In general, novelty can be interpreted like a boat in a pond, whereas the boat stands for the essential features and the pond marks the technical field whereas the water level of the pond represents the known state of the art. If the boat floats in the pond, novelty is perfectly aligned with the know state of the art and it is proper appreciated. If it is not, the boat either sinks or it is not in the water; and thus, there either is no novelty at all because the boat becomes a part of the pond or it has no connection to the prior art whatsoever and maybe lacks disclosure and/or enablement.
In case of the present invention, invention floats on the novelty level as set out by the above three features, and there was no related prior art wheresoever and howsoever published found before the priority date set by the invention of the US priority application.
The universal approach to novelty as present above, shows that an invention, albeit based on prior art with regard to inventive application of known economic dispatch programs to known pollution and the load control strategies, has novelty due to the consideration of pollution credits enables the invention to minimize costs at optimized power levels in various power plants of a power grid depending on demand. In two countries, despite the US’s and other corresponding proceedings, the requirements for disclosure and enablement with regard to novelty were fulfilled, and since no prior art to be combined to aggregate the invention was found obvious, the IPO and IPD-HK granted a patent in absence of any vindication proceedings opposing that grant.
In Conclusion, it can be summarized that the enabling disclosure with regard to the General Tire test sufficiently supports novelty by illustrating the known state of the art and presenting the solutions to solve its problems by specification and figures. The working of the invention is sufficiently disclosed by the embodiment with regard to the solution of the technical problem and the prior art thereto. Furthermore the inventive features to work the invention are illustrated by the exemplary embodiment which demonstrates the enablement of the invention.
UK Patent Act 1977 Art 2(1) < http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf > accessed on 19 September 2013
UK Patent Act 1977 Art 2(3)
UK Patent Act 1977 Art 2(2)
‘Patents Essential Reading’ <> accessed on 19 September 2013
US Appl. No. 10/969,752
GB2419438 < http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2419438 > accessed on 19 September 2013
The substantial examination at the CIPO under CA 2523935 <http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2523935/financial_transactions.html?type=number_search > accessed on 18 September 2013 and at the DPMA under DE 10 2005 050 140.0 < > accessed on 19 September 2013 and at the SIPO CN Appl. No. 200510109489.7 < http://search.sipo.gov.cn/zljs/FlztResult.jsp > accessed on 18 September 2013 is still pending. However, at the USPTO the priority application was finally rejected after the primary examiners rejection was appealed based cited references, but not for novelty, but being obviousness with regard to the citied references according the Notice of References Cited (US Appl. No. 10/969,752) and Notice of Foreign References which cited WO02/057968 < . > accessed on 19 September 2013, US Appl. No. 10/969,752 was rejected in appeal based on lively discussion of 35 USC 103(a).
ibid supra note 6
HK1088697 < > accessed on 18 September 2013
UK Patent Act 1977 Art 2(4 a to c) < http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf > accessed on 19 September 2013
The General Tire & Rubber Company v The Firestone Type and Rubber Company Limited and Others [1972] R.P.C. 457
Lionel Bently, Intellectual property law (3rd edn, OUP 2009) p 472
Lionel Bently, Intellectual property law (3rd edn, OUP 2009) p 473
by
dxb625 (student)
![Consider the idea of inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public or morality. [EPC2000, Article 53(a)] Contrast these types of patent subject matter with other related subject matter which has been found to be patentable. Where do the borders of morality/immorality seem to lie in current law?](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1212315/listing/1212315_1.jpg)