Software inventions at the European Patent Office: an in-depth study

It is sometimes difficult to obtain patent protection for inventions relating to software, in part because “computer programs” are listed as being “excluded” from patent eligibility in many jurisdictions, including at the European Patent Office (“EPO”).

Here, I look in detail at the approach to patent eligibility adopted by the EPO, particularly as it applies to software patents, with the aim of providing insights and practical guidance to those who have an interest in seeking patent protection in this area.

The law

Under Art. 52(1) EPC, European patents are available for any inventions that are new, inventive (non-obvious), and susceptible of industrial application.

However, Art. 52(2) EPC explicitly lists the below categories of subject matter as being excluded from patent eligibility:

• discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods
• aesthetic creations
• schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers
• presentations of information

Art. 52(3) EPC goes on to state that these exclusions apply “only to the extent to which a European patent application … relates to such subject-matter or activities as such” (Art 52 EPC).

It is not evident from the wording of Art. 52 EPC alone how “as such” should be construed – e.g. can the exclusions be avoided simply by amending a claim to include a single element that is not listed in Art. 52(2) EPC?

To answer this question, we must turn to case law.

Vicom

Vicom (T 0208/84) is an early (1986) legal decision which helped define the EPO’s approach to software inventions in the 1980s and 1990s. In this decision, it was stated that:

“Decisive is what technical contribution the invention as defined in the claim when considered as a whole makes to the known art.” (T 208/84, Reasons 16)

According to Vicom, if a claimed invention makes a technical contribution that goes beyond the exclusions to patent eligibility, then the exclusions to patent eligibility are avoided.

This approach was followed by the EPO for many years by the EPO, and led to a large volume of case law concerning what can be considered to be “technical”, much of which is still relevant today.

Comvik

In a series of decisions made around the turn of the millennium, most notably Comvik (T641/00) and Hitachi (T258/03), EPO case law began to evolve away from the “technical contribution” approach of Vicom, into what became known as the Comvik approach.

The Comvik approach can be summarised as follows:

1. Identify features having technical character (“technical” features) and features lacking technical character (“non-technical” features) in claim
2. If claim includes any technical features, the patent eligibility exclusions are avoided
3. Assess inventive step of technical features using the EPO’s problem-and-solution approach^[1], whilst allowing non-technical features can be incorporated into the technical problem that is to be solved

In the Comvik approach, the assessments of patent eligibility and inventive step are tightly coupled together. Crucially, in the assessment of inventive step, the non-technical features are, in effect, considered to be part of the prior art, and can be used to attack the inventive step of the remaining technical features. This is a dramatic shift away from the Vicom approach, but means that patent eligibility and inventive step analyses are based on the same set of technical features.

The Comvik approach has been consistently applied by the EPO since the early 2000s, and has been confirmed by a very large volume of case law^[2].

At the time of the Comvik decision, there was no explicit legal basis for the “technical character” requirement in the European Patent Convention, though it was argued that Art. 52(2) EPC provided implicit basis. this was fixed in 2007, when Art. 52(1) EPC was amended (as part of “EPC 2000”) to read:

“European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application”

A worked example

The Comvik approach is perhaps best illustrated with a worked example:

Example 1: A business method

Consider a claim to a business method^[3]:

A method for selling a product, including:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers;
after expiry of the predetermined period, selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid.

Under step (1) of the Comvik approach, the claim is assessed to identify any technical features (for clarity, I have struck through the non-technical features):

A method for selling a product, including:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers;
after expiry of the predetermined period, selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid.

As illustrated above, all features clearly relate exclusively to a business method, which would be seen as entirely non-technical by the EPO. Note that there are no technical means in this claim whatsoever – the method could be performed in a room with people talking to one another.

The EPO would therefore reject this claim as being excluded from patent eligibility under Art. 52(2) EPC.

Example 2: Add computer

Here we have the same claim as in example 1, amended to require that the method is performed by a computer:

A computer-implemented method for selling a product, including:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers;
after expiry of the predetermined period, selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid.

Under step (1) of the Comvik approach, the claim is assessed to identify any technical features (for clarity, I have struck through the non-technical features, and highlighted technical features in bold red text):

A computer-implemented method for selling a product, including:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers;
after expiry of the predetermined period, selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid.

Here, we have a computer which is evidently a technical feature, which is enough to get past step (2) of the Comvik approach, i.e. the claim would avoid being rejected under Art. 52(2) EPC.

However, the remainder of the claim relates exclusively to a business method.

So in step (3) of the Comvik approach, one has to ask whether it would be obvious to implement the struck-through business method steps (which are, in effect, viewed as prior art by the EPO for the purpose of assessing inventive step) on a computer, at the effective filing date of the patent application.

Since it has for many years been known to implement business methods on computers, the EPO would reject the claim on the basis that the claim lacks an inventive step.

Example 3: Interweave generic computer-based features

Here we have the same claim as in example 2, further amended to interweave a number of generic computer-based features throughout the claim:

A computer-implemented method for selling a product, including, at a selling server:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit via a publicly accessible webpage;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers who access the webpage from a respective terminal, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers by encrypting the bid at the terminal of the potential customer;
after expiry of the predetermined period, decrypting the bids, and selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid via the publicly accessible webpage.

Under step (1) of the Comvik approach, there are now clearly a lot of generic computer-based features that can be considered as technical:

A computer-implemented method for selling a product, including, at a selling server:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit via a publicly accessible webpage;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers who access the webpage from a respective terminal, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers by encrypting the bid at the terminal of the potential customer;
after expiry of the predetermined period, decrypting the bids, and selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid via the publicly accessible webpage.

Turning to step (2) of the Comvik approach, there are now lots of technical features present to avoid rejection under Art. 52(2) EPC.

But in step (3) of the Comvik approach, one has to ask whether it would be obvious to implement the struck-through business method steps (which are, in effect, viewed as prior art by the EPO for the purpose of assessing inventive step) using the generic computer-based features, at the effective filing date of the patent application.

Since it has for many years been known to implement business methods on computers using servers, web pages, and encryption, the EPO would reject the claim on the basis that the claim lacks an inventive step.

Example 4: Specific encryption methodology

Here we have the same claim as in example 3, further amended to implement a specific encryption methodology^[4]:

A computer-implemented method for selling a product, including, at a selling server:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit via a publicly accessible webpage;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers who access the webpage from a respective terminal, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers by encrypting the bid using a public key at the terminal of the potential customer, wherein the public key is part of a public-private key pair issued by a key manager server controlled independently of the selling server;
after expiry of the predetermined period, receiving a private key that is part of the public-private key pair from the key manager server, using the private key to decrypt the bids, and selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid via the publicly accessible webpage.

Under step (1) of the Comvik approach, there are now clearly even more features that can be considered as technical:

A computer-implemented method for selling a product, including, at a selling server:

offering a product for sale within a predetermined time limit via a publicly accessible webpage;
accepting only a first bid for the product from each of a plurality of potential customers who access the webpage from a respective terminal, wherein the bid from each potential customer is kept secret from other customers by encrypting the bid using a public key at the terminal of the potential customer, wherein the public key is part of a public-private key pair issued by a key manager server controlled independently of the selling server;
after expiry of the predetermined period, receiving a private key that is part of the public-private key pair from the key manager server, using the private key to decrypt the bids, and selling the product to the potential customer with the highest bid via the publicly accessible webpage.

Under step (2) of the Comvik approach, there are once again lots of technical features present to avoid rejection under Art. 52(2) EPC.

And now in step (3) of the Comvik approach, there are now non-generic features which implement a specific encryption methodology. Since this encryption methodology is not (entirely) conventional, and may provide a useful technical effect (improving the security of the auction method), one has to ask whether the specific encryption methodology would be obvious to a skilled person looking to implement the struck-through business method steps (which are, in effect, viewed as prior art by the EPO for the purpose of assessing inventive step) on a computer system, at the effective filing date of the patent application^[5].

Key difference between approaches of Comvik and Vicom

Under Vicom, the assessment of patent eligibility and inventive step were performed separately, such that the Vicom approach permitted a gap to exist between the set of claimed features used as the basis for arguing that the invention provides a “technical contribution”, and the set of claimed features used as the basis for arguing inventive step. This gap provided wiggle room for confusion and misdirection.

For example, under the Vicom approach, the EPO might assert that a claim which defines a computer-implemented auction method that uses a novel encryption technique (see Example 4, above) merely provides a contribution that is nothing more than a (non-technical) business method (rejecting the entire claim as not patent eligible), thereby allowing the EPO to avoid assessing whether the novel encryption technique was inventive. In contrast, the applicant might assert that the contribution provided by this same claim is a novel encryption method (patent eligible), but then argue inventive step based in part on the (non-technical) auction method steps (e.g. on the grounds that using that auction method provides some technical advantage, e.g. because it results in less network traffic).

Such problems are bypassed under the Comvik approach, since under Comvik, patent eligibility and inventive step are argued based on the same set of technical features. So in Example 4 given above, the EPO would have to consider inventive step based on the encryption features (which are clearly technical), and the applicant would be prevented from using the auction method steps (which are clearly non-technical) as a basis for arguing inventive step.

Net effect of the Comvik approach

What matters, when the EPO assesses patent eligibility of a claim under the Comvik approach, is:

1. what, if any, claimed features can be considered technical; and
2. can those technical features be considered non-obvious to a skilled person armed, not only with the prior art, but also with knowledge of any “non-technical” features of the claim.

This means than when attempting to patent a software inventions at the EPO, much of the arguments focus on whether or not the claimed features thought to be novel and non-obvious have "technical character". If this argument is lost, i.e. if the claimed features thought to be novel and non-obvious are viewed by the EPO as "non-technical, then the EPO is likely to reject the claimed invention as being obvious, even if there is no evidence to suggest that the “non-technical” features of the claimed invention are actually disclosed/suggested by the prior art.

The outcome of the Comvik approach therefore turns mainly on what claimed features are considered by the EPO to have/lack “technical character”.

This is therefore a good time to look more closely at what the EPO mean when they refer to “technical character”.

But what does “technical character” actually mean?

The EPO have (deliberately) never set any fixed rules in answer to this question. So in the main, we are dependent on case law, experience, and intuition (of the “I know it when I see it” variety). There is, I think, some high level guidance that can be provided based on what I have seen from case law and examination of software patents by the EPO.

General categories

For example, features in the following categories are generally seen by the EPO as having “technical character” include:

• Features relating to physical objects
  • E.g. control of industrial hardware
  • But even the act of writing with pen and paper is seen as technical (see T258/03)
• In relation to computers:
  • Features relating to computer hardware
  • Features relating to better handling of data (saving memory, increasing speed, improved reliability)
  • Features relating to secure handling of data (e.g. encryption)
  • Features relating to improved outputs (e.g. image/video enhancement, more accurate estimates of a given parameter)

Whereas features in the following categories are generally seen by the EPO as lacking “technical character”:

• Features relating to business/commerce (e.g. financial transactions)
• Features relating to administration (managing/organising objects and processes)
• Features relating to aesthetics
• Anything else excluded from patent eligibility by Art. 52(2) EPC as such

The EPO Guidelines are getting more and more helpful in clarifying what can be viewed as technical, in some narrowly defined areas:

• Practical implementations of scientific theories (G-II 3.2)
• Technical applications of mathematical methods (G-II 3.3)
• Computer programs that produce a “further technical effect” going beyond the normal physical interactions between program and computer (G-II 3.6)
• GUIs (G-II 3.7.1)

Hypothetical examples

For a better idea of what the EPO in practice views as having “technical character”, I have prepared some hypothetical examples.

Hypothetical examples for which “non-technical” subject matter objections are unlikely to represent a serious obstacle to patent protection at the EPO include:

• Software for improved control of an external technical process
  • Claim should be viewed as technical in its entirety
• Software for improved image processing
  • There is plenty of support in case law for viewing this claim as being technical in its entirety (see e.g. Vicom)
• Software which applies machine learning to a known technical problem
  • Claim shouldn’t have a problem on patent eligibility, but “inventive step” could be an issue unless there is something more new and non-obvious about the way in which machine learning has been applied.

Hypothetical examples for which “non-technical” subject matter objections could potentially represent a serious obstacle to patent protection at the EPO include:

• Software providing an improved GUI
  • Has some prospect for success, particularly if one can argue that the improved GUI makes it easier/more efficient for user to provide input^[6]
• Software for more efficient processing of data within a computer
  • In theory, this should have a good prospect of success, but the fact that nothing happens outside the computer could potentially weight against it
• Software which applies machine learning to a known non-technical problem
  • Machine learning is definitely viewed as “technical” by the EPO. But if most of claims relate to the non-technical problem, and machine learning is incidental to the claim, then vast swathes of the claim could be seen as non-technical

Hypothetical examples for which “non-technical” subject matter objections are highly likely to represent a serious obstacle to patent protection at the EPO include:

• A new idea for software implementing a business method (e.g. targeted advertising)
  • Business methods are usually seen as “non-technical” by the EPO
  • Copyright will stop others copying the app directly (but will not stop others making an app for the same underlying business method)
  • If there is a specific feature of the app that solves a technical problem in a clever way, then protection for this specific feature could be sought (but then protection would be limited to that specific feature)
• Example: Software which presents useful information to users
  • The presenting of useful information is usually seen as “administrative” by the EPO
• Software which implements better translations
  • Translations usually seen as “non-technical” by the EPO

Although high level guidance and examples along these lines can provide a useful steer, there are a number of subtleties that make it difficult to provide definitive guidance applicable in all cases (some of these subtleties are discussed in the following sections). So, ultimately, when it comes to assessing patent eligibility of software inventions in Europe, there really is no substitute for getting an experienced, qualified European patent attorney to review claims on a case-by-case basis.

“Apparently” non-technical features

In theory, it is possible to argue at the EPO that features which appear to be non-technical (“apparently non-technical” features), are technical because they involve “technical considerations”^[7].

This sounds great, but in practice, this can be difficult to successfully argue, and almost impossible to argue if the apparently non-technical features relate to a business method or are otherwise administrative in nature, see e.g. Hitachi (T258/03).

There is more scope for success where claims relate to other features that is apparently excluded from patent eligibility (e.g. mathematical methods, GUIs), though in order to succeed there must usually be a clear causal link between the apparently non-technical features and the technical purpose (G-II 3.3.2, 3.7; T1227/05).

Inventions in non-technical settings

It is possible for a claimed features to be seen as having “technical character”, even if they are implemented in a clearly non-technical setting. For example, a new hardware arrangement that provides faster data transfer speeds between two financial data centres, could be seen as having “technical character”.

But it is important to recognise that in such cases, the new and non-obvious features must themselves be technical (despite the non-technical setting). And the non-technical setting will probably make life harder for the applicant, since an examiner may be more minded to assume there isn’t anything technical present if you are trying to protect an invention in a financial or administrative context.

“Fallacies”

In Nokia (T1670/07), the EPO set out three arguments commonly used for arguing that a claim has technical character, but which the EPO saw as fundamentally flawed. These arguments (each being referred to as a “fallacy” by the EPO) were as follows:

• The “technical leakage fallacy”, where the intrinsic technical nature of the implementation “leaks” back into the intrinsically non-technical nature of the problem. [Example: A non-technical problem relating to a business method is not made technical merely by the claim reciting “interactions” with some generic claimed technical elements (e.g. a “server”, “mobile devices”)]
• The “broken technical chain fallacy”, where a final technical effect brought about by the action of a user cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect because it is conditional on the mental activities of the user [Example: A claimed navigation system which presents options to a user is not made technical through the user picking one of those options and following-through with it]
• The "non-technical prejudice fallacy", where non-technical aspects are invoked as a reason for not modifying the prior art [Example: A claimed business method implemented on generic hardware cannot be viewed as technical by arguing that a skilled person would not have conceived of that business method]

Arguments formulated along these lines are best avoided when arguing that claimed elements have “technical character”.

New and quickly developing technologies

The EPO is normally happy to view claim features relating to new and quickly developing software-based technologies as having “technical character”. For instance, software features relating to the following areas would normally be viewed by the EPO as having technical character:

• Artificial Intelligence
• Blockchain
• GUIs
• Simulations
• Bioinformatics

However, care is needed, as simply applying one of these technologies to an otherwise non-technical process will not normally result in an allowable claim under the Comvik approach.

For example, consider a claim in which a generic machine learning technique is applied to a novel but non-technical process. Since machine learning is a known technique, and the process is non-technical, such a claim will almost certainly be viewed by the EPO as lacking an inventive step. That is, a non-technical process doesn’t acquire “technical character” merely because machine learning is involved.

Rather, for a claim relating to one of these technologies to be considered allowable by the EPO, there must be something in the claim that is itself novel and inventive. Thus, a claim directed to a machine learning algorithm configured in a specific manner to improve an existing technical process could be viewed as allowable, if it can successfully be argued that the specific configuration of the machine learning algorithm is not obvious.

G1/19

In G1/19, the EPO Enlarged Board considered the conditions under which computer-implemented simulations might meet the criteria for European patent protection.

The decision makes it clear that computer simulations can be patented at the EPO, but that such simulations must meet the same patentability requirements as any other computer-implemented invention. This means that in order for a computer simulation to be patented at the EPO, it must be seen as patentable under the EPO’s existing COMVIK approach.

As such, G1/19 confirms the primacy of the COMVIK approach at the EPO, when it comes to assessing the patentability of any computer-implemented invention (including, but not limited to, simulations). Our blog post analysing the decision can be found here.

Drafting with the EPO in mind

Claims

When it comes to drafting patent applications for software inventions with the EPO in mind, the most important thing is to ensure that the technical effects of any claimed features are clearly stated, since this will help when arguing that those features have “technical character”.

Once a software invention is viewed as patent eligible by the EPO, the EPO will generally allow claims in a variety of formats, but claims along the following lines will usually provide good coverage and are explicitly permitted by EPO Guidelines^[8]:

• A method carried out by a [computer or equivalent apparatus] comprising [method steps]
• A [computer or equivalent apparatus] comprising a processor configured to perform [method steps]
• A computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a [computer or equivalent apparatus], cause the computer to carry out [method steps]

Claims which define a computer program comprising instructions (whilst implying that the presence of a computer-readable medium is not required) are most likely not allowed at the EPO^[9].

Description

From the perspective of European patent applications, direct statements which indicate the aims or objects of an invention are best avoided, particularly if those aims or objects are not immediately apparent from known prior art. This is because there is a risk that the EPO may use such aims or objects as a grounds for arguing that the claimed invention is obvious (e.g. by incorporating the aims or objects into what the EPO paint as the problem solved by the invention). For similar reasons, it is generally better to keep any discussion of prior art purely factual, i.e. without highlighting problems in the prior art that are solved by the invention.

However, it is useful for a European patent application to present claimed features of a software invention in a technical light, by directly explaining advantageous technical effects of those features (e.g. increased speed, improved reliability, better process control). By explaining highlighting the advantageous technical effects of claimed features in this way, it is easier to argue during prosecution that the features are technical and do solve a technical problem.

Comparison with other jurisdictions

On a macro level, the approach to patent eligibility in other jurisdictions seems to be converging with the EPO, but up close there are important differences that can lead to quite significant outcomes. I comment here on two jurisdictions on which I have some experience.

Patent eligibility in the UK

In theory, the approach of the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) to patent eligibility should be the same, or at least produce the “same effects”, as the EPO’s approach^[10].

However, rather than adopt the EPO’s Comvik approach, the UKIPO has instead gone its own way and developed its own “four-part test” for assessing patent eligibility, first put forward in Aerotel/Macrossan ([2006] EWCA Civ 1371):

1. Properly construe the claim
2. Identify the actual contribution
3. Ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter
4. Check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature

The Aerotel/Macrossan test is based on the Vicom approach, which means the assessment of patent eligibility and inventive step are still separated which can lead to inconsistencies, for the reasons discussed above.

Moreover, the UKIPO appear to apply the Aerotel/Macrossan test particularly strictly, especially when it comes to claims that relate to “pure” software, i.e. where process steps are performed within a computer, with little or no interaction with the outside world. This means that the UKIPO routinely use the Aerotel/Macrossan test to reject cases involving software that would not have been rejected on patent eligibility grounds by the EPO.

The UK Courts seem to apply the Aerotel/Macrossan test more reasonably than the UKIPO, as can be seen e.g. in Ratheon ([2007] EWHC 1230) and HTC vs Apple ([2013] EWCA Civ 451). However, since relatively few of the software patents examined by the UKIPO come before the UK courts, this is of little comfort to those patent applicants seeking to protect their software inventions via the UKIPO.

Because of the unfavourable approach adopted by the UKIPO, we normally recommend seeking protection for “pure” software patents via the EPO, rather than via the UKIPO.

Patent eligibility in the US

In the 90s, some Federal Circuit (CAFC) decisions, most notably State Street^[11], meant the US courts and US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) adopted a very liberal approach to software inventions, see e.g. the E.g. Amazon “one click” patent^[12].

In more recent years, however, the US courts and USPTO have stepped back considerably from this permissive approach, as outlined in a series of court decisions and guidance notices issued from the USPTO^[13].

The USPTO approach to patent eligibility is based on a mixture of legislation and “judicial exceptions” deriving from case law, as explained further in the USPTO guidelines^[14]. These guidelines are not easy to apply to individual cases. For this reason, we always recommend seeking advice from a qualified US attorney when assessing patent eligibility of software inventions in the US.

It’s worth noting that in the US approach to patent eligibility, the assessments of patent eligibility and obviousness are still performed separately. This could be one reason why, from afar, it is difficult to discern consistency in US court and USPTO decisions relating to patent eligibility of software inventions.

Summary

To assess patent eligibility in Europe we are dependent on case law, experience, and intuition. Whilst this article is able to set out some high level guidance that may give a useful steer when assessing patent eligibility of software inventions in Europe, and when drafting patent applications with EPO practice in mind, the best-placed people to provide such guidance in specific cases are qualified European patent attorneys with particular experience in handling software inventions.

Additional reading

Some additional reading that may be of interest include:

• Our information sheet on the patentability of software and business method inventions in Europe

• EPO Guidelines relevant to patent eligibility of software inventions 

• EPO Article relevant to patent eligibility of software inventions (EPOJ 2007, 594) 

• USPTO Guidelines relevant to patent eligibility of software inventions

Notes on terminology

In this study, I have used the term “patent eligibility” to refer to the extent to which a claimed invention is eligible to be considered for novelty and non-obviousness. Sometimes discussions of patent eligibility instead use the term “patentability” for this purpose, but the term “patentability” is avoided here because it may be misunderstood to encompass other patentability requirements (e.g. clarity, sufficiency, novelty, non-obviousness).

References

1. See EPO Guidelines G-VII 5: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_5.htm
2. Most notably in G3/08: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g080003ex1.html
3. This method is of course just the classic “sealed bid” auction method, which is used here for illustrative purposes. Note that it could be performed in a room full of people without involving any hardware.
4. Of course, the specific encryption method defined here is actually public key encryption which is a well-known encryption technique – it is used here only for illustrative purposes.
5. In practice, this claim would be seen as lacking an inventive step because it implements a well-known auction method using a well-known encryption methodology, but for the purposes of illustration, it is assumed here to be a novel encryption technique.
6. See e.g. EPO Guidelines G-II 3.7.1: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_7_1.htm
7. EPOJ 2007, 594: http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj007/11_07/11_5947.pdf
8. See e.g. EPO Guidelines F-IV 3.9.1: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_9_1.htm
9. See e.g. T0424/03: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t030424eu1.html
10. UK Patents Act 1977 Section 130(7): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/130
11. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_%26_Trust_Co._v._Signature_Financial_Group,_Inc.
12. US Patent No. 5,960,411 filed 28 September 1999: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
13. See e.g In re Bilski (545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski
14. Section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html