Patent declared invalid for lack of novelty.
Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation of feature ‘in at least one of ...’. All of the elements listed in feature 1.1.2 in conjunction with the other features 1.2.2 and 1.3.2 are necessarily and therefore cumulatively claimed.
Lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC). The subject-matter of claims 1 and 7 and the auxiliary requests is anticipated by D3 ([…]) to the detriment of novelty. In order to be considered part of the prior art in this sense, an invention must be directly and unambiguously disclosed in a single prior art document. It must be identical in its essential components, in the same form, with the same arrangement and with the same features. The lack of novelty also requires that the subject matter of the invention is directly and unambiguously derived from the prior art. This applies to all claim features. The standard for the disclosure content of a publication is what an average person skilled in the relevant field can and may know and understand.
