tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post462380926485673873..comments2024-03-27T11:29:23.559-03:00Comments on Sufficient Description: Patentable Subject-Matter and CombinationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-1695684818112427802021-03-10T18:14:46.802-04:002021-03-10T18:14:46.802-04:00I think it was the EWCA decision in Sabaf that hel...I think it was the EWCA decision in Sabaf that held "A mere collocation is no more than a species of obviousness judged by the statutory test. In our judgment there is no separate law of collocation." I think that is right. The UKSC disagreed [24]. Note that the example from the EPO Guidelines that the UKSC relied on has since been modified.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-67852691205458101822021-03-10T15:17:16.539-04:002021-03-10T15:17:16.539-04:00I am unfamiliar with the facts in the case which s...I am unfamiliar with the facts in the case which seem rather complex. However, I think you right that the issue of synergism goes to obviousness. Certainly this is so in the UK and EPO, see Salef v. MFI Furniture [2004]UKHL45, which is to the effect that where there is no synergistic interaction one is dealing with a mere collocation which by definition is obvious.<br />Peter Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03352686204387152116noreply@blogger.com