| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T014411.20180814 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 August 2018 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0144/11 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 03012362.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F 17/60 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Security rating system | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Sato, Michihiro | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step - objective calculation of the safety rating of an investment (no Inventive step - part of business requirement) Inventive step - including count of transmissions of rating information in the rating (no Inventive step - obvious implementation of business requirement) Inventive step - technical prejudice in the art (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
A problem of the type "implement [the business requirement]" will normally never lead to an allowable claim. Either the implementation will be obvious or have no technical effect, or if not, the implementation will have a technical effect that can be used to reformulate the problem essentially to "achieve [the effect of the implementation]". However, the implementation-type problem is just a starting point that might have to be modified when the implementation is considered. It helps when a technical problem is not apparent at the outset. Examining the business requirements carefully and correctly establishing what is to be implemented ensures that all technical matter arising from the idea of the invention and its implementation is taken into account for inventive step (see point 2.7). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t110144eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021