Which element can destroy a claim's novelty?

The element that can destroy a claim's novelty is a prior art reference disclosing the same elements. In the context of patent law, novelty refers to the requirement that an invention must be new. If a prior art reference—such as a previously patented invention, published paper, or any public disclosure—describes the same elements as those claimed in a new patent application, then the novelty of the claim is compromised. Essentially, this means that the claimed invention is not considered new, as it has been previously disclosed to the public.

This principle is integral to patent examination. Prior art serves as a benchmark against which new claims are evaluated. If an examiner finds a prior art reference that fully discloses the same elements claimed by an applicant, that claim can be rejected on the grounds that it lacks novelty.

In contrast, an original combination of known elements may still be considered novel if it produces a new and non-obvious result, and the inventive concept that expands existing knowledge does not necessarily destroy novelty unless it has been disclosed in prior art. A secondary claim that references another patent could relate to a claim's dependency but does not inherently affect the novelty of the primary claim. Therefore, the identification of a prior art reference that discloses the same elements