T 1158/17 (Routing electronic message/ESCHER GROUP) vom 12.12.2022
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T115817.20221212
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 12. Dezember 2022
- Aktenzeichen
- T 1158/17
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 09783613.4
- IPC-Klasse
- G06Q 10/00G06Q 50/00
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Nicht verteilt (D)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 056
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- ELECTRONIC BUSINESS POSTAL SYSTEM
- Name des Antragstellers
- Escher Group (IRL) Limited
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.5.01
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)
- Schlagwörter
- Technical contribution - routing an electronic message and ensuring its integrity (yes - no mere automation of an administrative scheme)
Remittal to the department of first instance (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denying a technical contribution of a claim feature applied in a technical context and involving technical considerations. Put another way, technical considerations in the technical context cannot be negated merely on the basis of a non-technical analogy.
... The analogy to a post office, essentially invoked by the contested decision, is used in technical literature in order to describe functionality of the transport layer (layer 4) of the OSI model. However, in the Board's view, it would not be sound to assert, only based on this analogy, that communication protocols implementing this layer's functionality lack technical character.
(See points 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of the reasons). - Zitierende Akten
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.