T 1158/17 (Routing electronic message/ESCHER GROUP) du 12.12.2022
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T115817.20221212
- Date de la décision
- 12 décembre 2022
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1158/17
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 09783613.4
- Classe de la CIB
- G06Q 10/00G06Q 50/00
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Non distribuées (D)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- Résumé de EPC2000 Art 056
- Titre de la demande
- ELECTRONIC BUSINESS POSTAL SYSTEM
- Nom du demandeur
- Escher Group (IRL) Limited
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)
- Mots-clés
- Technical contribution - routing an electronic message and ensuring its integrity (yes - no mere automation of an administrative scheme)
Remittal to the department of first instance (yes) - Exergue
- A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denying a technical contribution of a claim feature applied in a technical context and involving technical considerations. Put another way, technical considerations in the technical context cannot be negated merely on the basis of a non-technical analogy.
... The analogy to a post office, essentially invoked by the contested decision, is used in technical literature in order to describe functionality of the transport layer (layer 4) of the OSI model. However, in the Board's view, it would not be sound to assert, only based on this analogy, that communication protocols implementing this layer's functionality lack technical character.
(See points 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of the reasons). - Affaires citantes
- -
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.