In determining novelty of the subject-matter of claims, the examiner should have regard to the guidance given in III, 4.4 - III, 4.13. He should remember that, particularly for claims directed to a physical entity, non-distinctive characteristics of a particular intended use should be disregarded (see III, 4.8). For example, a claim to a substance X for use as a catalyst would not be considered to be novel over the same substance known as a dye, unless the use referred to implies a particular form of the substance (e.g. the presence of certain additives) which distinguishes it from the known form of the substance. That is to say, characteristics not explicitly stated, but implied by the particular use, should be taken into account (see the example of a "mold for molten steel" in III, 4.8). For claims to a first medical use, see IV, 4.2.

It should further be borne in mind that a claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose (second non-medical use) which is based on a technical effect should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature, and is accordingly not open to objection under Art. 54(1), provided that such technical feature has not previously been made available to the public (G 2/88, OJ 4/1990, 93, and G 6/88, OJ 4/1990, 114). For claims to a second or further medical use, see IV, 4.2.