6. Examination of novelty 

When determining whether the claimed subject-matter is novel, the examiner must take account of the guidance given in F‑IV, 4.5 to F-IV, 4.21. Especially for claims directed to a physical entity, non-distinctive characteristics of a particular intended use are to be disregarded (see F‑IV, 4.13.1). For example, a claim to a substance X for use as a catalyst would not be considered to be novel over the same substance known as a dye unless the use referred to implies a particular form of the substance (e.g. the presence of certain additives) which distinguishes it from the known form of the substance. This means that characteristics which are not explicitly stated but are implied by the particular use are to be taken into account (see the example of a "mould for molten steel" in F‑IV, 4.13.1). For claims to a first medical use, see G‑II, 4.2.

A claim defining a compound as having a certain purity lacks novelty over a prior-art disclosure describing the same compound only if the prior art discloses the claimed purity at least implicitly, e.g. by way of a method for preparing the compound that inevitably results in the purity as claimed. However, such a claim does not lack novelty if the disclosure of the prior art needs to be supplemented, e.g. by suitable (further) purification methods allowing the skilled person to arrive at the claimed purity.