T 1249/22 (Development and deployment of analytical models/ACCENTURE) of 13.01.2025
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T124922.20250113
- Date of decision
- 13 January 2025
- Case number
- T 1249/22
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 16199043.7
- IPC class
- G06F 9/50G06N 99/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on Article 056 EPCAbstract on Article 054 EPC
- Application title
- MACHINE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF ANALYTICAL MODELS
- Applicant name
- Accenture Global Solutions Limited
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.06
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- 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)
- Keywords
- 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) - Catchword
- 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). - Citing cases
- 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.