European Patent Office

T 1082/13 (Computer implemented system offering replacement services for applying tax legislation/SAP) of 31.01.2019

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T108213.20190131
Date of decision
31 January 2019
Case number
T 1082/13
Petition for review of
-
Application number
06118708.4
IPC class
G06Q 40/00
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen (C)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
A computer system and computer implemented method for applying tax legislation
Applicant name
SAP SE
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 9th Edition, I.A.1.4(1) Assessment of the invention independently of the prior_ArtEuropean Patent Convention Art 52(2)European Patent Convention Art 52(3)European Patent Convention Art 56
Keywords
Inventive step - forwarding a UDDI request for a tax calculation to another service after a timeout (no
Inventive step - part of business requirement)
Inventive step - automatically choosing a replacement system (no
Inventive step - common general knowledge)
Catchword
1. The assessment of technical character of a claim does not require a reference to the prior art following the established "whole contents approach" (see reasons, point 1.1).
2. A "timeout" condition claimed in general and broad terms that cover non-technical interpretations is in the domain of the non-technical person and part of the requirements specification given to the technical expert for implementation on a computer system (see reasons, point 2.4).
3. The "notional business person", as introduced in T1463/11, is to be interpreted within the framework of the well established COMVIK-approach according to T0641/00. Consequently, the notional business person knows all about the business related requirements specification and knows about the fact that such business related concepts can be implemented on a computer system. The choice of where to do a calculation in a distributed system is not necessarily technical, but can also be driven by administrative considerations. What the notional business person does not know, however, is how exactly it can be implemented on a computer system. This is in the sphere of the technical expert and subject to the assessment of inventive step.
4. When referring to prejudices, it has to be carefully analysed, whether it is actually a technical prejudice or, in fact, a business prejudice (e.g. just a new way of organising a business transaction that goes against traditional ways of organising it - see reasons, point 4.8).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.