T 0019/90 (Onco-Mouse) of 03.10.1990

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T001990.19901003

Date of decision

3 October 1990

Case number

T 0019/90

Petition for review of

Application number

85304490.7

IPC class

C12N 15/00

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Applicant name

Harvard

Opponent name

Board

3.3.02

Headnote

1. The exception to patentability under Article 53(b) EPC applies to certain categories of animals but not to animals as such.

2. In particular in the case of genetic manipulation of animals involving, as in this case, the insertion of an activated oncogene, there are compelling reasons to consider the provisions of Article 53(a) EPC in relation to the question of patentability.

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention Art 53(a) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 53(b) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 83 1973

Keywords

Patentability of animals
Genetic manipulation of animals - morality
Transgenic animals
Sufficient disclosure (yes)

Catchword

Cited cases

Citing cases

G 0001/98 G 0002/12 G 0002/13 G 0003/19 J 0018/99 T 0435/91 T 0242/92 T 0612/92 T 0694/92 T 0820/92 T 0149/93 T 0356/93 T 0020/94 T 0199/94 T 0383/94 T 0386/94 T 1054/96 T 0354/97 T 0743/97 T 0462/98 T 0728/98 T 1165/98 T 0944/99 T 0036/00 T 0363/00 T 0499/00 T 0505/00 T 0751/00 T 1084/00 T 0008/01 T 0351/01 T 0423/01 T 0579/01 T 0599/01 T 0866/01 T 0378/02 T 0437/02 T 0946/02 T 0315/03 T 0606/03 T 0759/03 T 0843/03 T 0877/03 T 0094/04 T 0275/04 T 0326/04 T 0542/04 T 0562/04 T 0596/04 T 0843/04 T 0907/04 T 1262/04 T 1374/04 T 0021/05 T 0035/05 T 0083/05 T 0297/05 T 0602/05 T 0724/05 T 0905/05 T 1287/05 T 0063/06 T 0309/06 T 0364/06 T 0394/06 T 1074/06 T 1188/06 T 1202/06 T 1384/06 T 0021/07 T 0293/07 T 1158/07 T 1440/07 T 2002/07 T 0176/08 T 0230/08 T 0491/08 T 1069/08 T 1496/08 T 1740/08 T 1904/08 T 2006/08 T 2224/08 T 0018/09 T 0967/09 T 1150/09 T 2101/09 T 0034/10 T 0915/10 T 1152/10 T 1383/10 T 1846/10 T 2329/10 T 2533/10 T 0247/11 T 0348/11 T 2232/11 T 0284/12 T 1224/12 T 1825/12 T 2220/12 T 0305/13 T 1045/13 T 2374/13 T 1111/14 T 1089/15 T 1553/15 T 0358/16 T 2607/16 T 0259/17 T 0291/17 T 0720/17 T 0752/17 T 1153/17 T 1634/17 T 2178/17 T 2341/17 T 0241/18 T 0395/18 T 1683/18 T 2432/18 T 0494/19 T 2131/19 T 2586/19 T 2623/19 T 2904/19 T 0479/20 T 0594/20 T 0669/20 T 0776/20 T 1333/20 T 1688/20 T 1076/21 T 1227/21 T 1919/21 T 0589/22 T 0642/22 T 1329/22 T 1374/22 T 1502/22 T 1608/22 T 1786/22 T 1854/22 T 1908/22 T 0081/23 T 0451/23 T 0559/23 T 0593/23 T 0784/23 T 0998/23 T 1047/23 T 1320/23 T 1489/23 T 1552/23 T 1783/23 T 0341/24 T 0566/24 T 0639/24

ORDER

For these reasons, it is decided that:

1. The request that certain questions be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is rejected.

2. The decision of the Examining Division is set aside.

3. The case is remitted to the Examining Division for further prosecution.