Patent decision
- BL number
- O/248/04
- Concerning rights in
- GB 0129486.7
- Hearing Officer
- Mrs S E Chalmers
- Decision date
- 13 August 2004
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 sections 1, 2(6), 4(2), 14(5)(c)
- Keywords
- Inventive step, Novelty
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The application relates to a method of controlling wool growth in sheep and related animals by killing (or 'ablating') the wool follicles with the aim of reducing or preventing the incidence of blowfly strike and balanitis. A composition containing a follicle- ablating agent such as a photosensitiser is applied to the skin followed by irradiation of the treated area. The treatment prevents regrowth of wool and lessens the likelihood of subsequent infection. There were claims to the method of treatment and to second medical use.
Claims to a photodyanamic method of controlling wool growth were held not to be a method of therapy. The HO decided that for a treatment to constitute therapy, there must be a direct link between the treatment and disease state being cured, prevented or alleviated. In contrast to Unilever Limited (Davis's) Application, the method did not result in any agent or effect that would in turn actively prevent the disease state.
Claims to second medical use were therefore not entitled to protection under section 2(6) and were not allowed. These claims were construed as a method of making a composition using a follicle-ablating agent and were also held to lack novelty and inventive step over the prior art, as disclosed in six documents. These disclosed a method of removing hair, or the reduction or prevention of hair regrowth involving the application of a photosensitiser and then irradiation to cause ablation of the hair follicles.
The HO also observed, that were the method therapeutic, the format of the second medical use claims was allowable in principle but there was support only for the use of the follicle-ablating agents in the prevention of blowfly strike.
Full decision O/248/04 
48Kb
