T641/00

[Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>]

From Iusmentis discussion on T641/00:

"a claim consisting of a mixture of technical and non-technical features 
qualifies as an "invention" within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC."

   http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/epc/comvik/

It is interesting to see that the stigmatisation of "as such" is now 
moved to the word "invention".

As far as I understand the swedish verdict 01-157, swedish courts still 
apply the first paragraph of the patent law, to judge wither there is an 
invention or not:

"When trying the case, the first consideration is the question of how 
the system and the method according to the application is relating to 
the the judical invention concept in 1 § first paragraph Swedish Patent 
Law (PL) with the specification expressed in paragraph two item 3, 
according to which an invention is never considered such as solely 
consists of "a plan, a rule or method for intellectual activity, gaming 
or busisness or a computer program".

Providing that the system respectively the method in the patent 
application will be judged answering to the invention concept according 
to 1 § PL, the question of the demands in 2 § first paragraph PL 
regarding novelty and innovation height might need trial."

   http://susning.nu/01-157/01-157_der%e4ttsligautg%e5ngspunkterna

How is this done in other countries? Maybe this practice should be 
harmonised?

//Erik