"Gold standard" in novelty testing of a subfield selected from a larger field is sufficient

The practice so far according to which a sub-range selected from a larger numerical range of the prior art is considered to be novel if (a) the selected sub-range is narrow compared to the known range and (b) the selected sub-range has a sufficient distance from specific examples disclosed in the prior art and from the end-points of the known range, is to be rejected. For the examination of novelty – following the "gold standard" according to EBoA G 2/10 –, it is necessary and sufficient to merely ascertain whether the person skilled in the art, using common general knowledge, can directly and unambiguously derive a claimed sub-range from a particular disclosed range of the prior art (EPO Board of Appeal 19/10/2022, T 1688/20).