T 0290/86 (Cleaning plaque) du 13.11.1990

1. Whether or not a claimed invention is excluded from patentability under Article 52(4) EPC depends in particular upon the wording of the claim in question. If the claimed invention is not directed solely to a cosmetic effect, but is also necessarily defining a treatment of the human body by therapy as well, such a claim is excluded from patentability (Decision T 144/83 "Appetite suppressant" (OJ EPO 1986, 301) distinguished).

2. What is "made available to the public" by specific detailed examples included in a document is not necessarily limited to the exact details of such specific examples but depends in each case upon the technical teaching which is "made available" to a skilled reader. The amendment of a claim by including a disclaimer to such specific detailed examples may not render the claim novel.

3. When a prior document and a claimed invention are both concerned with a similar treatment of the human body for the same therapeutic purpose (here: prevention of tooth decay), the claimed invention represents a further medical indication as compared to the prior document within the meaning of Decision G 5/83 (OJ EPO 1985, 64) if it is based upon a different technical effect which is both new and inventive over the disclosure of the prior document (here: use of compositions including lanthanum salts to reduce the solubility of tooth enamel cf. use of such compositions to improve the removal of plaque from teeth).