View profile

T 2764/19—Can an arbitrary difference be non-obvious?

I’m back in the case law blogging game :)

Back than in my old firm I started a little software patent case law blog, which is now run by my former colleagues at Bardehle.
Meanwhile, I’m taking your feedback very seriously that many of you enjoy written content. So I decided to get back into the blogging arena.
The first post is about T 2764/19 (Header-embedded control data/STARKEY) of 11.6.2021 which deals with a situation that often occurs in patent prosecution:
Once prior art comes up which wasn’t known at the time of drafting, it may be that the remaining difference is much “leaner” than originally envisaged.
In particular, what if the remaining difference is completely arbitrary? Can it still be inventive?
Apart from this question, the board also makes some interesting remarks on the European claim construction standard, the question of incorporation by reference and the requirements on sufficiency of disclosure.
Here’s the full post:
T 2764/19—Can an arbitrary difference be non-obvious? — Bastian Best
Feels good to be back in the case law blogging game :) How do you like the article?
Did you enjoy this issue? Yes No
Bastian Best

I write a short daily email with practical tips on how to make sense of patents in the digital transformation.

If you don't want these updates anymore, please unsubscribe here.
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here.
Created with Revue by Twitter.
Bastian Best, Teuchertstr. 2b, DE-81829 München, www.bastianbest.de