In T 211/01 the board stated that, apart from the fact that a skilled person would normally not consider an obviously defective disclosure at all, it would in particular be artificial to select a defective disclosure as a starting point for evaluating inventive step, when there exists other prior art which is not doubted with regard to its disclosure, but is also directed to the same purpose or effect as the patent in suit. Thus, a document which is so obviously defective as to be readily recognised as such by those skilled in the art when trying to reproduce its disclosure cannot be taken as the most promising and appropriate starting point for the assessment of inventive step.