On 8 April 2014, the applicant replied to the communication accompanying the summons and submitted two sets of amended claims as, respectively, main request and auxiliary request, which replaced the claims previously on file. The examining division acknowledged novelty and, as regards inventive step, observed that the applicant had not commented on the fact that the claims were directed to the use of inhibitors of any type of connexin, and that no technical effect had been shown in the application (see point 4 of the communication). In a communication attached to the summons, the examining division raised two new objections under Article 84 EPC, in particular to the wording of the claims depending from claim 1 and/or 11 (see point 2.1 of the communication), and to claims 10 and 16 (see point 2.2 of the communication). Summons to oral proceedings were dispatched on 15 January 2014. As a subsidiary request, the applicant requested oral proceedings. The applicant put forward arguments in support of inventive step and requested that, if any matters had remained outstanding, the examining division should issue a further communication or telephone the representative. On 12 July 2013, the applicant replied to the communication and submitted a new set of amended claims (claims 1 to 20) which replaced the claims previously on file and addressed the objections raised by the examining division. Additionally, three objections under Article 84 EPC were raised, in particular to the wording "preferably" and "optionally" in claims 4, 8, 10 and 15, the wording "instructions for use." in claims 11 to 13, and the presence of "too many independent claims" (see point 5 of the communication). The examining division held that, if a less ambitious technical problem were formulated, the solution would be obvious (see point 4 of the communication). Novelty was acknowledged for the subject-matter of claims 1 to 8 directed to an anti-connexin polynucleotide for a specific therapeutic use, but inventive step denied on the grounds that the technical effect underlying the purported technical problem had not been demonstrated over the whole scope of the claims, and that the examples were purely hypothetical. In a first communication under Article 94(3) EPC dated 18 September 2012, the examining division raised an objection of lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC) to claims 9 to 15 directed to compositions comprising an anti-connexin polynucleotide and methods of making the compositions. The application was filed with 52 claims and entered the European phase with a set of amended claims (claims 1 to 15). The application was filed as an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and published as WO 2009/085273.
08866069.1 with the title "Treatment of surgical adhesions" was refused under Article 97(2) EPC. The appeal lies from a decision of an examining division of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued in writing on 15 July 2014, by which the European patent application No. Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11ĭecision according to the state of the file reasoned within the meaning of Rule 111(2)EPC (no)
Use of anti-connexin polynucleotides for the treatment of surgical adhesions Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Registerīibliographic information is available in:
0 kommentar(er)
