Key points
- For those readers who are in a hurry and are not specifically interested in the principle of the free evaluation of evidence, below the link is a condensed version of the decision with only the parts about "plausibility" and with the (extensive and important) citations of earlier case law and national law omitted, i.e. only the reasoning of the Enlarged Board.
- The relevant headnote 2 of the decision is that: "A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention."
- I note that the term "plausibility" is not used in the headnote.
- This headnote requires some interpretation. The preliminary opinion contained a statement that is almost verbatim the same as the headnote (see my analysis of that statement here), though the remarks in the preliminary opinion about "significant doubts" did not make it to the final decision.
EPO
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/2023/03/g-221-condensed-version-on-plausibility.html
