A Review of the “Problem and Solution” Approach to Inventive ...

The definition of inventive step is given in Article 56 EPC, and is based on ... is used almost universally at the EPO in the examination of inventive step. AReviewofthe“ProblemandSolution”ApproachtoInventiveStepunderArticle56EPC A.Kennington Thisisthefirstpartofalongarticle,whichwillbepublishedinthreepartsinsuccessiveissuesofepiInformation. Part1–TheCorrectFormulationoftheProblem Thisarticleprovidesafurtherdiscussionoftheproblemandsolutionapproachtoanalysinginventivestep.ThisdiscussionstartsfromthedefinitionofinventivestepinArticle56EPC.Inpart1ofthearticle,aruleisproposedforidentifyingwhetherthestatementoftheproblemiscorrect,basedonArticle56EPC.Thisinturnleadstoareconsideration(inpart2ofthearticle)oftheComvikapproachtothetreatmentofnon-technicalfeaturesinaclaim.Finally,part3ofthearticlemakesaproposaltodeveloptheComvikapproachbymodifyingoneaspectofit. ThedefinitionofinventivestepisgiveninArticle56EPC,andisbasedonobviousnesshavingregardtothestateoftheart.Ontheotherhand,theproblemandsolutionapproachisatoolfortheanalysisofinventivestepandisnotadefinition.Consequently,theuseoftheproblemandsolutionapproachisonlyvalidifitisconductedinamannerthatiscompatiblewiththedefinitionofinventivestepinArticle56. Article56requiresthatlackofinventivesteparisesonlyifitisobvioustoreachtheclaimedinventionstartingfromthestateoftheart.Article56doesnotsanctiontheadditionofanyotherinformationorconsiderationnotcontainedinthestateoftheart.Thereforealineofreasoningfailstoestablishlackofinventivestepifthepathfromthestateofthearttotheclaimedinventionisnotobvious(orknown),orifthepathfromthestateofthearttotheclaimedinventionreliesonsomethingextrainadditiontothestateoftheart.Ifanystageinthepathfromstateofthearttotheclaimedinvention(whetherusingtheproblemandsolutionapproachoranyotherapproach)isnotobvious,lackofinventivestepisnotestablished. Consequentlyanargumentoflackofinventivestep,usingtheproblemandsolutionapproach,isonlyvalidifboththeproblemisknownorisobviousinviewofthestateoftheartandthesolutiontotheproblemisobviousinviewofthestateoftheart.Therequirementthattheproblemshouldbeknownorobviousinviewofthestateoftheart,whichfollowsdirectlyfromArticle56EPC,providesawaytoidentifywhethertheformulationoftheproblemisvalidinanyparticularcase.Thismaybehelpfulinordertoresolvedisagreementsthatmayarisebetweenparties(patenteeandopponent,orapplicantandexaminer)overthecorrectformulationoftheproblem.Italsoimpliesthatthepracticeofincludingnovelnon-technicalfeaturesintheformulationoftheproblemisnotcorrect. Introduction TheproblemandsolutionapproachisusedalmostuniversallyattheEPOintheexaminationofinventivestep.Overtheyears,therehasbeenextensivecaselawfromtheBoardsofAppealconcerningthecorrectwaytousethisapproach.However,difficultiescanstillarise.Ibelievethatsomeofthesedifficultiescanbeavoided,andaclearerunderstandingoftheprinciplesthatshouldunderliethisapproachcanbeobtained,fromareviewofthelegalstatusoftheproblemandsolutionapproachandaconsiderationoftheprovisionsoftheEPCrelatingtoinventivestep.InventivestepisdefinedintheEPCbyArticle56asfollows: Aninventionshallbeconsideredasinvolvinganinventivestepif,havingregardtothestateoftheart,itisnotobvioustoapersonskilledintheart.... ThisistheonlydefinitionofinventivestepgivenintheEPC.Itdoesnotmentiontheproblemandsolutionapproach.Thetestforinventivestep,accordingtotheEPC,issolelythattheinventionshouldnotbeobvioushavingregardtothestateoftheart. ThestateoftheartisinturndefinedintheEPCbyArticle54(2),whichreadsasfollows: Thestateoftheartshallbeheldtocompriseeverythingmadeavailabletothepublicbymeansofawrittenororaldescription,byuse,orinanyotherway,beforethedateoffilingoftheEuropeanpatentapplication. Thusaninventioninvolvesaninventivestepifitisnotobvioustoaskilledpersonhavingregardtoeverythingmadeavailabletothepublic(inanyway)beforetherelevantdate.Theproblemaddressedbytheinvention,andthesolutionprovidedtoit,arenotmentionedinthetextoftheEPCitself,butarementionedinthreeplacesintheImplementingRegulationsoftheEPC,inRule42(contentofthedescription),Rule43(formandcontentoftheclaims,insub-rule(2)relatingtomultipleindependentclaimsinthesamecategory),andinRule47(1)(contentoftheabstract).AttentionisnormallyfocussedonRule42,therelevantpartofwhichreadsasfollows (1)Thedescriptionshall:... (c)disclosetheinvention,asclaimed,insuchtermsthatthetechnicalproblem,evenifnotexpresslystatedassuch,anditssolutioncanbeunderstood,andstateanyadvantageouseffectsoftheinventionwithreferencetothebackgroundart;... Itshouldbeborneinmindthatthisisaprovisionrelatingtodisclosureinthedescription,andnotthedefinitionofinventivestep.ThusthewordingoftheEPCassumesthataninventionwillinevitablyprovideasolutiontoaproblem,butitdoesnotrequiretheuseoftheproblemandsolutionapproachinassessinginventivestepanditdoesnotestablishtheproblemandsolutionapproachasatestfor,oradefinitionof,inventivestep.Theonlytestfor,anddefinitionof,inventivestepgivenintheEPCisthattheinventionisnotobvioushavingregardtothestateoftheart(everythingmadeavailabletothepublic).TheseobservationsdonotimplyanycriticismoftheEPOforrelyingontheproblemandsolutionapproach.Onthecontrary,itisahighlyusefulmethodofanalysisinassessinginventivestep,anditsuseiswidelyapprovedinthecaselawoftheBoardsofAppeal.However,itisimportantthattheproblemandsolutionapproachisregardedasatooltobeusedintheassessmentofinventivestep,andnotasadefinitionofinventivestepthatcanbeusedasasubstitutefortheactualrequirementsofArticle56EPC.ThereforecareshouldbetakentoensurethattheproblemandsolutionapproachisalwaysimplementedinamannerthatisconsistentwiththerequirementsofArticle56EPC.ThereforeafocusontherequirementsofArticle56EPCmaybehelpfulinensuringthecorrectformulationoftheproblemandmayalsobehelpfulintheselectionofthestartingpoint(theso-called"closestpriorart")fortheanalysisofinventivestep. FormulationoftheProblem Often,anargumentthataclaimedinventionisorisnotinventivestartsfromastatementoftheproblem,andfocusesonwhethertheclaimedproductorprocessisorisnotanobvioussolutiontotheproblem,giventhedisclosureinthepriorart.However,thisapproachdoesnotcorrespondpreciselytotherequirementsofArticle56EPC.Article56EPCstatesthataninventionhasaninventivestepifitisnotobvious"havingregardtothestateoftheart".Itdoesnotstatethattheinventionhastoavoidbeingobvious"havingregardtotheproblem".Consequently,ifanargumentseekstodetermineinventivestepbyaskingwhetherthesolutionisobvious,itmustbebasedonanappropriateformulationoftheproblemifitistobeinaccordancewithArticle56EPC.Iftheproblemiswronglyformulated,soastocontaintheclaimedsolutionorpointerstoit,thesolutionmaybeobviousfromthestatedproblemevenifthereisinfactaninventivestepoverthepriorart.Thereforetheproblemandsolutionapproachtoinventivestepcanbemisleadingiftheproblemisnotformulatedcorrectly. Thisissueiswellknown.PartG-VII,5.2oftheGuidelinesforExaminationintheEuropeanPatentOfficestates,referringtoTechnicalBoardofAppealdecisionT229/85, Itisnotedthattheobjectivetechnicalproblemmustbesoformulatedasnottocontainpointerstothetechnicalsolution,sinceincludingpartofatechnicalsolutionofferedbyaninventioninthestatementoftheproblemmust,whenthestateoftheartisassessedintermsofthatproblem,necessarilyresultinanexpostfactoviewbeingtakenofinventiveactivity. Similarly,BoardofAppealdecisionT800/91stated Inanycasetheformulatedproblemshouldbeonewhichtheskilledpersonwouldwishtosolveknowingonlythepriorart:theproblemshouldnotbetendentiouslyformulatedinawaythatunfairlydirectsdevelopmenttowardstheclaimedsolution.(ReasonsfortheDecision,part6) However,theseexhortationsfromtheBoardsofAppealdonotprovideaneasyrulebywhichtodeterminewhetheraparticularformulationoftheproblemispermissible.Theproblemandsolutionapproachissupposedtobebasedonthe"objectivetechnicalproblem",thatisdeterminedbythedifferencebetweentheclosestpriorartandtheinventionasclaimed,butitisstillnotclearexactlyhowtoformulatetheproblemwithoutincludingpointerstothesolution.ItisnotalwayseasytoreconcileguidancefromdifferentBoardofAppealdecisions.Forexample,decisionT910/90referstotheobjectivetechnicalproblemandstates DabeikommtesnichtdaraufanobdieseAufgabebereitsimnächstkommendenStandderTechnikangesprochenist,sonderndaraufwasderFachmannbeimVergleichdesnächskommendenStandesderTechnikmitderErfindungalsAufgabeobjektiverkennt.(ReasonsfortheDecisionpart5.1)(Unofficialtranslation–Itdoesnotmatterwhetherthisproblemisalreadymentionedintheclosestpriorart,butratherwhattheskilledpersonobjectivelyrecognizesastheproblemwhencomparingtheclosestpriorartwiththeinvention.) whiledecisionT967/97states DerAufgabe-Lösungs-AnsatzberuhtimwesentlichenauftatsächlichenFeststellungenübertechnischeAufgabenundWegezuderentechnischerLösung,diedemKenntnisstandundKönnendesFachmannsobjektiv,d.h.ohneKenntnisderPatentanmeldungundderErfindung,diesiezumGegenstandhat,zumPrioritätszeitpunktzuzurechnenwaren.(ReasonsfortheDecisionpart3.2) (Unofficialtranslation–Theproblem-solutionapproachisessentiallybasedonactualfindingsaboutthetechnicalproblemsandapproachestotheirtechnicalsolutionsarisingfromtheknowledgeandskillsthattheskilledpersonpossessesobjectively,i.e.withoutanyknowledgeofthepatentandtheinventionwithwhichitisconcerned,attheprioritydate). ItseemsthatdecisionT910/90couldimplythattheproblemcanbeformulatedbytakingtheinventionintoaccountandthereisnoneedfortheskilledpersontoreachtheproblemstartingonlyfromthestateoftheart.IfdecisionT910/90isinterpretedinthisway,itwouldappeartobeincompatiblewithdecisionT967/97.Thisillustratessomeoftheconfusionthatcanstillarisewhentryingtodefinethecorrectwaytoformulatetheproblem.Therefore,althoughitiswellestablishedthattheformulationoftheproblemmustnotincludepointerstothesolution,thereisstillconsiderablescopefordisagreementoverwhatconstitutesapointertothesolutionandconsiderableuncertaintyoverhowtoestablishwhetheraformulationoftheproblemispermissibleornot. Inseekingtoclarifythispoint,Iproposetostartbysuggestingthattheformulationoftheproblemmustnotitselfbeinventive.Thisappearstobeaxiomatic.Iftheformulationoftheproblemisitselfinventivethenevenanobvioussolutiontotheproblemwouldbeaninventionoverthepriorart.ThispointwasappreciatedindecisionT0002/83,whichreferredtotheconceptofthe"probleminvention"inwhichtheinventionliesintheidentificationorrecognitionofaproblem,thesolutionbeingobviousoncetheproblemisidentifiedbutnotbeingobviousfromthepriorartalone.ThiswasalsorecognisedintheGuidelinesforExaminationintheEuropeanPatentOfficeupuntil2009inthediscussionoftheoriginofaninvention(originallyinpartC-IV,9.4,andlaterinpartC-IV,11.6),butithasbeenremovedfromthe2010editiononwards(wheretherelevantdiscussionwasmovedtopartC-IV,11.9.ItisatpartG-VII,9inthe2012andsubsequenteditions). Moregenerally,theproblemandsolutionapproachseekstoestablishthataclaimedinventionlacksinventivestepbylinkingittothestateoftheartbythechain"stateoftheart–problem–solution/invention".IfthisapproachistobeconsistentwithArticle56EPC,whichrequiresobviousnessoverthestateoftheart,theneachlinkinthechainmustbeobvious.Ifeverylinkinthechainisobvious,theclaimedinventionlacksinventivestep.Ifanylinkisnotobvious,thentheargumentfailstoshowthattheclaimedinventionlacksinventivestepbecauseithasnotestablishedobviousnesshavingregardtothestateoftheart. Thereforeifoneisseekingtotestinventivestepbyaskingwhethertheinventionisanobvioussolutiontotheproblem,itisnecessarytouseanobviousformulationoftheproblem.ThisarisesdirectlyfromtothedefinitionofinventivestepinArticle56EPC.Inthisway,itispossibletoderivetherulethattheproblemandsolutionanalysisofinventivestepisonlyvalidiftheproblemisformulatedinsuchawayastobeobvious(orknown)inviewofthestateoftheart. Inmanycases,thisrulewillberelativelyeasytoapply,anditallowsonetodeterminewhethertheproblemhasbeencorrectlyformulatedorwhetherapointertothesolution,orotherimpermissiblematter,hasinadvertentlybeenincorporatedintotheformulationoftheproblem. Accordingtothisproposedrule,ifananalysisofinventivestepusestheproblemandsolutionapproach,buttheanalysisreliesonaproblemthatisnotobvioushavingregardtothestateoftheart,thenthatanalysisisnotvalid.Inthiscase,itwillbenecessarytoreformulatetheproblem.Itwillnormallybepossibletoformulatealessambitiousproblemthatisobvious.Ingeneral,theproblem"canIimprovethis?"willalmostalwaysbeobviousevenifthereisnomorespecificobviousproblem.Thechallengethenbecomestoformulateaproblemthatisobviousoverthestateoftheart,andwhichalsohasanobvioussolutionthatleadstotheclaimedinvention. CombiningPriorArtDisclosures Whenapplyingthisrule,itisworthrememberingthatArticle56EPCreferstoobviousness"havingregardtothestateoftheart"ingeneral,andnotobviousness"whenapplyingthestateofthearttotheclosestpriorart".Thusaproblemmaystillbeobvioushavingregardtothestateoftheartingeneral,evenifitisnotobviousfromthestartingpointdocumentalone.Supposethatanargumentoflackofinventivestepisbeingmade,startingfromdocumentD1.WhenconsideringD1inisolation,itmaynotbeobviousthatthereisaproblemwithitstechnicaldisclosure.However,aconsiderationofD2maymakeitobviousthatthereisaproblemwithD1,andthesolutiontothatproblemmayalsobeobvious.Inthiscase,boththeproblemandthesolutionareobvioushavingregardtothestateoftheartasawhole,andsothereisnoinventivestep. Thispoint,thattheproblemneedsonlytobeobviousinviewofthestateoftheartasawhole,anddoesnotneedtobeevidentfromthestartingpointdisclosure,issimilartotheconclusionoftheUSSupremeCourtinKSRvTeleflex.Inthatcase,apatentwasattackedbysayingthatitwasobvioustosolveaproblemthataroseinthedisclosureofafirstdocumentbytakingafeaturefromthedisclosureofaseconddocument.TheCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuitrejectedthatargumentonthegroundsthatthepriorartdocumentsdidnotaddressthepreciseproblemthatthepatenteewastryingtosolve,andthereforetheskilledpersonwouldnothaveamotivationtocombinethem.TheSupremeCourtreversedthisconclusion,onthegroundsthatthisapproachtomotivationwastoorestricted.Instead,anyneedorproblemknownintherelevantartcanprovideareasonforcombiningthefeaturesofthedifferentpriorartdisclosures.Similarly,intheproblemandsolutionanalysis,theformulationoftheproblemcandrawonanymotivationthatisknown(orisobvious)totheskilledpersonhavingregardtothestateoftheart.Itisnotnecessarythatthismotivationispresentintheclosestpriorart.Additionally,itmaybeunrelatedtoanymotivationoradvantagementionedinthepatentorapplicationinsuit. Inprinciple,theproblemandthesolutionmaybemadeobviousbydifferentpriorartdisclosures,butthissituationrequiresthatcareshouldbetakentoensurethatitisobvioustocombineallthedifferentdisclosures.Forexample,ifD1disclosessomeparticulararrangement,D2mayindicatethatthereisaproblemwiththearrangementofD1butfailtosuggestanysolution.AthirddisclosureD3mayprovideasolutiontotheproblem.Inthiscase,D1isbeingcombinedwithD2toidentifytheproblemandD1isbeingcombinedwithD3toidentifythesolution.Consequently,D2isbeingcombinedindirectlywithD3,anditisnecessarytoensurethatthereisnothinginthedisclosuresofD2andD3thatwouldmaketheircombinationinventive.Forexample,D2mightindicateonlythatthereisadifficultywiththearrangementofD1inaparticularcontext,andthedisclosureofD3mightnotapplyinthatcontext.Inthiscase,theproblem,ifcorrectlyformulated,wouldbeadesiretomodifyD1toovercomethedifficultyinthecontextreferredtoinD2,sinceitisonlythismorerestrictedproblemthatismadeobviousbythedisclosureofD2.Consequently,itmightnotbeobvioustoadoptthesolutionproposedbyD3. Inconclusion,theproblemusedintheproblemandsolutionapproachshoulditselfbeobvious,butitonlyneedstobeobviousinviewofthestateoftheartasawhole,anditisnotnecessarythattheproblemisobvioushavingregardtotheclosestpriorarttakeninisolation. SelectionoftheStartingPoint("ClosestPriorArt") Theproblemandsolutionapproachgenerallyrequirestheidentificationofasinglepieceofpriorartasthestartingpoint.Theproblemthenprovidesthemotivationfortheskilledpersontomodifythestartingpoint.Ifanobviousproblemmotivatesaskilledpersontomodifythestartingpointinanobviousmannersoastoprovidesomethingfallingwithinthescopeoftheclaim,theclaimlacksinventivestep.Thestartingpointissometimesreferredtoasthe"closestpriorart",anditispossibletoexpendconsiderableeffortinidentifyingwhich,outofseveralpotentialstartingpoints,isthe"closest".Inmyview,aconsiderationofArticle56EPCshowsthatthismaynotalwaysbenecessary. Article56EPCdoesnotrequirethattheinventionshouldnotbeobvious"havingregardtotheclosestpriorart".Itrequiresthattheinventionshouldnotbeobvious"havingregardtothestateoftheart",andthestateoftheartisdefinedinArticle54aseverythingmadeavailabletothepublic.Therefore,inordertoestablishobviousnessitismerelynecessarytostartfromthestateoftheartasawhole,andnotfromsomeparticular"closest"priordisclosure.Thus,ifthereareseveralpotentialstartingpointsforanobviousnessargument,anyofthemcanbeused.Iftheclaimisobviousstartingfromoneitemofpriorart,thentheclaimlacksinventivestep.Itdoesnotmatteriftheclaimisnotobviousstartingfromsomeotheritemofpriorart,evenifthatotheritemofpriorartistheoretically"closer".Inpractice,itmaybepossibletoshowanobviouspathtotheclaimedinventionfromeachofseveralstartingpoints,inwhichcasetheclaimlacksinventivestepinviewofeachpathseparately(andanyamendmentneedstodealwithallofthem).SeeforexampledecisionsT0969/97(Reasonspart3.2)andT1514/05(Reasonspart3.1.6). Consequently,itcanbeseenthatthereisnoneedtoconductalengthyanalysistodeterminewhichitemofpriorartistheoretically"closest",andthereisnosuchthingasthe"wrong"startingpoint.Ifasearchrevealsseveralpotentialstartingpointsforanobviousnessargument,itispermissibletoconsidereachpotentialstartingpointinturn.Ifanobviousnessargumentcanbemadeoutstartingfromanyoneofthem,theclaimlacksinventivestep,anditisnotnecessarytodecidewhetherthatparticularstartingpointistheclosest. Althoughthetechnicallyclosestpriorartisoftenthemostpromisingstartingpoint,thismaynotbethecaseinsomeinstances.Forexample,itmaybethecasethatonlyasingle,technicallystraightforward,modificationtothedisclosureofpriorartXisnecessarytoreachtheinvention,butthismodificationisnotobvious,whereasitmaybenecessarytomakethreemodificationstothedisclosureofpriorartYtoreachtheinventionbutallofthesemodificationsareobvioustodo.Inthiscase,priorartXmightbeconsideredtobetechnically"closer",butpriorartYmakesthebetterstartingpointforananalysisofinventivestep.ThedefinitionofinventivestepinArticle56EPC,whichrefersonlytoobviousnesshavingregardtothestateoftheart,makesitclearthatanargumentstartingfrompriorartYisacceptable.Theconceptofthe"closest"priorartintheproblemandsolutionapproachcanoftenbeuseful,butitshouldnotbecomeanartificialconstraintontheselectionofthestartingpointforanargumentoflackofinventivestep. TreatmentofNon-TechnicalFeatures Earlierinthisarticlearulewasproposedthattheproblemandsolutionanalysisofinventivestepisonlyvalidiftheproblemisformulatedinsuchawayastobeobvious(orknown)inviewofthestateoftheart.Itisnecessarytoconsiderhowthisrulemightaffectthewayinwhichnon-technicalfeaturesinaclaimaretreatedduringtheassessmentofinventivestep. AsdiscussedinG03/08,thecurrentapproachattheEPOtotheadmissibilityofclaimscontainingnon-technicalfeaturesinaclaim(sometimescalledthe"anyhardware"approach)developedovertime.ItbeganinBoardofAppealdecisionT1173/97IBM(1July1998)withtheinitialbreakfromtheprevious"technicalcontribution"approachanddevelopedtothepositionsetoutinBoardofAppealdecisionT0424/03Microsoft(23February2006). Alongsidethe"anyhardware"approachtotheadmissibilityofclaimscontainingnon-technicalfeatures,theEPOfollowsanapproachtotheinventivestepofsuchclaimsthatisoftenreferredtoastheComvikapproach,withreferencetoBoardofAppealdecisionT0641/00Comvik(26September2002).TheComvikapproachrequiresthataninventivestepcanonlybeprovidedbytechnicalfeatures(ornon-technicalfeaturesthatneverthelesscombinewithtechnicalfeaturestoprovideatechnicaleffect).Therefore,undertheproblemandsolutionanalysis,anynon-technicalfeaturesthatdonotcontributetoatechnicaleffectcannotberegardedaspartofthesolutiontotheproblem. DecisionT0641/00Comvikproposedthatnon-technicalfeaturesofaclaimcouldbeincludedintheproblem,asaconstraintthathastobemet.Theproblemwasformulatedtoincludesuchfeatureseventhoughtheywerenotknownintheart.Thispracticeofincludingnovelnon-technicalfeaturesintheproblemasaconstrainttobemetappearstobeincompatiblewiththeproposalabovethattheproblemmustbeknownorobvioushavingregardtothestateoftheart.Consequently,itisnecessarytoreviewthecaselawtounderstandhowandwhythispracticearose,andwhetheritisreallyincompatiblewiththepresentproposal.Thiswillbethesubjectofpart2ofthisarticle. ThisarticlewillbecontinuedinthenextepiInformation Imprint PrivacyPolicy