Novelty based on a different technical effect 

In decision T 290/86 (OJ 1992, 414) the board considered the claimed invention new. The grounds for its decision were as follows: "When a prior document and a claimed invention are both concerned with a similar treatment of the human body for the same therapeutic purpose, the claimed invention represents a further medical indication as compared to the prior document within the meaning of decision G 5/83 if it is based upon a different technical effect which is both new and inventive over the disclosure of the prior document". In this case the technical effect considered new was the removal of dental plaque, whereas the prior art only disclosed the depression of enamel solubility in organic acids (see also T 542/96 and T 509/04).

Quick Navigation