Key points
- The Board, on inventive step: “However, an alleged technical effect invoked subsequently during the proceedings is not to be taken into consideration when formulating the problem to be solved, if the effect cannot be unambiguously deduced by the skilled person from the original application in the light of the closest prior art or if it is not at least hinted at in that application” [referring to CLBA]
- As a comment, I would like to recall how different the two alternatives are:
- " an alleged technical effect invoked subsequently during the proceedings is not to be taken into consideration when formulating the problem to be solved, if the effect cannot be unambiguously deduced by the skilled person from the original application in the light of the closest prior art"
- vs. " an alleged technical effect invoked subsequently during the proceedings is not to be taken into consideration when formulating the problem to be solved, if the effect ... is not at least hinted at in [the application as filed]".
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/t-065919-unambiguously-deduced-vs-at.html
