First of all, it should be clear what is the novelty of a patent and what is the creativity of a patent.
According to the provisions of Article 22, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Patent Law, novelty and inventive step are defined as follows:
Novelty refers to the invention or utility model It does not belong to the prior art; and no unit or individual has applied to the patent administration department of the State Council for the same invention or utility model before the application date, and it is recorded in the patent application documents or announced patent documents published after the application date.
Creativity means that compared with the existing technology, the invention has outstanding substantive features and significant progress, and the utility model has substantive features and progress.
According to the provisions of the "Patent Examination Guidelines 2010", the following two principles should be used to determine novelty:
1. The same invention or utility model
2. Individual comparison
In your question, whether the previous case affects the novelty of the new application, the key lies in whether the previous case and the new application belong to the same invention or utility model. The new application is relatively different from the previous application. The case lacks technical feature C. If the technical feature is dispensable, then the new application is essentially the same as the previous case. At this time, the new application does not have novelty. If C is a very important technical feature, in In the absence of C, if the new application can solve different technical problems, then the new application is novel.
Also according to the provisions of the "Patent Examination Guidelines 2010", it is more complicated to judge inventive step. It is generally carried out according to a three-step method. First, determine the closest prior art. Since there is only a previous case in this question and a new application, so the closest prior art is the previous case, followed by determining the actual problem to be solved by the new application, and finally determining whether the new application is obvious to those skilled in the art.
In the three-step method, if in the second step it is determined that the technical problem to be solved by the new application is the same as that of the previous case, the possibility of inventiveness is relatively low at this time, but the possibility of inventiveness is not ruled out. For example, the lack of C can bring unexpected effects.
The third step is to determine whether it is obvious or not. It is more complicated. Generally, it will be considered whether those skilled in the art will think of it. There are different judgment standards in different cases and there is no constant procedure.
In summary, as far as the information you have given is concerned, there is no standard answer. Specific questions require more information to be judged in practice. The above is just a general judgment principle. and methods.