European Patent Office

T 0250/05 (Use of nitric oxide for systemic treatment/THE BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, INC.) vom 04.03.2008

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T025005.20080304
Datum der Entscheidung
4. März 2008
Aktenzeichen
T 0250/05
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
94912377.2
IPC-Klasse
A61L 9/04
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
An die Kammervorsitzenden und -mitglieder verteilt (B)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
Systemic effects of nitric oxide inhalation
Name des Antragstellers
THE BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL, INC.
Name des Einsprechenden
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
L'AIR LIQUIDE S.A.
Kammer
3.3.02
Leitsatz

1. When following the principles set out in Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 0001/93 for dealing with the "conflicting requirements of Article 123, paragraphs 2 and 3 EPC" in an amended set of claims, it has to be investigated whether the patent as granted contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed within the meaning of Article 123(2) EPC, which also limits the scope of protection conferred by the patent, and which directly affects the assessment of the amended claims in respect of the requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC (points 2.1 to 2.5 of the reasons for the decision).

2. Apart form the fact that Article 54(5) EPC 2000 (entry into force 13 December 2007) does not apply to a patent granted in 2001, Article 123(3) EPC would not allow the change of category of a granted use claim into a product claim, even if drafted as a purpose-related product claim. (points 3.4 to 3.6 of the reasons for the decision).

Schlagwörter
Main request, auxiliary requests 1 to 5 contravene Article 123 EPC; sixth auxiliary request meets the requirements of Article 123 EPC
Medical indication (yes)
Remittal
Orientierungssatz
-
Zitierte Akten
G 0005/83G 0001/93
Zitierende Akten
T 1673/11T 1780/12

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside

2. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution on the basis of the sixth auxiliary request filed with the letter dated 4 February 2008.