour only with the human eye from only one or two angles. The board noted that the reference to E15 and its content in paragraph [0005] was added during examination proceedings and was not part of the original application documents. Furthermore, E15 did not relate to the method described in paragraph [0007] at all. The observation that metallic effect paints presented particular challenges in colour matching and that texture must be considered to improve matching accuracy, originated from the patent itself and could not be regarded as prior art. Furthermore, from the context of the contested patent, it was clear to the board that E00 and E0 referred to different evaluation methods. E00 related to a basic method and involved a method with examination of a single angle and a single visual property. E0 related to a different, more sophisticated method with examination from two different angles and two visual properties. The board could not see how the skilled person would arrive at a combination of all claimed features by combining the teachings of E0, E00 and E15.
The board agreed with the opponent only insofar as the skilled person might combine the teaching of E0 with the teaching of E00 or E15. However, in a second step, the skilled person would not take into account the teaching of the other document, since, depending on whether the skilled person would first turn to a simpler or more complex teaching, they would not consider the more complex or overly simplified teaching in a second step. The board came to the conclusion that the person skilled in the art would not combine the teaching of E0 at the same time with the teachings of both E00 and E15, since in the latter the context was different from that in E0, being significantly more complex in one case (E15) and simpler in the other (E00).