Which element can destroy a claim's novelty?

A prior art reference disclosing the same elements can indeed destroy a claim's novelty. Novelty in patent law refers to the requirement that an invention must be new and not previously disclosed in any prior art. If a prior art reference is found that discloses the same elements as those claimed in a patent application, this indicates that the invention is not novel and cannot be patented. The essence of this principle is rooted in the idea that if the elements of a claimed invention have already been publicly disclosed, the invention lacks the required distinctiveness to warrant patent protection.

The other options presented do not similarly impact the novelty of a claim. An original combination of known elements could potentially demonstrate novelty if the combination produces a new result or achieves a new function. An inventive concept that expands existing knowledge might be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for inventiveness or non-obviousness but does not directly address the novelty criterion. A secondary claim referencing another patent does not preclude the original claim from being novel; rather, it merely indicates a relationship between the two claims. Thus, the presence of a prior art reference disclosing identical elements is the clear factor that nullifies the novelty required for patentability.