No inventive step where the embodiment is worsened

The mere fact that the claimed subject-matter excludes a technical feature disclosed in the closest prior art as essential or advantageous for achieving a technical effect cannot in itself establish an inventive step. Where that exclusion is the sole difference from the closest prior art, it must be shown that the claimed subject-matter still achieves the technical effect, without the feature, at least to a comparable extent. Failing such proof, the default assumption is that the subject-matter obviously leads only to a deterioration of the technical effect described in the closest prior art (EPO BoA 21 Oct 2024, T 1865/22).