Patent decision

BL number

O/0515/25

Hearing Officer

Dr R Dinham

Decision date

10 June 2025

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Mohamed Fadly Abd El Ghany Elkazaz

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 14(3), 14(5) and 76(2)

Keywords

Added subject matter, Inventive step, Novelty

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The application relates to the use of anabasine as an immune modulator, suggested to be useful to treat asthma, chest allergy, atopic dermatitis and other allergic diseases. There are no examples in the application as filed, and the discussion of the effects of anabasine as an immune/ inflammatory system modular are all based around third party studies.

The examiner maintained objections under novelty, inventive step, clarity, support, sufficiency and added matter. Of particular contention was whether the term “cure” meant the same as “treat”, impacting on how the claims were construed.

With no response to the offer of a hearing, a decision on the papers was prepared. The hearing officer decided that, in light of the disclosure in the application as filed, the skilled person would read the term “cure” as synonymous to “treat”, and if they did not then this would amount to unallowable added subject matter. Changes to the dosage regime also amounted to added subject matter.

Construing the claims as the second medical use of anabasine to treat asthma and other allergic diseases, the hearing officer found that the claims lacked novelty. Additionally, the hearing officer found that the claims lacked an inventive step in light of two further documents. The hearing officer did not find it necessary or proportionate to consider the remaining outstanding issues. The application was refused.

Full decision O/0515/25 237Kb