Digital Rights Network

The Board is aware that its comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper.

In its decision of the 21st April 2004 the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO provided explicit acknowledgement that:

1. The technical effect condition is essentially empty (see above quote)
2. That therefore 52(2) and 52(2)(c) of the European Patent Convention has an incredibly narrow meaning: activities falling within the notion of a non-invention "as such" would typically represent purely abstract concepts devoid of any technical implications. (see here for more info on the EPC)
3. As (practically) all computer programs involve technical means this implies all computer programs are patentable

The crucial paragraphs (para. 4.5 to 4.7):

Finally, the Board in its present composition is not convinced that the wording of Article 52(2)(c) EPC, according to which "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business" shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC, imposes a different treatment of claims directed to activities and claims directed to entities for carrying out these activities. What matters having regard to the concept of "invention" within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC is the presence of technical character which may be implied by the physical features of an entity or the nature of an activity, or may be conferred to a nontechnical activity by the use of technical means. In particular, the Board holds that the latter cannot be considered to be a non-invention "as such" within the meaning of Article 52(2)and(3) EPC. Hence, in the Board's view, activities falling within the notion of a non-invention "as such" would typically represent purely abstract concepts devoid of any technical implications.

The Board is aware that its comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper. Needless to say, however, this does not imply that all methods involving the use of technical means are patentable. They still have to be new, represent a non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem, and be susceptible of industrial application. [meaningless, just saying have to standard conditions for all patents: non-obviousness, utility, and novelty]

It is therefore concluded that, in general, a method involving technical means is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.