30:
187:
Regarding the fact that the meaning of the term "technical" or "technical character" may not be particularly clear, the Board stated this also applied to the term "invention". "(...) he fact that the exact meaning of a term may be disputed does in itself not necessarily constitute a good reason for
191:
The Board also rejected the so-called "contribution approach", which consists in distinguishing between "new features" of an invention and features of that invention which are known from the prior art when examining whether the invention concerned may be considered to be an invention within the
175:
a computer system suitably programmed for use in a particular field, even if that is the field of business and economy, has the character of a concrete apparatus in the sense of a physical entity, man-made for a utilitarian purpose and is thus an invention within the meaning of
Article 52(1)
213:
167:
does not necessarily confer a technical character to the claimed method. In other words, "technical means for a purely nontechnical purpose and/or for processing purely nontechnical information does not necessarily confer technical character".
155:
The Board of Appeal first drew a distinction between a method for doing business as such, excluded under
Article 52(2)(c) EPC (Article 52(2) EPC provides that methods for doing business are not regarded as inventions within the meaning of
136:. In other words, the technical character requirement is inherent to the notion "invention" in Article 52(1). It also confirmed that methods only involving economic concepts and practices of doing business, or
180:
This distinction of treatment between methods and apparatuses is justified by the mention of "method" but not apparatus in the exclusion of Art. 52(2)(c) EPC. The recent decision
208:
196:
301:
110:
163:), and a method for doing business having a technical character. The mere fact that data processing and computing means, i.e. technical means, are recited in a method
358:
199:. The improvement put forward by the invention belonged to the field of economy and could not therefore contribute to inventive step.
353:
195:
Although the claim under examination was found to meet Art. 52 EPC requirement, the claim was eventually considered to lack
113:(EPO), issued on September 8, 2000. At the time, it was a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the
188:
not using that term as a criterion, certainly not in the absence of a better term: case law may clarify the issue."
160:
114:
147:("Sohei case"), were considered the most relevant cases from the EPO Boards of Appeal regarding business methods.
363:
368:
328:
137:
140:
as such, are not inventions within the meaning of
Article 52(1) EPC, and are therefore not patentable.
338:
128:
It stated that having a technical character is an implicit requirement of the EPC to be met by an
144:
164:
15:
347:
133:
270:
214:
List of decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal relating to
Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
29:
157:
184:
does not make this distinction between method and apparatus claims anymore.
129:
181:
122:
118:
171:
In contrast, regarding an apparatus claim, the Board stated that
117:(EPC) but has now largely been superseded by the decisions in
267:
Software-Related
Inventions and Business-Related Inventions
209:
Software patents under the
European Patent Convention
90:
Controlling pension benefits system/PBS PARTNERSHIP
302:
143:In 2001, decision T 931/95, along with decision
173:
111:Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
36:Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
8:
312:
310:
283:
281:
279:
243:
241:
239:
237:
224:
7:
106:Pension Benefit Systems Partnership
14:
70:R. R. K. Zimmermann, V. Di Cerbo
339:ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T093195.20000908
28:
359:European Patent Office case law
109:, is a decision of a Technical
86:
55:
333:EPO boards of appeal decisions
78:
47:
42:
18:
1:
335:" section of the EPO web site
121:(Comvik, Two identities) and
27:
192:meaning of Art. 52(1) EPC.
125:(Hitachi, Auction Method).
385:
304:, July 2007; 2: 445 - 451.
138:methods for doing business
115:European Patent Convention
43:Issued September 8, 2000
354:Software patent case law
178:
62:P. K. J. van den Berg
256:T 931/95, headnote 2
231:T 931/95, headnote 1
103:, commonly known as
316:T 931/95, Reasons 8
287:T 931/95, Reasons 3
265:Yannis Skulikaris,
247:T 931/95, Reasons 5
329:Decision T 931/95
98:
97:
94:
93:
74:
73:
49:Board composition
376:
364:2000 in case law
317:
314:
305:
298:Down to business
294:
288:
285:
274:
273:, February 2001.
263:
257:
254:
248:
245:
232:
229:
87:
56:
32:
16:
384:
383:
379:
378:
377:
375:
374:
373:
344:
343:
325:
320:
315:
308:
295:
291:
286:
277:
264:
260:
255:
251:
246:
235:
230:
226:
222:
205:
153:
132:in order to be
33:
12:
11:
5:
382:
380:
372:
371:
369:2000 in Europe
366:
361:
356:
346:
345:
342:
341:
336:
324:
323:External links
321:
319:
318:
306:
289:
275:
258:
249:
233:
223:
221:
218:
217:
216:
211:
204:
201:
197:inventive step
152:
149:
96:
95:
92:
91:
83:
82:
76:
75:
72:
71:
64:
63:
52:
51:
45:
44:
40:
39:
25:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
381:
370:
367:
365:
362:
360:
357:
355:
352:
351:
349:
340:
337:
334:
330:
327:
326:
322:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
293:
290:
284:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
262:
259:
253:
250:
244:
242:
240:
238:
234:
228:
225:
219:
215:
212:
210:
207:
206:
202:
200:
198:
193:
189:
185:
183:
177:
172:
169:
166:
162:
159:
158:Article 52(1)
150:
148:
146:
141:
139:
135:
131:
126:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
102:
89:
88:
85:
84:
81:
77:
69:
66:
65:
61:
58:
57:
54:
53:
50:
46:
41:
38:
37:
31:
26:
23:
22:
17:
332:
297:
296:Nick Reeve,
292:
271:Patent World
266:
261:
252:
227:
194:
190:
186:
179:
174:
170:
154:
142:
127:
105:
104:
100:
99:
79:
67:
59:
48:
35:
34:
20:
19:
348:Categories
220:References
134:patentable
130:invention
80:Headwords
60:Chairman:
331:on the "
203:See also
182:T 258/03
151:Decision
145:T 769/92
123:T 258/03
119:T 641/00
101:T 931/95
68:Members:
21:T 931/95
165:claim
176:EPC.
161:EPC
350::
309:^
300:,
278:^
269:,
236:^
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
