T 1465/23 (Isolated islands of cryptography/GN HEARING) vom 24.06.2025

Claim construction - description and drawings "consulted" and "referred to" for defining the skilled reader of a claim
Inventive step - main and auxiliary requests (no): no credible technical effect over the whole scope claimed; concept of "substantially over the whole scope claimed" not followed; distinguishing features relate to arbitrary and non-functional modifications; reference made to UPC_CFI_1/2023, Central Division Munich
Remittal - (no): no "special reasons"
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no): questions on the problem-solution approach and the general applicability of G 1/19 and G 2/21 can be answered on the basis of the EPC and the existing jurisprudence

If there is no technical effect that is credibly derivable from the wording of a claim on the basis of its distinguishing features, it is usually unnecessary to - artificially - formulate an (unsolved) objective technical problem, such as finding an "alternative way to achieve a (non-existent) technical effect".
In such cases, the distinguishing features simply constitute arbitrary or non-functional modifications of the available prior art which cannot involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (see points 2.7 and 3.3.3 of the Reasons).