|
1. For the purposes of Article 57 EPC, a claimed invention must
have such a sound and concrete technical basis that the skilled
person can recognise that its contribution to the art could lead
to practical exploitation in industry, i.e. to a concrete
benefit, which is immediately derivable directly from the
description, if it is not already obvious from the nature of the
invention or from the background art. It is necessary to disclose
in definite technical terms the purpose of the invention and how
it can be used in industrial practice to solve a given technical
problem, this being the actual concrete benefit or advantage of
exploiting the invention. (cf. points 5 and 6 of the Reasons).
2. The fact that a function is based on computer-assisted
methods, rather than on the basis of traditional wet-lab
techniques, does not mean that it has to be automatically
disregarded or excluded from a careful and critical examination.
Their probative value has to be examined on a case-by-case basis
regarding the nature of the invention and the prior art relating
thereto (cf. point 22 of the Reasons).
3. The function of a protein (and thus of the nucleic acid
encoding it) can be seen at different levels, which include its
molecular function, its cellular function and its biological
function in a broad sense. The elucidation of one of these
particular levels of function might result, under certain
conditions, in a straightforward industrial application, even
though the other levels of activity remain completely unknown or
only partially characterized. For the purpose of Article 57 EPC
and Rules 23e(3) and 27(1)(f) EPC, none of these levels is more
fundamental than the other ones insofar as at least from one of
these levels a practical application (a profitable use in a wider
sense) is derivable in a straightforward manner (cf. points 29
and 30 of the Reasons).
|
