Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • Professional hub
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by area by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t050905eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0905/05 (Gene expression/U. OF FLORIDA) 01-02-2007
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 0905/05 (Gene expression/U. OF FLORIDA) 01-02-2007

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T090505.20070201
Date of decision
01 February 2007
Case number
T 0905/05
Petition for review of
-
Application number
92901454.6
IPC class
C12N 15/31
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 47.47 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Recombinant cells that highly express chromosomally-integrated heterologous genes

Applicant name
University of Florida
Opponent name

(1) NOVOZYMES A/S

(2) Koninklijke DSM N.V.

(3) GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL INC.

Board
3.3.08
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
European Patent Convention Art 83 1973
Keywords

Main request - inventive step - yes

Sufficiency of disclosure - yes

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0001/93
G 0004/93
T 0256/87
T 0606/89
T 0019/90
T 0455/91
T 0694/92
T 0860/93
Citing decisions
-

I. European patent No. 0 560 885 with the title "Recombinant cells that highly express chromosomally-integrated heterologous genes." was granted with 41 claims for all Designated Contracting States, based on the International patent application No. WO 92/10561.

Granted claim 1 read as follows:

"1. A process for producing a recombinant host cell that produces high levels of a desired polypeptide comprising the steps of:

(a) transforming one or more host cells with a nucleic acid molecule comprising

(i) a heterologous polynucleotide segment comprising a sequence encoding a desired polypeptide, and

(ii) sequences that flank said heterologous polynucleotide segment and are homologous to a host gene under transcriptional control of an endogenous promoter,

whereby chromosomal integration into said host gene of said heterologous polynucleotide segment results by means of homologous recombination;

(b) selecting for one or more host cells produced in step (a) that express the polypeptide;

(c) exposing one or more host cells identified in step (b) to a mutagen under conditions such that a mutation that causes increased expression of said heterologous polynucleotide segment is created in said chromosome;

and then

(d) testing host cells produced in step (c) for host cells that produce said desired protein at a level higher than said initial level, to obtain host cells having a mutation that causes increased expression of said heterologous polynucleotide segment resulting in an increase in production by said host cells of said desired polypeptide compared to said production of said desired polypeptide by said host cells in the absence of said mutation, wherein said increased expression is retained in the absence of conditions that select for cells having said increased expression."

Dependent claims 2 to 25 related to further features of the process of claim 1. Claims 26 and 27 were directed to recombinant host cells obtainable by the process of claim 1. Claims 28 to 35 related to further features of the recombinant host cells of claims 26 or 27. Claims 36 to 41 related to specific recombinant E.coli strains defined by their deposit ATCC numbers.

II. Three oppositions were filed under Article 100(a) to (c) EPC. The opposition division maintained the patent in amended form pursuant to Article (106(3)) EPC on the basis of the second auxiliary request then on file comprising claims 1 to 6 corresponding to granted claims 36 to 41. The main request, namely the granted claims, was refused for lack of novelty; the first auxiliary request then on file was refused for lack of inventive step.

III. The appellant (patentee) filed a notice of appeal, paid the appeal fee and submitted a statement of grounds of appeal together with the same main request as was refused by the opposition division (granted claims)and eight auxiliary requests, the last one of them being the claims as maintained by the opposition division.

IV. Respondents I to III (opponents 1 to 3) filed submissions in answer to the statement of grounds of appeal.

V. The board sent a communication pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal indicating its preliminary, non-binding opinion.

VI. The appellant and respondent II filed further submissions in answer to this communication. The appellant's submissions were accompanied by three further auxiliary requests to be considered as auxiliary requests VII to IX, earlier requests VII and VIII being renumbered X and XI.

VII. Oral proceedings took place on 1 February 2007. The appellant replaced all requests on file by a main request comprising 29 claims.

Claim 1 read as follows:

"1. A process for producing a recombinant bacterial host cell that produces high levels of a desired polypeptide comprising the steps of:

(a) transforming one or more host cells with a nucleic acid molecule comprising

(i) a heterologous polynucleotide segment comprising a sequence encoding a desired polypeptide, and

(ii) sequences that flank said heterologous polynucleotide segment and are homologous to a host gene under transcriptional control of an endogenous promoter,

whereby chromosomal integration into said host gene of said heterologous polynucleotide segment results by means of homologous recombination and said heterologous polynucleotide segment is under the transcriptional control of the endogenous promoter by virtue of being integrated into a host cell chromosome on the downstream side of the promoter;

(b) selecting for one or more host cells produced in step (a) that express the polypeptide;

(c) exposing one or more host cells identified in step (b) to a mutagen under conditions such that a mutation that causes increased expression of said heterologous polynucleotide segment is created in said chromosome;

and then

(d) testing host cells produced in step (c) for host cells that produce said desired protein at a level higher than said initial level, to obtain host cells having a mutation that causes increased expression of said heterologous polynucleotide segment resulting in an increase in production by said host cells of said desired polypeptide compared to said production of said desired polypeptide by said host cells in the absence of said mutation, wherein said increased expression is retained in the absence of conditions that select for cells having said increased expression." (differences to granted claim 1 are indicated by emphasis added by the board).

Dependent process claims 2 to 23 corresponded to granted claims 2 to 10, 13 to 25. Claims 24 to 29 which related to specific recombinant E.coli strains defined by their deposit ATCC numbers were the claims accepted by the opposition division.

VIII. The following documents are mentioned in this decision:

(1): EP-A-0 284 126;

(3): Makino, O. et al., Agric.Biol.Chem. Vol.50, No.2, pages 501 to 504, 1986;

(17): Sakai, A. et al., Genetics, Vol. 119, pages 499 to 506, July 1988;

(23): Cregg, J.M. et al., Genetics and Molecular Biology of Industrial Organisms, Am.Soc.Microbiology, Washington, Editors: Hershberger et al., pages 343 to 352, 1989.

IX. The appellant's submissions in writing and during oral proceedings insofar as relevant to the present decision may be summarised as follows:

Article 123(2) EPC; added subject-matter

The application as filed disclosed bacterial host cells eg. on page 9, line 11, page 16, line 2, page 18, line 16, page 35, line 12. The expression "encodes a plurality of polypeptides" found a basis on page 6, lines 32 or 36, page 7, line 8 and page 14, line 31. The requirements of Article 123(2) EPC were fulfilled.

Article 84 EPC; clarity

It was unambiguous that in the expression "by virtue of being integrated into a host cell chromosome on the downstream side of the promoter", the term "on the downstream side of the promoter" meant "downstream from and outside of" the promoter as this was the intended meaning throughout the patent specification eg. page 8, lines 17 to 34, page 14, lines 20 to 25, page 15, lines 1 to 4 of the application as filed.

Article 56 EPC; inventive step

- At the priority date, the skilled person already had many techniques at his/her disposal to increase the production of a polypeptide. In bacteria, a preponderant method was to express the relevant gene from multicopy plasmids. Yet, it was also known to increase transcription by using strong promoters, to adapt codon usage to the host cell, to improve secretory capacities, to mutagenize and select mutants with a higher expression level of the relevant polypeptide. The patentee had chosen a distinctively different way when devising a method which combined homologous recombination and mutagenesis and this method had multiple advantages.

- Document (3) was the closest prior art which disclosed a method for high level expression of a desired gene which involved homologous recombination of said gene into the E.coli chromosome downstream of a strong inducible promoter. When the patentee used an equivalent method (examples of the patent in suit), a very low level of expression was obtained. Nonetheless, it pursued the experiment by mutagenizing the recombinant E.coli strain and, then, surprisingly obtained levels of expression as good as those obtained when using multicopy plasmids. The method was, thus, clearly inventive.

Opponents' arguments that the claimed method was not inventive over the combined teachings of documents (3) and (23) were not convincing because these teachings were too far apart to be combined, document (23) being a review article on gene expression in the yeast P. pastoris.

- Document (17) was a research article about hypersecretion in S.cerevisiae. There was no reason why a skilled person would take this document into consideration when attempting to increase polypeptide production in E.coli. A fortiori, there were no reasons to combine the teachings of documents (17) and (1) when assessing inventive step.

- Finally, the opponents argued that the patent in suit did not provide any evidence that the method of claim 1 was a solution to the problem of overexpressing a desired polypeptide. Yet, at the same time, they objected that the subject-matter of this claim was an obvious solution to this problem. These two arguments were mutually exclusive. In fact, homologous recombination and mutagenesis were techniques routinely employed by the skilled person, but their hitherto undisclosed combination resulted in an unexpected level of expression and this was why the claimed subject-matter was inventive.

Article 83 EPC; sufficiency of disclosure

- The patent in suit provided detailed examples of how to integrate a heterologous polynucleotide segment - comprising Z.mobilis genes - on the downstream side of a bacterial endogenous promoter - the pfl promoter - and the resulting recombinant host cell - E.coli - expressed high levels of the two Z.mobilis proteins. The pfl promoter itself was not present in the heterologous polynucleotide segment and, thus, integration into the bacterial chromosome occurred downstream from the endogenous promoter. The skilled person would have no problems in reproducing this teaching.

- The claim was broad but, in accordance with the case law (T 19/90, OJ EPO 1990, 476), that was not in itself a reason to reject the patent for lack of sufficient disclosure. In fact, the two techniques which were necessary to put the claimed method into practice - homologous recombination and mutagenesis - were well-known to the skilled person. The respondents' arguments that the claimed method could not be reproduced were mere assumptions which had not been substantiated by any verifiable facts. The requirements of Article 83 EPC were fulfilled.

X. The respondents' submissions in writing and during oral proceedings insofar as relevant to the present decision may be summarised as follows:

Article 123(2); added subject-matter

The terms "bacterial host cells" (claim 1) and "encoding a plurality of polypeptides" (claim 4) had no basis in the application as filed. Therefore, the main request did not comply with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

Article 84; clarity

The meaning of the expression "by virtue of being integrated into a host cell chromosome on the downstream side of the promoter" was unclear in two respects. Firstly, it was doubtful whether the "promoter" was the endogenous promoter present in the bacterial chromosome. Secondly, the term "on the downstream side of the promoter" could equally mean "within the promoter, in the downstream part of it" or "outside the promoter, downstream from it".

Article 56 EPC; inventive step

- The subject-matter of claim 1 lacked inventive step over the teachings of document (3) combined with those of document (23), alternatively, over the teachings of document (17) combined with those of document (1) or with the prevailing common general knowledge at the priority date. Finally, there was also lack of inventive step as the patent in suit did not produce any evidence that the problem which the claimed subject-matter purported to solve had, in fact, been solved.

- Document (3) taught that in order to produce a polypeptide on a large scale in E.coli, it may be advantageous to insert the corresponding gene into the chromosome and express it therefrom under the control of a strong inducible promoter. The method used to obtain the recombinant host cell corresponded to the first step of the now claimed method.

The problem to be solved could, thus, be defined as providing a method to increase the level of foreign gene expression once it was inserted in the bacterial chromosome and the solution thereto was to mutagenize the recombinant clones and select for those exhibiting a high level of expression.

This solution was obvious insofar as isolating mutants was a technique to increase gene expression which was part of the common general knowledge. Evidence thereto could be found for example in document (23), page 349. Admittedly, this document related to gene expression in yeasts, yet this was not relevant as the skilled person knew that mutagenesis could be carried out on any organisms.

- Document (17) disclosed a method to increase the production of a polypeptide to be carried out in yeast cells which corresponded to the method now claimed for bacteria. The problem to be solved could, thus, be formulated as finding alternative host cells to produce high levels of a polypeptide, and the solution was to use bacterial cells instead of yeast cells. At the priority date, bacterial cells had long been known as industrial microorganisms as was reflected in document (1). Thus, they were an obvious alternative to yeast cells. In this context, reference was made to the earlier decision T 455/91 of 20 June 1994 where it was established that a skilled person working in one area of genetic engineering would regard a means found possible in a neighbouring area of genetic engineering as being usable in his own area, if this transfer of technical knowledge appeared to be easy and involved no obvious risks. Here, it was well known that the relevant techniques which had been used in yeast were also suited for bacteria.

- Finally, account should be taken of the fact that the examples given by the patent in suit did not illustrate the claimed subject-matter. Thus, the patentee had provided no evidence that the problem had been solved.

Sufficiency of disclosure

- The patent in suit failed to provide a teaching reproducible over the scope of the claim which covered producing recombinant bacterial host cells irrespective of the kind of bacteria by transforming them with any gene or combination thereof and, furthermore, which involved any kind of mutagenesis, even relying on natural chance events. On the contrary, there was only one example provided of the overproduction by E.coli of gene products involved in ethanol production. The situation was essentially the same as that encountered in case T 694/92 (OJ EPO 1997,408) where sufficiency of disclosure had been denied.

- The patent in suit failed to provide any information on how to ensure that chromosomal integration by homologous recombination would occur on the downstream side of the promoter and result in expression of the gene encoding the desired polypeptide from the endogenous promoter. One could conceive of an integrative event involving homologous recombination, eg. those occurring in the flanking sequence downstream from the gene to be expressed at high level, which would result in the expression of the desired polypeptide, yet not from the endogenous promoter, and this integrative event would be indistinguishable from a homologous recombination such as claimed. In accordance with the case law (T 256/87 of 26 July 1988), in such a situation, the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure was not fulfilled.

XI. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request filed during the oral proceedings.

The respondents requested that the appeal be dismissed.

Article 123(2) EPC; added subject-matter

1. Respondent II' s arguments as regards added subject-matter was that the two expressions "bacterial host cell" (claim 1) and "encoding a plurality of polypeptides" (claim 4) could not be found in the application as filed.

2. The purpose of Article 123(2) EPC is explained in the Enlarged Board's decision G 1/93 (OJ EPO 1994, 541, point 9 of the decision):

"With regard to Article 123(2) EPC, the underlying idea is clearly that an applicant shall not be allowed to improve his position by adding subject-matter not disclosed in the application as filed which would give him an unwarranted advantage and could be damaging to the legal security of third parties relying on the content of the original application."

3. Applying Article 123(2) EPC is, thus, not a question of whether or not the same words are present in a claim and in the application as filed but whether the claimed technical teaching ("subject-matter") is clearly and unambiguously derivable from that application.

4. That the now claimed process is to be performed with recombinant bacterial host cells is, in fact, the gist of the invention as described in the application as filed, starting on page 1, lines 19 to 24 going to eg, the passage bridging page 8, line 14 to page 9, line 13, page 16, lines 2 to 8, page 18, lines 6 to 26, etc.... Furthermore, the examples describe the isolation of recombinant E.coli bacterial host cells overproducing Z.mobilis gene products involved in the production of ethanol.

5. In the same manner, the fact that bacterial host cells may be transformed by a heterologous polynucleotide segment encoding a plurality of polypeptides is straightforwardly derivable from the technical teaching in the application as filed that the segment may comprise a plurality of genes, eg. on page 6, lines 30 to 32:

"The present invention pertains to recombinant host cells that express chromosomally-integrated heterologous genes encoding useful polypeptides at high levels."

6. For these reasons, the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC are fulfilled.

Article 84 EPC; clarity

7. Respondent I argued that, in claim 1, the wording "and said heterologous polynucleotide segment is under the transcriptional control of the endogenous promoter by virtue of being integrated into a host cell chromosome on the downstream side of the promoter" left some doubts as to which promoter was being referred to in the second half of the sentence. For the board, it is unambiguous that the "promoter" must be the endogenous promoter referred to in the first half of the sentence, it being in any case the only promoter mentioned in the claim.

8. Respondent II argued that in that same passage the wording "on the downstream side of the promoter" could mean "outside of the promoter, downstream from it" or "within the promoter, in the downstream part of it" and that, therefore, there was uncertainty as to which integration event the claimed process would involve. In support of this argument, he observed that the polynucleotide segment which was made use of in the examples comprised in the upstream flanking sequence 140 base pairs containing a promoter sequence where homologous recombination could take place as well as in the rest of said sequence.

9. In accordance with the case law (T 860/93, OJ EPO 1995, 47), the description may be used to interpret the claims. Here the description in its generic part makes a clear and consistent distinction between the promoter and the gene which "follows" it. It teaches that the heterologous DNA segment should be integrated within the gene (eg. page 8, lines 17 to 24, page 14, lines 20 to 25). As for the above mentioned examples, they are wholly silent as to the presence of a promoter in the 140 base pairs fragment. Thus, irrespective of whether or not an active promoter is indeed found in this fragment, the skilled person is not made aware of it by reading the description. Accordingly, the board concludes that on the basis of the technical disclosure provided, he/she would understand the expression "on the downstream side of" as meaning "outside of the promoter, downstream from it".

10. The requirements of Article 84 EPC are fulfilled.

Article 54 EPC; novelty

11. Lack of novelty was the reason for refusal of the then pending main request (granted claims, see I above) by the opposition division. Claim 1, which was directed to a process for producing a recombinant host cell that produced high levels of a desired polypeptide, was found to lack novelty over the teachings of document (17) which related to S.cerevisiae. Present claim 1 (and dependent claims thereof) is limited to a process to be carried out in bacteria (see section VII supra). Document (17) is no longer relevant to novelty and as there are no other prior art documents on file disclosing a process such as that now claimed, the requirements of Article 54 EPC are fulfilled.

Article 56 EPC; inventive step

12. Documents (3) or (17) were referred to as the closest prior art. The former is concerned with large scale production of a polypeptide in E.coli, the latter deals with the isolation and characterisation of mutants which show an oversecretion phenotype in S.cerevisiae.

13. In accordance with the case law (T 606/89 of 18 September 1990), the closest prior art for assessing inventive step is normally a prior art document disclosing subject-matter conceived for the same purpose or aiming at the same objective as the claimed invention and having the most relevant technical features in common.

14. The purpose of the present invention is to produce high levels of a desired polypeptide in bacteria. Therefore, the closest prior art is document (3). This document teaches that overproduction of a desired peptide is most often achieved by expressing the corresponding gene in host cells from multicopy plasmids. The poor reproducibility of the system is pointed out (page 501, left-hand column) and the authors suggest a different method involving the integration of the gene of interest into the chromosome downstream from a strong inducible promoter. The general procedure for integration, which is mentioned in the paragraph bridging pages 503 and 504, requires that the gene of interest be flanked by sequences homologous to the host gene which is naturally expressed from a strong promoter. After transformation of the host cells, the integration at the gene locus on the chromosome is said to occur by homologous recombination downstream from the ribosome-binding sequence, namely downstream from the strong promoter. The results obtained with the recA gene as a model case for large scale production of a polypeptide (recA protein) show that, while somewhat lower than that obtained by expression from multicopy plasmids, the yield of recA protein obtained by expression from the chromosome is much more reproducible (passage bridging pages 501 and 502). There is no hint in document (3) that the method therein described is in need of any improvement.

15. Starting from the closest prior art, the problem to be solved may be defined as providing another method for producing a polypeptide at high levels in bacterial cells.

16. The solution provided is a method in which the step of integration into the chromosome by means of homologous recombination on the downstream side of an endogenous promoter is followed by a mutagenesis step coupled to the selection of highly producing clones.

17. In the absence of any suggestion in document (3) that the method proposed therein is not fully satisfactory, the skilled person wanting to solve the above mentioned problem would most probably follow the provided teaching that strong promoters were the answer. Thus, the solution immediately coming to mind would be to try and isolate constructs which would be expected to integrate downstream from any other E.coli promoters known to be strong. Unless associated with unexpected effects, this course of action would be obvious.

18. However, that was not the solution chosen by the appellant. Instead, a step of mutagenesis was added and a high level of expression was achieved. At the priority date, mutagenesis was only one amongst the many methods which had already been tried for altering the expression level of a bacterial gene. As already mentioned, one of the "preferred ones" was using multicopy plasmids, but one could also try to achieve gene duplication in the chromosome (document (1)), to adapt codon usage etc... Thus, in the board's judgment, the present method which, in fact, consists of the combination of, firstly, putting oneself in the unfavourable position of expressing only one copy of the gene - albeit possibly strongly - and, secondly, "correcting" the level of expression obtained by altering the genetic background of the host cells rather than manipulating the gene of interest, was unexpected.

19. In this context, reference was made to document (23) as evidence that mutagenesis was a favoured approach for improving gene expression (page 349, left-hand column). However, this document is a review of the expression of foreign genes in the methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris. For the board, such a document could only be found and its teachings combined with those of document (3) with hindsight knowledge of the invention. And, besides, as already mentioned, inventive step does not reside in any one of the steps of the claimed method taken separately but in their combination.

20. The claimed subject-matter was also argued to be obvious in the light of the teachings of document (17) combined with those of document (1). Document (17) is a research article on the possible genetic determinants of the oversecretion phenotype in S.cerevisiae. Two kinds of mutants are isolated which oversecrete a protein encoded by a foreign gene integrated by homologous recombination into the yeast chromosome downstream from a strong promoter. The purpose of the study is to investigate their genetic identity: one of them is found to be altered in the secretory pathway whereas the other exhibits an increased transcription level.

21. In the board's judgment, the skilled person would have no reason to consider document (17) when wanting to achieve overproduction of a protein in a bacterial host. And the information in document (1) - which was relied upon by respondent I in combination with document (17) - that bacteria are industrial microorganisms does not change anything in this respect.

22. In this context, reference was also made to the earlier decision T 455/91 (supra). In this case, vectors suitable for expressing any exogenous gene in yeast cells were claimed, which comprised genetic elements corresponding to those of vectors as were known in the bacterial art for the same purpose. The then competent board concluded that a skilled person working in one area of genetic engineering would regard a means found possible in a neighbouring area of genetic engineering as being useable in his own area, if such a transfer of technical knowledge appeared to be easy and to involve no obvious risks and, on that basis, inventive step was denied. That situation, however, is quite different from the present insofar as the then relevant bacterial art did address the same problem as the then patent in suit and, thus, "came to mind" when trying to solve the technical problem. As this is not presently the case - see paragraph 20 supra-, the findings of T 455/91 (supra) do not apply.

23. Finally, the argument was presented that the patent in suit did not provide any evidence that the problem mentioned in point 15, supra had been solved because the examples given were not suitable to illustrate the claimed solution. There existed the possibility that in the heterologous polynucleotide segment which was exemplified, homologous recombination took place within the 140bp part of the flanking sequence which contained a promoter. In other words, the gene of interest would not necessarily be under the transcriptional control of the endogenous promoter by virtue of being integrated on the downstream side from the promoter. However, it was not denied that the relevant flanking sequence contained much more DNA than the 140bp fragment nor that the rest of this DNA was homologous to the gene sequence downstream from the promoter on the chromosome and, thus, may equally participate in homologous recombination. Accordingly, and in the absence of any evidence that homologous recombination would only take place in the 140 base pairs fragment, it must be concluded that the argument is not adequately substantiated.

24. For these reasons, inventive step is acknowledged.

Article 83 EPC; sufficiency of disclosure

25. At oral proceedings, the fact that the techniques needed to put the claimed method into practice, namely homologous recombination and mutagenesis, were routine techniques in the bacterial field was not challenged.

26. The first argument which was raised against sufficiency of disclosure was that the scope of claim 1 was much too wide and, thus, unwarranted, taking into account the scant technical teaching provided. In this context, the findings in the earlier decision T 19/90 (supra, point 3.3 of the decision) are particularly relevant:

"However, the mere fact that a claim is broad is not in itself a ground for considering the application as not complying with the requirement for sufficient disclosure under Article 83 EPC. Only if there are serious doubts, substantiated by verifiable facts, may an application be objected to for lack of sufficient disclosure."

27. Although it was suggested that it would be inevitable that the invention could not be reproduced in at least some embodiments, no serious doubts were raised and no verifiable facts were produced, and , accordingly, the argument is not found convincing.

28. Decision T 694/92 (supra) was also referred to, wherein sufficiency of disclosure was denied to a method for genetically modifying a plant cell by transferring into it a T-DNA comprising a plant promoter and a plant structural gene so that the protein encoded by the plant gene would be expressed. In this earlier case, it was known from the art that no previous attempts to transfer genes into plant cells had resulted in the expression of these genes. The method itself involved a new approach and the expression of only one plant gene - encoding phaseolin - was observed but at barely detectable levels. The then competent board reasoned that the technical teaching provided was not sufficient for the skilled person to reliably achieve without undue burden the technical effect of expression in any plant cell of any plant gene under the control of any promoter. The facts of that case are, however, clearly not comparable to those of the present case and, thus, the conclusion also has no bearing on the present case.

29. Yet another argument was that the skilled person was given no technical means to find whether or not he/she was reproducing the invention, a situation which, in accordance with the case law (T 256/87, supra) amounted to the requirement of Article 83 EPC not being fulfilled. This argument was illustrated at oral proceedings by a diagram depicting what would happen if integration occurred into the chromosome by means of one cross-over with the flanking sequence situated downstream from the gene of interest in the heterologous polynucleotide segment - ie. the sequence carrying the transcription terminator. From this diagram, it was deduced that once integrated into the chromosome, the gene of interest would not be expressed from the endogenous promoter yet would nonetheless be expressed. In the respondent's opinion, this implied that the depicted event could not be distinguished from that which the claimed process involved.

30. In the board's judgment, sketching a possible recombination event on a flipchart, without providing any experimental evidence that if it occurred in vivo and was followed by a step of mutagenesis, it would result in bacterial cells such as obtained by the claimed process - producing high levels of a desired polypeptide in a stable manner- illustrates no more than an assumption that it would. Mere assumptions are not adequate evidence for a conclusion of lack of sufficient disclosure. Accordingly, the findings in decision T 256/87 (supra) are not relevant to the present case.

31. For these reasons, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, sufficiency of disclosure is acknowledged.

Further matter:

32. In addition to the method claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 to 23, the claim request comprises claims 24 to 29 which relate to specific, deposited recombinant E.coli host cells as defined by ATCC deposit numbers. These six claims are those which were accepted by the opposition division. The respondents did not appeal against the decision of the opposition division. Therefore, these claims are not for consideration by the board (Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 4/93 OJ EPO 1994, 875).

Order

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 with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the main request filed during the oral proceedings and a description and drawings to be adapted thereto.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility