tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3785471452199814757..comments2024-03-28T13:23:33.281+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Sufficiency of broad functional genus and first medical use claims in Europe (T 0424/21)Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41052911713136539372022-11-08T19:34:10.837+00:002022-11-08T19:34:10.837+00:00Seems a straightforward decision given the Opponen...Seems a straightforward decision given the Opponent had "not provided any evidence that [the claimed effects] were restricted to the particular antibodies used in the examples". The invention had broad applicability that could be applied without undue burden to other IgG1s and claims of commensurate scope were granted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52949724556974796672022-10-26T19:01:41.029+01:002022-10-26T19:01:41.029+01:00Claims expressing functional features can be found...Claims expressing functional features can be found in various fields of technique, not just like the one in the present case. <br /><br />Means+function claims give the broadest possible protection. <br /><br />One example in the description is in principle sufficient, but when looking at case law, this remains rather an exception than the rule. <br /><br />In order to be on the safe side, it is better to give at least two examples. <br /><br />The favourable conjunction here is that the product as such was novel and the description disclosed a first medical indication.<br /><br />Trying to use the considerations of the BA in the present decision to a second medical indication might most probably not be successful. Each further medical use sufficiency has to be plausible from the filing. <br /><br />Curious mindnoreply@blogger.com