Home › Boards of Appeal of the EPO ›

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 decision number. The oldest decisions appear first.

T 6/83 - Data Processor Network/IBM

in
Date of the Decision: 
1988-10-06
Headnote: 
An invention relating to the co-ordination and control of the internal communication between programs and data files held at different processors in a data processing system having a plurality of interconnected data processors in a telecommunication network, and the features of which are not concerned with the nature of the data and the way in which a particular application program operates on them, is to be regarded as solving a problem which is essentially technical. Such an invention therefore is to be regarded as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.

T 51/84 - Marking objects/STOCKBURGER

in
Date of the Decision: 
1986-03-19
Headnote: 
Procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object, providing the object with characteristic data and forming the distinctive mark by coding the characteristic data, may be carried out in any desired manner. If a claim focuses solely on such procedural steps without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind will come under the heading of matter excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)© and (3) EPC and will not therefore be regarded as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.
Summary and Comments: 

The Board introduces the requirement for technical means in order to prevent the claim from being directed at unpatentable subject-matter, such as a procedure comprising mental steps. Although the claimed procedure could possible be performed by technical means, it was not limited to technical means.

T 208/84 - Computer-related invention/VICOM

in
Date of the Decision: 
1986-07-15
Headnote: 
Even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. A computer of known type set up to operate according to a new program cannot be considered as forming part of the state of the art as defined by Article 54(2) EPC. A claim directed to a technical process which process is carried out under the control of a program (whether by means of hardware or software), cannot be regarded as relating to a computer program as such. A claim which can be considered as being directed to a computer set up to operate in accordance with a specified program (whether by means of hardware or software) for controlling or carrying out a technical process cannot be regarded as relating to a computer program as such.
Summary and Comments: 

The Board of Appeal compares a (patentable) technical process with a mathematical method and with a computer program as such.

T 22/85 - Document abstracting and retrieving/IBM

in
Date of the Decision: 
1988-10-05
Headnote: 
Abstracting a document, storing the abstract, and retrieving it in response to a query falls as such within the category of schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts and constitutes therefore non-patentable subject-matter under Article 52(2)© and 52(3) EPC The mere setting out of the sequence of steps necessary to perform an activity, excluded as such from patentability under Article 52(2) and 52(3) EPC, in terms of functions or functional means to be realised with the aid of conventional computer hardware elements does not import any technical considerations and cannot, therefore, lend a technical character to that activity and thereby overcome the exclusion from patentability.

T 115/85 - Text Processing/IBM

in
Date of the Decision: 
1988-09-05
Headnote: 
Giving visual indications automatically about conditions prevailing in an apparatus or system is basically a technical problem. Even if the basic idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a computer program a claim directed to its use in the solution of a technical problem cannot be regarded as seeking protection for the program as such within the meaning of Article 52(2)© and (3) EPC.

T 163/85 - Colour Television Signal/BBC

in
Date of the Decision: 
1989-03-14
Headnote: 
A colour television signal characterised by technical features of the system in which it occurs, i.e. in which it is being generated and/or received does not fall within the exclusions of Article 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC and is regarded as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.

T 26/86 - X-ray apparatus/KOCH & STERZEL

in
Date of the Decision: 
1987-05-21
Headnote: 
The EPC does not prohibit the patenting of inventions consisting of a mix of technical and non-technical features. In deciding whether a claim relates to a computer program as such it is not necessary to give a relative weighting to its technical and non-technical features. If the invention defined in the claim uses technical means, it can be patented provided it meets the requirements of Articles 52–57 EPC.

T 38/86

in
Date of the Decision: 
1989-02-14
Headnote: 
A person who is detecting and replacing linguistic expressions which exceed a predetermined understandability level in a list of linguistic expressions using only his skill and judgment is performing mental acts within the meaning of Article 52(2)© EPC. Accordingly, schemes, rules and methods used in performing them are not inventions within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. Since according to Article 52(3) EPC patentability is excluded only to the extent to which the patent application relates to subject-matter or activities summarised in Article 52(2) as such, it appears to be the intention of the EPC to permit patenting in those cases in which the invention involves some contribution to the art in a field not excluded from patentability. The use of technical means for carrying out a method for performing mental acts, partly or entirely without human intervention, may, having regard to Article 52(3) EPC, render such a method a technical process or method and therefore an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. However, if the technical implementation of such a method is obvious to a person skilled in the technical art, once the steps of the method for performing the mental acts have been defined, so that there is no inventive contribution in a field not excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)© EPC, such method does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. If a claim for an apparatus (here: a text processing system) for carrying out a method does not specify any technical features beyond those already comprised in a claim pertaining to said method and furthermore does not define the apparatus in terms of its physical structure, but only in functional terms corresponding to the steps of said method, the claimed apparatus does not contribute anything more to the art than the method, in spite of the fact that the claim is formulated in a different category. In such a case, if the method is excluded from patentability, so is the apparatus.

T 110/90 - Editable document form/IBM

in
Date of the Decision: 
1993-04-15
Headnote: 
Control items (e.g. printer control items) included in a text which is represented in the form of digital data are characteristic for the text- processing system in which they occur in that they are characteristic for the technical internal working of that system. Therefore, such control items represent technical features of the text-processing system in which they occur (Following decision T 163/85 - Colour Television Signal/BBC, OJ EPO 1990, 379). Consequently, transforming control items which represent technical features belonging to one text-processing system into those belonging to another text-processing system represents a method having technical character. If a method of transforming text represented as digital data according to which a source document, cast in a first editable form including a plurality of input control items, is transformed into a target document, cast in a second editable form including a plurality of output control items compatible therewith, is implemented by an appropriately programmed computer, the steps of that method represent rather the algorithm on which the computer program is based than a computer program as such and the program must be considered to be the technical means for carrying out the (technical) method (following decision T 208/84 - Computer-related invention/VICOM, OJ EPO 1987, 14, reason 12).