d) Intermediate findings of diagnostic relevance 

In G 1/04 the Enlarged Board of Appeal stated that intermediate findings of diagnostic relevance must not be confounded with diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu, which consisted in attributing the detected deviation to a particular clinical picture. It followed that a method for obtaining such results or findings did not constitute a sufficient basis for denying patentability by virtue of Art. 52(4) EPC 1973.

In T 1016/10 the appellant claimed an analogy to T 1255/06, arguing that step (iv) was missing and that thus the claim could not fall under the exception clause. The board disagreed. The appellants had argued that an "amyloidogenic disorder", identified as step (iv) in claim 1, merely represented an "intermediate finding", which according to reasons 6.2.3 of G 1/04, were not to be confounded with diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu. Such an intermediate finding did not make it possible to immediately determine the nature of a disease and to decide on a particular course of medical treatment (T 385/86). The board however considered that an "amyloidogenic disorder" was not merely an "intermediate finding" but did indeed represent a "particular clinical picture".