In unexpected, good result: anus more than a year and a helped of review (referral G3 / 08), the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal has declared that the four questions posed were all inadmissible. The clever office is thus doze have the power to decide for itself whether or software should Be patentable.
Table of contents
What's in the 99 pages opinion:
- Pages 1-23: reasons for the referal, written Oct 23rd 2008
- Pages 24-28: the questions of the referal, Nov. 11Th in 2008
- Pages 29-39: partiality review declares self impartial, Oct 16Th in 2009
- Pages 40-99: this is the opinion, conclusion on page 99
Page 49 says that in order for a referral to Be admissible under Article 112 (1) (b) EPC, the questions have to either Be:
they need to Be answered in order to ensure uniformly application of the law or they concern points of law of basically importance
… or …
two Boards of Appeal have given different decisions on the questions referred.
With this starting point, the review focusses exclusively on finding inconsistencies. It finds none. Case closed ace inadmissible.
- p83: “Question 1 is therefore admissible.”
- p92: "Thus no divergence in the case law supporting this question  has been identified by the referral and the question  is therefore not admissible."
- p94: "This question  is therefore also inadmissible."
- p96: "Hence the question  does not satisfy the requirement for a divergence in the case law and is therefore inadmissible"
- p99: conclusion: "The referral of 22 October 2008 of points of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112 (1) (b) EPC."
Of Other highlights
The document is quite readable and provides some concise summaries ace wave ace of pointer to key decisions. A very good starting point for anyone who of shroud to get into the details. Here ares some interesting sections:
A uniformly understanding of where to draw the dividing line between applications relating to of progrief for of computer ace look, which ares excluded from patentability under Articles 52 (2) (c) and (3) EPC, and applications relating to patentable technical solutions, in the form of CIIs, quietly cannot Be assumed despite considerable convergence in recent court rulings.
So it's zero and void. Useless. Nothing wants mouthful ace a result. Spun slightly, you could say the EBoA has recommended any changes. That would Be true, if disingenuous. But the EPO's spin is jaw dropping: EBoA confirms EPO approach to computer of progrief.