|
This list provides a guide to decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) relating to . These decisions touch the issue of patentable subject-matter under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The accompanying notes offer an explanation as to the content of the decision. For an introduction to patentable subject-matter under the EPC, see Patentable subject-matter under the EPC and Software patents under the EPC. The organisation of the list is by date of the decision. The criteria for inclusion in the list are: * the decision has been published on the Official Journal of the EPO (OJ), or will be published at the Official Journal, as indicated in the decision;〔For a list of decisions published in the Official Journal of the EPO until November 2006 included, see (''Official Journal EPO 12/2006'' ), pages 2 and 3.〕 and * the decision explicitly mentions Article 52(2) and/or (3) EPC in the reasons, unless the mention is tangential or the case exclusively relates to procedural questions. == 1980 – 1989 == * March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (''Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger'').〔(T 51/84 ), OJ 7/1986, 226.〕 The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.〔T 51/84, Headnotes 1 and 2.〕 * July 15, 1986, T 208/84 (''Computer-related invention/VICOM'').〔(T 208/84 ), OJ 1/1987, 14.〕 This decision set out the principles governing the patentability of computer-related inventions.〔Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, page 3.〕 The Board held that the fact that the idea or concept underlying the subject-matter of a claim resides in a mathematical method does not necessarily mean that the claimed subject-matter is a mathematical method "as such".〔 (G 2/88 ), Reasons for the Decision 8.〕 "Decisive is what technical contribution the invention as defined in the claim when considered as a whole makes to the known art".〔Cited in (T 854/90 ) of March 19, 1992, referring to T 208/84, Reasons 16.〕 * May 21, 1987, T 26/86 (''X-ray apparatus/KOCH & STERZEL'').〔(T 26/86 ), OJ 1-2/1988, 19.〕 * September 5, 1988, T 115/85 (''Computer-related invention/IBM'').〔(T 115/85 ), OJ 1-2/1990, 30.〕 * October 5, 1988, T 22/85 (''Document abstracting and retrieving/IBM'').〔(T 22/85 ), OJ 1-2/1990, 12.〕 * October 6, 1988, T 6/83 (''Data processor network/IBM'').〔(T 6/83 ), OJ 1-2/1990, 5.〕 * February 14, 1989, T 38/86 (''Text processing/IBM'').〔(T 38/86 ), OJ 9/1990, 384.〕 * March 14, 1989, T 163/85, (''Colour television signal/BBC'').〔(T 163/85 ), OJ 9/1990, 379.〕 * April 25, 1989, T 119/88, (''Coloured disk jacket/FUJI'').〔(T 119/88 ), OJ 9/1990, 395.〕 * December 11, 1989, G 2/88, (''Friction reducing additive/MOBIL OIL III'').〔(G 2/88 ), OJ 4/1990, 93.〕 In this case, one of the parties raised the issue of Article 52(2) EPC and the exclusion of "discoveries" from patentability in relation to a claim.〔G 2/88, Summary of the Procedure V. (b).〕 The Enlarged Board of Appeal however held that the claim in question was not novel, so it considered that "of course" it was unnecessary to examine the exclusion from patentability under Article 52(2) EPC.〔G 2/88, Reasons for the Decision 7.3.〕 The Board also mentioned that, in a particular case, concurrent novelty objections and objections under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC could exist, but that they were distinct objections.〔 * December 12, 1989, T 158/88 (''Character form/SIEMENS'').〔(T 158/88 ), OJ 11/1991, 566.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「List of decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|