Under which conditions are combinations of inventions considered novel according to the exceptions to the Graham Factors test?

The notion of novelty in combinations of inventions, particularly concerning the Graham Factors test, hinges on the unpredictability of results derived from such combinations. When a combination yields results that are not predictable from the prior art, it lends itself to being considered novel. This unpredictability indicates that the combination of elements produces outcomes that are not inherently obvious to someone who is skilled in the relevant technology field, thus satisfying one key aspect of novelty.

In essence, if the results are unexpected or surprising compared to previous disclosures, it reflects that the inventive step truly adds something new and non-obvious to the existing body of knowledge. This is aligned with the principle that inventions should contribute a level of advancement that goes beyond what is merely an aggregation or modification of known elements expected to function together in an obvious way.

Other possibilities do not affirm novelty in the same manner: an obvious combination or use of known processes generally suggests that no significant innovative leap has been made, which is fundamental to the definition of novelty. Predictable results or mere substitutions without improvement further underline that they do not meet the novelty requirement as they reveal a lack of inventive step.