T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) du 28.09.2022
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T262618.20220928
- Date de la décision
- 28 septembre 2022
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 2626/18
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 11190452.0
- Classe de la CIB
- G06Q 40/00
- 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
- -
- Titre de la demande
- System and method for forecasting frequencies associated to future loss and for related automated operation of loss resolving units
- Nom du demandeur
- Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd.
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 56
- Mots-clés
- Inventive step - all requests (no)
Inventive step - insurance risk predicition and loss frequency (not technical) - Exergue
- The appellant argued that the claimed features relating to the abstract business concept neither could have been provided by the business person to the technical expert for programming, nor would the technical expert have corresponding knowledge starting from a networked standard computer system. The appellant thereby alleged that there was to be considered an imaginary third person who came up with the concept of the invention to be implemented on a computer system. The Board notes that when assessing inventive step in the field of computer implemented business related inventions following the COMVIK approach and the corresponding case law, there is no room for such a third expert. When analysing the features of a claim and answering the question of whether they provide a technical contribution, each such feature has to be judged to be either a contribution of the technical expert or of the non-technical business person in order to conclude whether there is an inventive technical contribution. (See point 4.13 of the reasons)
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.