Skip Navigation

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2007 2(1):7-8; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl231
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Authors (2007). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Current Intelligence

Glaucoma diagnostic invention ruling puts flesh on bones of G 1/04

David Rogers, Legal Member
Boards of Appeal
European Patent Office
Munich, Germany
Email: drogers{at}epo.org

Australian National University's application, Case T-1197/02, 12 July 2006, ex parte European Patent Office Board 3.3.02

The exclusion of diagnostic methods practised on the human body from patentability was subject to clarification from the Enlarged Board of Appeal in Case G 1/04 of 16 December 2005. This case gives a practical example of the application of the Enlarged Board's decision.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.