1. New Rule 71a EPC should not be construed as an invitation to
file new evidence or other material departing from the legal and
factual framework of issues and grounds pleaded and evidenced
throughout the proceedings prior to the hearing of the appeal
(point 3.3 of Reasons).
2. The technical problem as originally presented, in accordance
with Rule 27(1)(c) EPC, in the application or patent in suit,
which is to be regarded as the "subjective" technical problem,
may require reformulation on the basis of objectively more
relevant elements originally not taken into account by the
Applicant or Patentee. This reformulation yields a definition of
the "objective" technical problem. The latter represents the
ultimate residue (effect), corresponding to the objective
contribution provided by the subject-matter defined in the
relevant claim (features)(Points 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 of
Reasons).
3. Whilst generally accepted definitions of the notional "person
skilled in the art" do not always use identical language to
define the qualities of such a person, they have one thing in
common, namely that none of them suggests that he is possessed
of any inventive capability. It is the presence of such
capability in the inventor which sets him apart from the
notional skilled person (point 7.8.4 of Reasons).
