iPatents

Inventive but not Novel!
“I can understand that at first glance the finding that claim 5 lacks novelty may be at odds with the finding that it is inventive… The difference lies in the legal test for novelty and obviousness. Novelty invokes a consideration as to whether the public is already possessed of what is claimed. It does not matter whether it is invented or not. Here I have found that, within the tests as set out in Sanofi, the public was already in possession of what is claimed in claim 5 of the ’457 Patent.