In T 51/93 the only difference between the invention as claimed and the disclosure of D(4) was that the claim was directed to an intended method of subcutaneous administration. The board stated that a different mode of administration for a pharmaceutical could render a medical use claim drafted according to decision G 5/83 novel. Patentability should be treated as depending only on whether this modification was in fact novel and inventive. Thus, it was possible to acknowledge novelty over D(4) (see T 143/94, OJ 1996, 430).