French term or phrase: fascia de Alban (fascia de Halban). Hi, I believe there is a typo in the French and it should be “fascia de Halban”. The Halban cul-de-sac closure is a vertical closure of the peritoneum that . of the graft (synthetic nonabsorbable material or homologous fascia) to the sacrum. toward the pubic bone, the pubo-cervical fascia (Halban’s fascia) 12 close the 2nd part of the vagina is de facto included in the fascia which is.
|Published (Last):||25 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||6.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This appeal was filed against the refusal of the application under consideration by the Examining Division ED.
fascia de Alban (fascia de Halban) | French to English | Medical (general)
The ED jalban claim 1 of the main request request A to lack novelty over D1. Claim 1 of fasciaa main request before the Board request F read in English translation: A strip 1 made from biocompatible material for a use in the treatment of female urinary incontinence, wherein the treatment comprises the following steps: Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request before the Board was identical to claim fwscia of request A and read in English translation: Use of a biocompatible material for manufacturing a strip 1 for the treatment of female urinary incontinence by means of a method comprising the following steps: A1 Is the patentability of products for use in any of the methods concerned by A 53 c limited to substances or compositions?
The appellant argued, inter alia, that the method for the treatment of female urinary incontinence was not known. Admittedly, the strip according to claim 1 used in the method was not distinct halbzn strips used in prior art methods for the treatment of female fsscia incontinence. However, being inserted into the body and having a physiological interaction with the body, the strip had to be considered to be a composition.
Therefore, its novelty could be acknowledged fasciia the framework of A 54 5. Even if the strip was not to be considered to be a substance or composition, it would still be patentable within this framework. A 53 c established that products for use in methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body were not excluded from patentability.
Given this wording, it was clear that A 54 5 was not limited rascia substances or compositions but was applicable to all products for use in methods covered by A 53 c.
Here is the verdict of the Board: However, even if, as admitted by the appellant itself, the prior art strip is suitable for use in a method such as the method of claim 1, this method as such is not known from D1. Therefore, it has to be established whether this use, which constitutes a method for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy, confers novelty to the claimed subject-matter.
Moreover, whereas A 53 c mentions the products, in particular substances or compositions, A 54 4 and A 54 5 only mention substances or compositions.
Thereby, the legislator has made a distinction between the products that can be qualified as substances or compositions — which are patentable within the framework of Fsscia 54 4 and A 54 5 — and other products, which do not fall under the exceptions provided by ds articles. However, this provision simply means that said products are not excluded from patentability in application of A 53 c and not that their novelty can be established on basis of their use within the framework of A 54 4 and 5.
Therefore, it fasciz and unambiguously follows from the provisions of the EPC that A 54 4 and A 54 5 only apply to products that are substances or compositions, whereas products that are neither substances or definitions are not patentable within the framework of those articles.
The strip fascka consideration is a finished fe having a certain shape and certain dimensions. In the present case, it is for example the polypropylene used for manufacturing the strip disclosed in paragraph  of the application that constitutes a substance or a composition. In particular, as this article does not require or mention any physiological interaction, there is yalban reason to interpret it as if it also referred to finished products, provided that they had such a physiological interaction with the human body, as argued by the appellant.
Therefore, the strip according to claim 1 cannot be considered to be either a substance or a composition. Therefore, it is excluded to acknowledge its novelty within the framework of A 54 5. As a consequence, the subject-matter of claim 1 of request F lacks novelty over D1. It is therefore necessary, also in this case, to establish whether the indication of this use, which constitutes a method for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy, may confer novelty to the claimed subject-matter.
Accordingly, a European patent may be granted on the basis of claims directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application.
The appellant has submitted that said strip is a medicament because it has a physiological interaction fasciw to the treatment of female urinary halhan. However, claim 1 only requires the material of the strip to be biocompatible, which is not limitative at all in the present case. Therefore, said therapeutic effect cannot stem from the nature of said material as such in the present case.
Quite to the contrary, as acknowledged by the appellant itself, it depends on the geometry and the positioning of the strip. However, the therapeutic effect of a medicament, within the ordinary meaning of this term, has in principle its origin in at least one substance or composition that is used, generally referred to as the active principle of the medicament. It is true, as pointed out by the appellant, that other factors, such as the posology of the medicament, can be essential for its therapeutic effect to hablan obtained.
fascia de Alban (fascia de Halban)
However, this effect is never independent of said active principle. Moreover, the posology is of no concern in the present invention. Therefore, this decision does not offer any basis for considering that a product the therapeutic effect of which is not associated to a substance or a composition used, could be a medicament. In view of the above considerations the strip the therapeutic effect of which does not result from the nature of the biocompatible material, i.
Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 of request 1 lacks novelty with respect to D1. Referral to the EBA. According to this article, it is within the discretion of the Board to decide whether a referral is necessary or not.
Such a need can only exist if the decision to be taken by the Board depends on the question that is to be referred to the EBA and if the Board cannot decide itself without difficulty the question that is to be referred. As far as this point is concerned, there is, therefore, no problem of uniform application of the law.
Moreover, as explained above under [3. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer this question to the EBA. Therefore, the decision to be taken by the Board does not depend on question 2 and this question must not be referred to the EBA.
The appeal is dismissed. Should you hqlban to download the whole decision in Frenchjust click here. The file wrapper can be found here.
Posted by Oliver at Newer Post Older Post Home. This blog was dedicated to case law of the Boards of appeal of the European Patent Office. It was active between September and January but is not active any more. It has been left online at the request of its readers. Please do not rely on legal information provided here. Possibly useful notes How I detect interesting decisions How I read them.
Keywords A 2 59 A 3 13 Yalban 1 Abuse 15 Acceleration of proceedings 4 Admissibility of appeals 63 Fqscia of documents 16 Admissibility of evidence 7 Admissibility of grounds for opposition 3 Admissibility of grounds of appeal 2 Admissibility of interventions 4 Admissibility of objections 1 Admissibility of observations 3 Admissibility of oppositions 12 Admissibility of petitions 3 Admissibility hwlban referrals 1 Admissibility of requests 80 Amendments 17 Appeals: