2. State of the art

You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here

2.1. General

2.2. Applications with same filing or priority date

2.3. Relevant date of documents

2.4. Prior rights – Article 54(3) EPC

2.5. Non-prejudicial disclosures under Article 55 EPC

2.6. In-house knowledge not published before the priority date

2.7. Prior art acknowledged in a patent application

2.8. Common general knowledge

T 1370/15: Not only in ex parte-, but also in inter partes appeal proceedings, a board is allowed to introduce new ex officio common general knowledge without evidence of such knowledge which prejudices maintenance of the patent, to the extent that the board is knowledgeable in the respective technical field from the experience of its members working on cases in this field. (See Reasons, point 5.3)
T 1727/14: Artikel in Fachzeitschriften und Fachwissen (siehe Punkt 1.1) Zulassung einer Erklärung, die einen Bruch einer Geheimhaltungsverpflichtung darstellen könnte (siehe Punkt 1.2)

Case law 2019: In T 1727/14 the appellant (patent proprietor) had submitted documents D16 and D17 as evidence of the common general knowledge. D16 was a published European patent application and D17 an article published in a specialist journal. The board cited the boards' case law establishing that such documents were generally unsuitable as proof of the skilled person's common general knowledge, rejecting the appellant's argument that specialist journals were especially suitable as evidence of the relevant common general knowledge. For the purposes of patent law, common general knowledge was the knowledge the skilled person acquired from their training and professional experience, whereas specialist journals generally aimed to convey to the skilled person new information relevant for their job, i.e. things which normally had not yet – and indeed might never – become part of the common general knowledge. That did not mean that the content of a specialist journal could never serve as evidence of the common general knowledge. But it could not be inferred from the mere fact that something had been published in such a journal that it was part of that knowledge.