Quick Navigation

 

Case Law of the Boards of Appeal

 
 
6.1.4 Further technical information as compared with the state of the art

In T 1031/00 claim 1 was directed to the first medical use of (-) amlodipine, namely the treatment of hypertension. However, the prior art document already showed the ability of (-) amlodipine to inhibit calcium ion influx into rat aorta tissue in vitro as indicative of its effectiveness in the treatment of hypertension. It also disclosed that amlodipine was then undergoing phase III clinical trials for the treatment of hypertension.

The board found that, in spite of the numerous examples in the description of the patent application, only one dealt with hypertension, but without going further than in vitro experiments. Thus the description provided no further evidence or data showing the actual antihypertensive effect of the (-) isomer of amlodipine in humans or animals than did the prior art. The board observed that, in the absence, in the patent application as originally filed, of any data providing additional technical information in relation to the actual treatment of hypertension in humans or animals compared with the disclosure in the prior art document (3), it had to be concluded that the subject-matter of the patent application was anticipated by the disclosure in that document; in other words, document (3) disclosed the same medical use as the application at issue.