tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post7861417577020139769..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 0895/13 Insufficient disclosure for a medicineDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-57044311423075659562015-11-09T09:22:52.850+01:002015-11-09T09:22:52.850+01:00Beside the decision T 609/02, there is another dec...Beside the decision T 609/02, there is another decision dealing with the same topic: T 866/08 in which the medical effect has at least been consider plausible in spite of any example in the application.<br />As strange as it might appear, one can see a certain link between sufficiency and inventive step. The hurdle for sufficiency is certainly higher than for inventive step, as for the latter the benefit of the doubt can be given. <br />There can however be no benefit of the doubt when it comes to deciding whether the subject-matter of an application is delivering a contribution to the art as exemplified in G 1/03 when it deals with sufficiency.Raoulnoreply@blogger.com