9. Assessment of inventive step
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. I. Patentability
  6. D. Inventive step
  7. 9. Assessment of inventive step
  8. 9.21. Examples of lack of inventive step
  9. 9.21.6 Automation
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

9.21. Examples of lack of inventive step

Overview

9.21.6 Automation

According to the established case law of the boards, the mere automation of functions previously performed by human operators is in line with the general trend in technology and thus could not be considered inventive (T 775/90, T 1175/02, T 438/06, T 734/13, T 711/14, T 2315/16).

The mere idea of executing process steps automatically, e.g. replacing manual operation by automatic operation, was a normal aim of the skilled person (T 234/96).

In developing an automated process from a known manual process, apart from simply automating the individual steps of the manual process, the skilled person will also incorporate the facilities that automation typically offers for the monitoring, control and regulation of the individual process steps, provided they fall within the definition of technical skill (T 850/06). See also T 2315/16.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility