T 0187/93 (Vaccines/GENENTECH) du 05.03.1997
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T018793.19970305
- Date de la décision
- 5 mars 1997
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0187/93
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 84305909.8
- Classe de la CIB
- A61K 39/245
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Vaccines based on membrane bound proteins and process for making them
- Nom du demandeur
- GENENTECH, INC.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Chiron Corporation
- Chambre
- 3.3.04
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 123 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
- Mots-clés
- Main, first and second auxiliary requests - sufficiency of disclosure and support by the description (no)
Third auxiliary request - added matter (yes)
Fourth auxiliary request - sufficiency of disclosure - support by the description (yes)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes) no reasonable expectation of success - Exergue
- If a given technical effect (here: immunoprotection in vivo) is solely relied upon in order to demonstrate that a claimed subject-matter (here: a vaccine against a viral pathogen and its production method) involves an inventive step, claims of a broad scope are not allowable under Articles 83 and 84 EPC when, on the basis of the disclosure in the European patent application or the European patent and of the common general knowledge at the date of filing or at the priority date, said technical effect cannot be achieved by the skilled person without undue burden within the whole range of application claimed (cf. points 2 to 7 of the Reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent with the claims 1 to 9 according to the fourth auxiliary request and the description and drawings to be adapted thereto.