In short
The novelty requirement in a patent asks that the invention was not known in the art before the moment of the application. Being known is not only that it was unheard of in Turkey. If a document opened to the public carries the same invention, novelty is debated. Inventive step is a separate requirement. There is no promise of grant.
What prior art looks at
Prior art is information open to the public before the moment of the application. Patent documents, articles, product catalogues, an exhibition and a sale may enter this information. Even if it is unknown in Turkey, a disclosure abroad can destroy novelty. Whether it destroys it is not said before the disclosed text and the claims come side by side. If there is no text, a statement that "we had heard of it" does not stand in for a document.
If the disclosure carries not the whole of the invention but a part of it, the part and the claims are not the same thing. Whether they are the same asks that the two texts be read sentence by sentence. The petition marks which sentence meets which claim. If there is no mark, the claim stays general. A claim that stays general does not build a novelty result. The decision is read from the line that was marked.
A search report is not a refusal
The search report lists documents that are close. The list is not, by itself, a refusal or a grant. How the report is read stands in the search report. If there is a close document, the claims and that document are separated. If the separation is not written, the report is not treated as having refused the application by itself. Not being treated as having refused it does not mean the document is ignored either. The document stands in the file.
How the application is formed stands in a patent application. The moment of the application is the limit of the prior art. If there is no paper showing the moment, the limit is not drawn from memory. The register extract shows which date line the application carries. If there is no extract, an oral date is not a document. Service shows when the report arrived. Arrival does not change the novelty result by itself.
How novelty is read
The claims and the prior-art document are read separately according to whether they are the same sentence. The document being old does not mean the invention was known by itself. The address of a Çankaya office does not change the institution that carries out the examination or the competent authority. The authority is read from the report heading and the register entry.
The separation from inventive step
Novelty is not having been disclosed before. Inventive step is whether, even if it was not disclosed, it is easily reached by a person skilled in that field. The separation stands in inventive step. Merely saying it is new may not be enough for a patent. Not being enough does not paste the novelty line onto the step line. Whichever requirement the decision writes, that requirement is read. If it does not write one, the requirement is not chosen later.
The threshold of a utility model may be read separately. A model is not a copy of the novelty sentence in a patent. A utility model discusses that threshold. The two protections ask for two applications. The same petition is not pasted onto both registers. The register shows which right was asked for.
The applicant's own disclosure
The applicant may have opened the invention, before the moment of the application, in a catalogue, at a fair or in an article. If the disclosure fell into the public, a novelty risk arises. The risk is not of the same weight in every early sentence. A laboratory note that stayed secret and a published catalogue are not the same document. Which one fell into the public is read from the date and from access. If there is no access, it is not assumed that it fell into the public.
After registration, a lack of novelty may come onto the agenda in an invalidity debate. Invalidity does not stand in for the search note at the application stage. The two stages are two decisions. If there is no copy of the decision, a result is not stated. A result that is not stated is not written into the petition as a figure either. A figure is not in this article.
A catalogue open to the public and an internal note of the business are not the same prior art. The date the catalogue was accessed must stand before the moment of the application. If it is not in the papers that it was before, the limit is not drawn. A limit that is not drawn does not produce the result that the claims are new either. The result is discussed when the two texts come side by side. A text that does not come side by side is not written as if it were in the petition. A text that is not written does not close the novelty requirement by itself either.
Conclusion
Novelty looks at not having been disclosed to the public before the moment of the application. Local unknownness is not the only measure. The prior art and the claims are not counted as the same sentence. The frame is on the intellectual property page. There is no promise of a result.
The basis is Industrial Property Code No. 6769.