References: T 1543/06
‘[A]n invention which as a whole falls outside the exclusion zone of [art 52(2)] (i.e. is technical in character) cannot rely on excluded subject matter alone, even if it is novel and non-obvious (in the colloquial sense . .), for it to be considered to meet the requirement of inventive step. . . [I]t cannot have been the legislator’s purpose and intent on the one hand to exclude from patent protection such subject matter, while on the other hand awarding protection to a technical implementation thereof, where the only identifiable contribution of the claimed technical implementation to the state of the art is the excluded subject-matter itself. It is noted that here the term ‘contribution’ encompasses both means (i.e. tangible features of the implementation) and effects resulting from implementation’.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Symbian Ltd -v- Comptroller General of Patents CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1066, Times, [2009] RPC 1)
The Comptroller appealed against the decision in Chancery to grant a patent to the clamant for an invention which the comptroller said should have been excluded from protection under section 1(2) as a computer program. It was argued that the UK was . .
Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 276936
