Key points
- The Board recalls that the objective technical problem should in principle be based on the [subjective] problem set out in the patent (application).
- The Board in translation: " When objectively determining the problem solved according to the invention, the problem formulated in the patent in suit should first be taken as a basis. Only if the problem formulated in the application does not do justice to the state of the art and/or is not solved in accordance with the features of the invention does it have to be adapted to the state of the art and/or the actual technical success (T 1060/11, Reasons 7.2) . "
- " The task in the present application is technically sensible and is solved by the features of the independent claim. The objectively closest prior art is said to be identical to that stated as the closest prior art in the present application. Consequently, the subjective task specified in the present application [" der in der vorliegenden Anmeldung genannten subjektiven Aufgabenstellung"] may not be deviated from. "
- "Furthermore, the task should not be generalized ("improving the quality of the hologram"), nor should the task be specified to such an extent that the solution would be anticipated ("avoidance of multiple reflections and interference"). The solution is based on the finding that the incorrect exposure of the pixels is due to optical interference in the holographic recording material, which in turn is caused by the multiple reflections between the parallel surfaces of the light modulator and the beam splitter cube."
EPO T 1767/19
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/08/t-176719-in-principle-subjective.html
