In T 77/92
, the invention concerned a method of selecting, in emergency situations, the correct patient treatment values, namely drug dosage, defibrillation technique energy and/or apparatus size. The method comprised measuring the body length of the emergency patient using a particular tape and rapidly selecting the said correct patient treatment values without the exercise of clinical expertise, calculation or reference to other data sources. The particular tape used had increments of heel‑to‑crown length, each increment bearing indications of the correct treatment value appropriate to that increment and predetermined by a co-relation between the measured heel‑to‑crown height of a patient and a correct treatment value. According to the established case law, for an invention not to be excluded from patentability, the board had to consider, in the case before it, whether the subject‑matter claimed, which had to be assessed as a whole, was technical in character or provided a technical contribution to the prior art, i.e. a contribution in a field not excluded from patentability. After having defined the prior art, the board concluded that the decision under appeal did not adequately evaluate the co‑relation between the heel‑to‑crown length of a patient and each of the treatment values provided on the measuring tape. This co‑relation between the measured length and the information on the tape measure resulted in the tape used in the claimed methods becoming a new gauge for directly measuring the patient treatment values, just as an altimeter is obtained merely by replacing the scale of a pressure gauge with a scale indicating altitude. Such a new gauge for directly measuring the patient treatment values was clearly technical in character.