In short
Inventive step in a patent asks that the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant technical field, and it is not a copy of the novelty requirement. Novelty looks at whether it was known before. Inventive step looks at whether it comes easily out of what is known. Because one is passed, the other is not treated as passed. A patent year is not added to this text.
A step result is not stated without the text of the claims. The search report is the opening document of the debate. The report is not the register itself. A novelty result is not built so that it will pass by itself into inventive step. The decision keeps the two requirements apart. The petition does not melt the two into one sentence.
The separation from novelty
The novelty requirement stands under novelty in a patent. The question there is whether the solution in the claims had already come out to the public. Inventive step is whether, after that coming out, it remained obvious for the skilled person. A small combination may be new and still be found obvious. Whether it is found so is not said before the earlier documents and the claims are read side by side.
The general route of the application stands under a patent application. That route does not stand in for the step debate. The register shows the state of the application. The register is not the minute of the skilled person's view. The two documents are kept separately. If a document is missing, the name of what is missing is written. A patent year is not added to this separation either.
The skilled person's view and the claims
The skilled person is the average view of the relevant technical field. If the name of a concrete person is not in the document, a name is not invented. The examiner weighs the art seen as closest and the claims. The debate must show which feature the claims rely on. If the feature is not written, it is not treated as added. The petition does not make an element that is not in the claims the basis of the step.
The claims may be narrowed, or a feature may be added. That is an option. The option does not produce the same result in every file. The result is read from the institution's writing. It is not said that it was accepted while there is no writing. The decision separates which claims sentence was debated. If there is a minute, a meeting or correspondence, it shows that separately. If there is not, it is said that there is not.
The search report is the opening document
The search report stands under the search report. The report writes the documents that were found and which claim they were directed at. If there is no direction, every document is not treated as having gone to every claim. The report is not an invalidity decision. Invalidity stands under patent invalidity. The petitions of the two routes do not stand in for each other.
If the document in the report does not carry a date and clarity, clarity is not invented. The applicant writes which difference in the claims is put forward against the document. If the difference is not in the text of the claims, it does not stand as a difference. If the service is the writing by which the report was sent, that writing does not stand in for the content of the report. The content is read from the report itself. A patent year is not written under the report.
A utility model is a separate heading
The frame of a utility model stands under a utility model. That frame is not pasted in place of inventive step. In some files an alternative is discussed. The alternative is not treated as having met this requirement by itself. If the treatment is written in the document, it is read. If it is not, a petition is not built as if it had been written. The register shows which right was asked for.
If a contract assigns the invention or licenses it, it may look at ownership of the right. The contract does not create the requirement of not being obvious. The requirement is read from the claims and the prior art. The decision does not put the contract in the place of the technical document. The enclosure to the application carries the drawing and the description. If there is no enclosure, an enclosure is not invented. A patent year and an article number are not added to this text. Inventive step is not tied to a provision on time.
What is separated in inventive step
Inventive step is separate from novelty, and the debate on obviousness is read from the text of the claims. Counsel in Ankara reads from the document that the office being in Çankaya does not change the authority of the register institution. A patent year and an article number are not added. The utility-model threshold does not stand in for this requirement.
Conclusion
Inventive step is a patent requirement separate from novelty, and the debate on obviousness depends on the claims and the prior art. A patent year is not added. An article number is not added either. This requirement is not tied to a provision on time. A result is not stated while the register and the claims are not there. The frame stands on the intellectual property page. The basis is Industrial Property Code No. 6769.