T 1249/22 (Development and deployment of analytical models/ACCENTURE) vom 13.01.2025
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T124922.20250113
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 13. Januar 2025
- Aktenzeichen
- T 1249/22
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 16199043.7
- IPC-Klasse
- G06F 9/50G06N 99/00
- 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 Article 056 EPCZusammenfassung von Article 054 EPC
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- MACHINE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODELS
- Name des Antragstellers
- Accenture Global Solutions Limited
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.5.06
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 111(2)Guidelines_G-VII, 3(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 020(2)
- Schlagwörter
- Inventive step - assessment of a technical implementation of a non-technical method
Identification of technical and non-technical features by underlining words in the claim - not sufficient
Common general knowledge - book cited as evidence
Appealed decision not sufficiently reasoned (yes)
Remittal of the case to the examining division (yes)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- 1. Regarding the assessment of inventive step of a technical implementation of a non-technical method without starting from a particular IT infrastructure, see points 10 and 11.
2. Underlining words in the text of a claim to identify what is considered "technical" is normally not sufficient to clearly identify the technical and non-technical features of the claimed subject-matter (see point 12.2).
3. Regarding reliance on a book as evidence for common general knowledge, see point 14. The pertinent passage of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, G-VII, 3.1, needs nuance (see point 14.4). - Zitierende Akten
- T 0919/23
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.
3. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.