European Patent Office

T 0038/86 (Text processing) of 14.02.1989

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T003886.19890214
Date of decision
14 February 1989
Case number
T 0038/86
Petition for review of
-
Application number
83102553.1
IPC class
G06F 15/20
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
-
Applicant name
IBM
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.01
Headnote

1. A person who is detecting and replacing linguistic expressions which exceed a predetermined understandability level in a list of linguistic expressions using only his skill and judgment is performing mental acts within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) EPC. Accordingly, schemes, rules and methods used in performing them are not inventions within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.

2. Since according to Article 52(3) EPC patentability is excluded only to the extent to which the patent application relates to subject-matter or activities summarised in Article 52(2) as such, it appears to be the intention of the EPC to permit patenting in those cases in which the invention involves some contribution to the art in a field not excluded from patentability.

3. The use of technical means for carrying out a method for performing mental acts, partly or entirely without human intervention, may, having regard to Article 52(3) EPC, render such a method a technical process or method and therefore an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.

4. However, if the technical implementation of such a method is obvious to a person skilled in the technical art, once the steps of the method for performing the mental acts have been defined, so that there is no inventive contribution in a field not excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) EPC, such method does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

5. If a claim for an apparatus (here: a text processing system) for carrying out a method does not specify any technical features beyond those already comprised in a claim pertaining to said method and furthermore does not define the apparatus in terms of its physical structure, but only in functional terms corresponding to the steps of said method, the claimed apparatus does not contribute anything more to the art than the method, in spite of the fact that the claim is formulated in a different category. In such a case, if the method is excluded from patentability, so is the apparatus.

Keywords
Method for performing mental acts
Mental acts - method for performing
Mix of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step (denied)
Text processing
Catchword
-
Cited cases
-

ORDER

For these reasons, it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.