European Patent Office

T 0964/99 (Device and method for sampling of substances using alternating polarity/CYGNUS, INC) of 29.06.2001

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T096499.20010629
Date of decision
29 June 2001
Case number
T 0964/99
Petition for review of
-
Application number
95924591.1
IPC class
A61N 1/30
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
Device and method for sampling of substances using alternating polarity
Applicant name
CYGNUS, INC
Opponent name
-
Board
3.4.01
Headnote

1. The expression "diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body" in Article 52(4) EPC or the equivalent expressions "Diagnostizierverfahren, die am menschlichen oder tierischen Korper vorgenommen werden" and "méthodes de diagnostic appliquées au corps humain ou animal" in the other two official languages should not be considered to relate to methods containing all the steps involved in reaching a medical diagnosis.

2. According to the principle, well-established in the case law of the Boards of Appeal, that the EPC has to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context (Article 31(1) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), Article 52(4) EPC is meant to exclude from patent protection all methods practised on the human or animal body which relate to diagnosis or which are of value for the purposes of diagnosis.

3. A step of iontophoretically sampling a substance from the living human or animal body for diagnostic purposes has to be considered a diagnostic method within the meaning of Article 52(4) EPC.

Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 52(4) 1973Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Art 31(1)
Keywords
Diagnostic method (yes: main request, first and second auxiliary requests)
Remittal to the department of the first instance (third auxiliary request)
Catchword
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of the first instance for further examination on the basis of the third auxiliary request (cf. point V above).