BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Aueon Inc (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o24813 (13 June 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o24813.html
Cite as: [2013] UKIntelP o24813

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Aueon Inc (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o24813 (13 June 2013)

Patent decision

BL number
O/248/13
Concerning rights in
GB1008930.8
Hearing Officer
Mr H Jones
Decision date
13 June 2013
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Aueon Inc
Provisions discussed
Section 1(1)(b), 1(2)(c), 14(5)(b)
Keywords
Clarity, Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to a method of generating a list of cancer drug treatment options based on the status of molecular markers derived from a sample of a tumor in a patient. It is claimed as a method of diagnosing cancer which comprises the steps of interrogating a computer-implemented database and producing a list of efficacious drug treatment options. The examiner argues that the invention is not a method of diagnosis and that the claim, as a consequence, is unclear. The examiner also argues that the invention is excluded from patentability as relating to a computer program as such. The applicant insists that the invention can be defined in terms of a method of diagnosis, and argues on the basis of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Opinion in G1/04 that methods of diagnosis are specified in the EPC as being inventions. The Hearing Officer reviewed the requirements for methods of diagnosis set out by the Enlarged Board of Appeal and found that the invention did no relate to such a method. He went on to find that the invention was excluded as being a program for a computer as such. It was not necessary to consider a separate argument on lack of inventive step.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o24813


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o24813.html