European Patent Office

T 0923/92 (human t-PA) du 08.11.1995

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T092392.19951108
Date de la décision
8 novembre 1995
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0923/92
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
83302501.8
Classe de la CIB
C12N 15/00
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
Human tissue plasminogen activator, pharmaceutical compositions containing it, processes for making it, and DNA and transformed cell intermediates therefor
Nom du demandeur
GENENTECH
Nom de l'opposant
KabiVitrum AB
The Wellcome Foundation Limited
Celltech Limited
Toyo Boseki Kabushiki Kaisha
Behringwerke Aktiengesellschaft
Boehringer Mannheim GmbH
Chambre
3.3.04
Sommaire

I. The skilled person considers a reference to a particular amino acid sequence in a claim as a true technical feature characterizing the invention. Such a claim is not under Article 87 entitled to priority from an earlier application in which that amino acid sequence was not disclosed (cf. points 8 and 16 of the Reasons).

II. A claim to a process which comprises the preparation of a protein which has human tissue plasminogen activator (t- PA) function, without further indication which of the many functions of human t-PA are meant, is not allowable under Articles 83 and 84 EPC. This is firstly because the skilled addressee would be left guessing whether or not a derivative which fulfils only one of the functions typical of this molecule falls under the scope of the claim. Moreover, the requirement of Article 83 EPC is not fulfilled if the claim, on the basis of the broadest possible meaning of the functional definition contained in it, relates to an invention which, having regard to the examples and the information given in the patent specification, cannot be performed in the whole area claimed by a person skilled in the art, using common general knowledge, without undue burden (cf. point 27 of the Reasons).

III. Given a description that contains adequate information how to produce human t-PA, and a claim directed to derivatives of human t-PA with an indication of the functions to test for, the skilled person can be expected to be able to prepare without application of inventive skill or undue burden, derivatives of human t-PA by way of amino acid deletion, substitution, insertion, addition or replacement and test which of the derivatives satisfy the functional requirements, so that the claimed invention is adequately described for the purpose of Article 83 EPC [cf. points 44 and 45 of the Reasons].

Mots-clés
Main request - entitlement to priority (no) - differences in sequences
Main request - novelty (no)
Subsidiary requests 1 and 2 - lack of clarity (yes)
Lack of sufficient disclosure (yes)
Subsidiary request 3 - formal admissibility (yes)
Subsidiary request 3 - reformatio in peius (no)
Entitlement to priority (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure (yes)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes) - no reasonable expectation of success
Exergue
-

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 Claims 1 to 15. (non-AT States) and Claims 1 to 15 (AT) of new subsidiary request 3 as filed in the oral proceedings.