| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T076992.19940531 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 31 May 1994 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0769/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 86110223.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F 15/21 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | General-purpose management system, method for operating said system and transfer slip | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Sohei, Yamamoto, et al | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. An invention comprising functional features implemented by software (computer programs) is not excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c), (3) EPC, if technical considerations concerning particulars of the solution of the problem the invention solves are required in order to carry out that same invention. Such technical considerations lend a technical nature to the invention in that they imply a technical problem to be solved by (implicit) technical features. An invention of this kind does not pertain to a computer program as such under Article 52(3). II. Non-exclusion from patentability cannot be destroyed by an additional feature which as such would itself be excluded, as in the present case features referring to management systems and methods which may fall under the "methods for doing business" excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c), (3) EPC (following established case law according to which a mix of features, some of which are excluded under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC and some of which are not so excluded, may be patentable (in contrast to recent case law concerning inventions excluded by Article 52(4) EPC, cf. T 820/92 according to which one feature excluded under Article 52(4) EPC suffices for the whole claim to be excluded from patentability)). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Non-exclusion from patentability - technical considerations to be regarded as resulting in a technical contribution to the art - no doing business as such - no computer programs as such - no presentation of information as such Remittal for further prosecution |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t920769ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
26 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
XOJ EPO 2019, A86 - Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07 dated 22 February 2019 - T 489/14