IP Courses Lecture Site

The applicant claims a novel organic substance that is particularly resistant to heat and oxidation and can therefore be used in high-temperature processes. At the same time, he also claims a method for its production. In the application, he states that this substance can be produced by a catalytic reaction and claims that a variety of metal salts or transition metals could be used as catalysts. In fact, however, the process only works if a very specific catalyst is used. Without this special catalyst, the substance cannot be produced, or at least not in the claimed quality. The applicant deliberately conceals this fact because he wants to keep the exact composition of the catalyst secret. In this way, he hopes to obtain patent protection on the one hand and, on the other hand, to withhold some of the practical knowledge so that competitors would be forced to invest their own research work in the catalyst after the patent expires.

Feasibility is an independent prerequisite for patentability. It requires that the technical teaching described in the application be disclosed in such a way that a person skilled in the art can reproduce it without undue effort. The applicant is only entitled to a time-limited exclusive right if, in return, they provide the necessary knowledge to enable the invention to be reproduced. If this reproducibility is lacking, there is a fundamental defect in the disclosure, which leads to the rejection of the patent application or, if the property right has already been granted, to its annulment.

This requirement reflects the fundamental exchange between the applicant and the public. The state grants a monopoly for a certain period of time; in return, the general public receives a complete, clear, and sufficient disclosure that allows the invention to be freely used after the patent expires without further research. Therefore, it is not the mere idea that is patentable, but the technically feasible teaching. Only if the application teaches concrete implementation is temporary exclusivity objectively justified.

If this obligation to disclose is not fulfilled, there is no justification for the monopoly. This applies both to the deliberate withholding of essential information and to unintentional omissions that nevertheless prevent the specialist from implementing the teaching. Likewise, there is no feasibility if the claimed concept cannot function technically – for example, because it contradicts the laws of nature – or if the claim is so broad that it encompasses embodiments for which the application does not provide viable guidance. The decisive factor is that the feasibility covers the entire claimed scope: those who claim broadly must teach broadly.

In the example, the applicant claims that a large number of catalysts are suitable, but conceals the only catalyst with which the reaction actually works. For the skilled person, this means that they are left in the dark and would have to undertake countless, largely futile attempts with unsuitable catalysts. This misses the core of the disclosure requirement: the general public does not receive the technical teaching necessary to actually produce the material.

The relevant date for feasibility is the filing date. All information necessary to reproduce the invention must be contained in the documents submitted at that time. Subsequent additions that would introduce essential technical content for the first time are not permitted. Only clarifications that explain what has already been disclosed are permitted, but not new additions. In practical terms, this means that the description, claims, and, where applicable, drawings must be coordinated in such a way that the technical effect and the means of achieving it are comprehensible and reproducible, including the necessary measurement methods, parameter ranges, and boundary conditions.

In the example, this means that although the applicant subsequently names another catalyst in the examination procedure with which the process actually works, this was not disclosed on the filing date. Since essential technical information may not be added later, the Patent Office cannot take this addition into account. The application remains deficient because it was not feasible at the relevant time and must therefore be rejected.

The assessment is made from the perspective of the "skilled person." This person has average knowledge and skills in the relevant technical field, is familiar with general technical knowledge, and can carry out routine experiments without being inventive themselves. They are neither genius nor naive; they are assumed to have realistic diligence and the ability to evaluate general technical knowledge. Depending on the field of technology, the skilled person may be described differently (e.g., a team from different disciplines), but what remains decisive is always what such a person can glean from the overall content of the application and reliably carry out on that basis.

In our example, the skilled person has a university degree in chemistry with experience in homogeneous catalysis and the synthesis of organic compounds. This person is familiar with the common classes of catalysts and would also consult relevant technical literature to identify suitable substances for a comparable process. They would therefore systematically examine the "usual suspects" from catalytic chemistry. If the process worked with these catalysts, the process would be executable. However, since the process only works with a very specific, unexpected catalyst and all other candidates fail, the expert cannot successfully execute the invention despite their expertise. This means that the necessary executability is lacking.

Finally, feasibility does not require that every experimental instruction be slavishly specified; routine optimizations may be carried out by the skilled person themselves. However, the effort becomes unreasonable where extensive research programs, speculative parameter explorations, or the determination of essential measurement methods would first be necessary. The line is therefore drawn between legitimate completion in accordance with standard practice and the inadmissible addition of inventive work that the applicant himself should have carried out and disclosed. In this way, the requirement of feasibility ensures that patent protection only covers viable, feasible technical teachings – precisely those that actually enable the desired transfer of knowledge and technology to the general public.

If, in our example, we assume that the skilled person could find the suitable catalyst with their general textbook knowledge and a few routine tests, then the invention would be feasible despite the brief disclosure. In this case, the application would contain sufficient information to enable the skilled person to understand and carry out the invention without undue effort. However, it is difficult to predict what effort is considered reasonable, and this is usually decided in specific nullity proceedings.

From the perspective of this expert, it is examined whether each claim – in its entirety – is supported by the disclosure. If the claim contains variants for which the application does not provide sufficient teaching, it is not feasible in this respect. This can lead to partial or complete invalidity, depending on whether the unsustainable parts can be cleanly separated. Conversely, it is not sufficient to provide only a few particularly well-described examples of implementation if the claim goes far beyond this: the principles and instructions provided must support the generalization.

In our example, if we assume that the skilled person could find and use the one specific catalyst with their general technical knowledge, but the claim covers an entire class of catalysts that are actually non-functional, then the claim is not executable in its original scope. In this case, the scope of protection would have to be limited, for example to the substance that actually works or a more narrowly defined subgroup. Otherwise, the patent would be declared partially or completely invalid because the claimed generalization goes beyond what the disclosure actually supports. This shows that even if an embodiment works, the applicant must not excessively extend the claim without viable support.

Another case of lack of feasibility arises when a claimed technical feature or component of the invention is objectively non-functional. This applies in particular to designs that violate established laws of nature, such as a perpetual motion machine that is supposed to perform work indefinitely without an energy supply. Such inventions cannot be executable simply because no expert could put them into practice with the knowledge currently available.