Große Beschwerdekammer: G 1/07 - Method for treatment by surgery
Amtliche Leitsätze:
The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:
1. A claimed imaging method, in which, when carried out, maintaining the life and health of the subject is important and which comprises or encompasses an invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body which requires professional medical expertise to be carried out and which entails a substantial health risk even when carried out with the required professional care and expertise, is excluded from patentability as a method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery pursuant to Article 53 (c) EPC .
2a. A claim which comprises a step encompassing an embodiment which is a “method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery” within the meaning of Article 53(c) EPC cannot be left to encompass that embodiment.
2b. The exclusion from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC can be avoided by disclaiming the embodiment, it being understood that in order to be patentable the claim including the disclaimer must fulfil all the requirements of the EPC and, where applicable, the requirements for a disclaimer to be allowable as defined in decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
2c. Whether…
» Vollständiger Artikelipweblog.de | 24. April 2007 — In der Leitsatz-Entscheidung T 0992/03 vom 20. Oktober 2006 werden der Großen Beschwerdekammer folgende Fragen, nun anhängig …
Visae Patentes | 5. November 2010 — In decision T 979/06 of 21 September 2010, Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.04 of the EPO had to decide on sufficient disclosure (Ar…
Visae Patentes | 4. November 2010 — I just came across the very interesting decision T 784/06 of an EPO Technical Board of Appeal, relating to the rather new scientif…
ipweblog.de | 28. November 2008 — Große Beschwerdekammer des EPA vom 25. November 2008 - G 2/06: (Pressemitteilung des EPA) Die Große Beschwerdekammer des Eu…
Visae Patentes | 12. Dezember 2010 — [part of a heat map of gene expression value; from Wikimedia] In Ex parte Kelkar, claims were directed to a method for de…
Visae Patentes | 5. November 2010 — In decision T 979/06 of 21 September 2010, Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.04 of the EPO had to decide on sufficient disclosure (A…
Visae Patentes | 17. Mai 2010 — As reported earlier, in case G3/08, being a referral of former EPO President Alison Brimelow to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (see…
Visae Patentes | 15. August 2010 — (Photo shows a court room of the US CAFC) Thanks to a tweet of "PatentLawFirm", I came across an interesting US case la…
Visae Patentes | 15. August 2010 — (Photo shows a court room of the US CAFC) Thanks to a tweet of "PatentLawFirm", I came across an interesting US case la…
KandidatenWiki | 15. Juli 2011 — Note This article is a contribution to the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report III/2011 discussing the most recent developments i…
