T 0232/14 (Method and apparatus for identifying, authenticating, tracking and tracing manufactured items/INEXTO SA) of 06.10.2020
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T023214.20201006
- Date of decision
- 6 October 2020
- Case number
- T 0232/14
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 09722519.7
- IPC class
- G06Q 30/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IDENTIFYING, AUTHENTICATING, TRACKING AND TRACING MANUFACTURED ITEMS
- Applicant name
- INEXTO SA
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 56 (2007)
- Keywords
- Inventive step - determining ranges of unit identifiers (no
Inventive step - not technical and obvious)
Inventive step - technical effect of saving storage (no
Inventive step - bonus effect)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no) - Catchword
- The Board judges that using ranges of unit identifiers to label a number of (consecutive) unit identifiers of manufactured items is, at the level of generality at which it is claimed, on the business side of the line between technical and non-technical subject-matter (see e.g. T 144/11 - Security rating System / SATO MICHIHIRO, points 2.1, and 3.6 to 3.9).(See point 2.5 of the reasons)
The ranges of unit identifiers do have a meaning for the business person. They correspond to batches of units produced on a production line. (See point 2.6 of the reasons)
Even if the "determining of ranges of unit identifiers" achieved a technical effect, such as reducing data storage and data bandwidth requirements, it is a matter of routine design for the skilled person, a software programmer or a database expert, based on common general knowledge to store the first and the last element of a list of items, instead of the whole list. (See point 2.9 of the reasons) - Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.