T 1177/97 (Translating natural languages/SYSTRAN) of 09.07.2002
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T117797.20020709
- Date of decision
- 9 July 2002
- Case number
- T 1177/97
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 87400004.5
- IPC class
- G06F 15/38
- 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 using a programmed digital computer system for translation between natural languages
- Applicant name
- SYSTRAN S.A.
- Opponent name
- Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme Aktiengeseelschaft
Logos Computer Integrated Translation GmbH - Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 52(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 52(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 52(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
- Keywords
- Inventive step (no)
Problem-and-solution approach: treatment of non-technical aspects
Admissibility of late-filed documents (no)
Different apportionment of costs (no) - Catchword
- 1. The use of a piece of information in a technical system, or its usuability for this purpose, may convey a technical character to the information itself in that it reflects the properties of the technical system, for instance by being specifically formatted and/or processed. Such information when used in or processed by the technical system may be part of a technical solution to a technical problem and form the basis for a technical contribution of the invention to the prior art.
2. Information and methods related to linguistics may thus in principle assume technical character if they are used in a computer system and form part of a technical problem solution.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The paper on General Analysis Technique submitted at the oral proceedings on 9 July 2002 is not admitted into the proceedings.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
3. The request for an apportionment of costs is refused.