[Patents] EPO rejects pension scheme patent

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

The EPO recently seems to be looking for ways to eliminate business method
patents.  They did grant some such patents before, but a recent decision
tries to set a limit to how "untechnical" bismeth patents are allowed to
become.

The "technical character" concept is of course unclear, as is regularly
pointed out both by patent universalists (like Greg and some american
panelists I met here, but also Betten and other European patent
universality advocates) and us those who advocate a clearer matter vs mind
borderline based on the technicity concept of BGH 1976 and later.

The recent EPO ruling doesn't help make its "technical contribution"
concept clearer.  It rather becomes more complicated.  I find it
especially hard to understand catchword 4.  Yet it seems to be a step in
the right direction.  As said before in this debate:  not everything can
be systematic at each step.  Systemicity is a long term issue.

Perhaps we could exploit the lack of clarity in the same way as the patent
universalists have been doing for years:  to find ways to push the
borderline inch by inch in our direction.  For that however we need a
parliamentary commission to take charge of the borderline question instead
of a few high judges who are only confronted with poor "inventors"
clamoring for their "rights".

http://www.european-patent-office.org/dg3/biblio/t950931eu1.htm
----------------------
    Title of the application: Improved pension benefits system

    ....

    Catchwords: 
    1. Having technical character is an implicit requirement of
    the EPC to be met by an invention in order to be an
    invention within the meaning of Article 52(1)EPC.
    (following decisions T 1173/97 and T 935/97)

    2. Methods only involving economic concepts and practices
    of doing business are not inventions within the meaning of
    Article 52(1) EPC. A feature of a method which concerns the
    use of technical means for a purely non-technical purpose
    and/or for processing purely non-technical information does
    not necessarily confer a technical character to such a
    method.

    3. An apparatus constituting a physical entity or concrete
    product, suitable for performing or supporting an economic
    activity, is an invention within the meaning of Article
    52(1) EPC.

    4. There is no basis in the EPC for distinguishing between
    "new features" of an invention and features of that
    invention which are known from the prior art when examining
    whether the invention concerned may be considered to be an
    invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. Thus
    there is no basis in the EPC for applying this so-called
    contribution approach for this purpose. (following
    decisions T 1173/97 and T 935/97)

-phm