Home ›

Decisions of the Boards of Appeal (by decision date)

This section lists a selection of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal that are related to computer-implemented inventions. The decisions provided here can be sorted and filtered by means of the tabs provided above.

Currently, all decisions provided through this website are listed and they are sorted by the date of the decision. The latest decisions appear first.

T 619/05 - Facilitating transactions in diamonds/DIAMONDS.NET

in
Date of the Decision: 
2008-02-28
Headnote: 
The term “subject-matter”, without a qualifier, seems to indicate that Article 123(2) EPC applies to non-technical as well as technical subject-matter. Thus, also any amendments concerning non-technical subject-matter should be derivable from the patent application as filed. Since the members of a board of appeal are only required to be technically (or legally) qualified under Article 21 EPC, it will be up to the applicant (or patent proprietor) to provide evidence permitting a board to determine to its satisfaction how a person skilled in the relevant non-technical field would interpret the original patent application and the application (or patent) after amendment (see points 2.2 to 2.4 of the Reasons).
Child nodes
Decision: Decision in T 619/05 - Facilitating transactions in diamonds/DIAMONDS.NET

T 336/07

in
Date of the Decision: 
2007-10-11
Catchword: 
  1. The mere fact that subject-matter, which is excluded per se under Article 52(2) © EPC, is technically implemented cannot form the basis for inventive step. Inventive step can be based only on the particular manner of implementation of such subject-matter. To this end it is therefore necessary to ask how the per se excluded subject-matter (e.g. a game or business method) is implemented (reasons 2.4)
  2. A consideration of the particular manner of implementation must focus on any further technical advantages or effects associated with the specific features of implementation over and above the effects and advantages inherent in the excluded subject-matter (reasons 2.5)
  3. A set of game rules defines a regulatory framework agreed between players and concerning conduct, conventions and conditions that are meaningful only in a gaming context. It is perceived as such by players involved, and as serving the explicit purpose of playing a game. As such an agreed framework it is a purely abstract, mental construct, though the method and means for carrying out game play in accordance with such a set may well be technical in nature (reasons 3.3.1).
Child nodes
Decision: Decision in T 336/07

T 688/05 - Ticket auctioning system/TICKETMASTER

in
Date of the Decision: 
2007-09-19
Headnote: 
The concept of “novelty” in Article 54(1) EPC is only defined for “inventions”. It does not apply to the exceptions enumerated in Article 52(2) EPC. By analogy it could be held that claim features which do not contribute to the definition of an “invention” cannot be classified as new or not new in the sense of Article 54 EPC. Nevertheless they may well form the only logical link between technical features resulting from their implementation. They must therefore be taken into consideration for the examination as to inventive step while at the same time not being permitted to contribute to it (see point 4.5 of the reasons).
Child nodes
Decision: Decision in T 688/05 - Ticket auctioning system/TICKETMASTER

T 1873/06 - Optimized drug delivery/OPTIMATA

in
Date of the Decision: 
2007-09-13
Catchword: 

If an application for which no search has been carried out, inter alia for lack of clarity of the claims, has been refused for the same reason, a board of appeal need only examine whether the claims fail to comply with the clarity requirement of Article 84 EPC to such an extent that it is not possible to carry out a meaningful search (reasons, point 4.2).

Summary and Comments: 

This decision is not relevant as it only discusses whether the particular claim involved was clear enough to carry out a search.

Child nodes
Decision: Decision in T 1873/06 - Optimized drug delivery/OPTIMATA