T 783/09 – Deletion vs. Selection

The question of whether combinations of elements taken from several lists are directly and unambiguously disclosed as such in an application, so that each combination may be isolated and claimed as such, is one of the questions where there is – as far as I can see – no clear consensus between the Boards. The present decision offers an interesting and somewhat unusual approach.

[2] A 123(2) stipulates that the European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed.

[3] In accordance with established jurisprudence the relevant question to be decided in assessing whether or not an amendment adds subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed is whether the skilled person would derive the proposed amendment directly and unambiguously from the application as filed.

[4] Amended claim 1 relates to a combination comprising (S)-1-[(3-hydroxy-1-adamantyl)acetyl-2-cyano-pyrrolidine (also denoted as “LAF237”), in free form or in acid addition salt form, and at least one further compound selected from the group of pioglitazone, rosiglitazone or troglitazone or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt of such a compound.

[5] A first issue in the present case is whether or not the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously each of the three “basic” combinations to which claim 1 pertains, i.e. LAF237 combined with either of pioglitazone, rosiglitazone or troglitazone from the application as filed.

[5.1] As to the relevant content in the application as filed, there is a general disclosure of the invention - it relates to a combination of a DPP-IV inhibitor with at least one further antidiabetic compound […]. This is succeeded by the description of numerous groups, subgroups and individual compounds of DPP-IV inhibitors […] and the description of numerous groups, subgroups and individual compounds of further antidiabetic compounds […].

[5.2] The subsequent fifth paragraph on page 21 reads:

“In a very preferred embodiment of the invention, the DPP-IV inhibitor is selected from (S)-1[(3-hydroxy-1-adamantyl) amino] acetyl-2-cyano-pyrrolidine (note by the board: also denoted as “LAF237”) and (S)-1- {2-[5-cyanopyridin-2-yl) amino] ethyl-aminoacetyl}-2-cyano-pyrrolidine (note by the board: also denoted as “DPP728”), and the further antidiabetic compound is selected from the group consisting of nateglinide, repaglinide, metformin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, troglitazone, glisoxepid, glyburide, glibenclamide, acetohexamide, chloropropamide, glibornuride, tolbutamide, tolazamide, glipizide, carbutamide, gliquidone, glyhexamide, phenbutamide, tolcyclamide, glimepiride and gliclazide, or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt of such a compound.”

[5.3] Thus, the fifth paragraph on page 21 indicates two individual DPP-IV inhibitors, among them the one according to claim 1, namely LAF237, and twenty-two individual anti-diabetic compounds, among them the three according to claim 1, namely pioglitazone, rosiglitazone and troglitazone.

[5.4] The skilled person would derive from this paragraph that “very preferred” combinations of the invention are

(i) those having the compound “LAF237” as DPP-IV inhibitor in combination with any one of the disclosed twenty-two compounds as the further antidiabetic compound and

(ii) those having the compound “DPP728” as DPP-IV inhibitor in combination with any one of the disclosed twenty-two compounds as the further antidiabetic compound.

Thus, the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognize forty-four individual combinations, among them the three “basic” combinations referred to in claim 1.

[5.5] Since it was stated in decision T 12/81 [13] that if

“two classes of starting substances are required to prepare end products and examples of individual entities in each class are given in two lists of some length, then a substance resulting from the reaction of a specific pair from the two lists can nevertheless be regarded for patent purposes as a selection and hence as new”,

the boards have denied in many cases a direct and unambiguous disclosure for an individualised subject-matter that was only derivable from a document by combining elements from lists.

[5.6] However, given the term “can” in the citation from decision T 12/81, the absence of a direct and unambiguous disclosure for individualised subject-matter is not a mandatory consequence of its presentation as elements of lists. Thus, the “disclosure status” of subject-matter individualised from lists has to be determined according to the circumstances of each specific case by ultimately answering the question whether or not the skilled person would clearly and unambiguously derive the subject-matter at issue from the document as a whole […].

[5.7] As noted above […], in the present case this evaluation results in the finding that all combinations resulting from the combination of the elements of the two lists according to the passage on page 21 are directly and unambiguously disclosed in that passage.

[5.8] The further alternative features of the combinations according to claim 1, i.e. that LAF237 is in free or in acid addition salt form and that the further antidiabetic compound is in the form of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, are derivable from claim 6 and the fifth paragraph on page 21, respectively.

[5.9] Thus, each of the combinations according to claim 1 is disclosed in an individualised manner in the application as filed and therefore there is no breach of A 123(2) in this respect.

[6] A further issue in the present case is whether or not the claiming of only three of the forty-four combinations disclosed en bloc in the passage on page 21 extends the content of the application as filed in an unallowable way […].

[6.1] The above-cited passage from page 21 of the application as filed advertises the forty-four combinations as “very preferred embodiments”. By this statement the skilled person is taught that each of the forty-four combinations has the same quality, i.e. they are all very preferred combinations in the context of the invention. Nothing else is derivable from the remainder of the application, i.e. a particular quality, for example a particular technical effect, is neither attributed to the three combinations of claim 1 nor to the remaining forty-one.

[6.2] Hence, the group of combinations in claim 1 cannot be considered as the result of a selection of three qualitatively equal elements from a list of forty-four qualitatively non-equal elements - for which selection there would be no hint in the application as filed and the claiming of which group therefore would have to be considered as adding matter. Rather the group of claim 1 is to be considered as the result of the deletion of forty-one elements from a list of forty-four qualitatively equal elements.

[6.3] In the board’s judgement, under these circumstances, claim 1 is not directed to subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.

[6.4] The present board’s view is supported by case law, for example decision T 10/97 [2]:

“It is true that not all the compounds listed in original claim 46 and Table 1 have been included in amended claim 1. However, [...] the claimed group of compounds is not obtained by restricting an originally disclosed generic definition of a substituent in a generic formula to a specific one selected from worked examples, but by deleting some members from a list of individualised equally useful compounds in order to improve the chances of patentability over the available prior art. In the Board’s view, such deletions must be considered admissible in accordance with the case law of the boards of appeal (see decision T 393/91 [2.2]). For the remaining compounds, a particular technical effect has neither been disclosed nor alleged.”

[6.5] The board concludes that the claiming of only three of the forty-four combinations disclosed en bloc in the passage on page 21 does not extend the content of the application as filed in an unallowable way.

[7] Hence, in summary, the subject-matter of claim 1 complies with the requirements of A 123(2).

This outcome might upset A 123(2) hardliners. Others might approve the outcome but find the selection vs. deletion reasoning a little bit strained. What do you think?

To read the whole decision, click here. The file wrapper can be found here.

NB: This decision has also been discussed on Le blog du droit européen des brevets.