The Microsoft (2006)[1] decision of the European Patent Office Board of Appeal appertained to the patentability of a technical method. The appeal, in particular, focused on methods performed on a computer system, and not just the computer program itself.
The patent application filed by the appellant, Microsoft, was in respect of a method for improved data transfer in a computer system using expanded clipboard formats. In particular, the invention proposed augmenting the usual clipboard formats (for example, text) with two additional clipboard formats.
The invention enabled “non-file data” (that is, data not already in a file form) to be transferred via the clipboard, or equivalent, and encapsulated automatically into a file at the receiving ‘data sink’, that is, the destination application.
The claimed method encompassed converting selected non-file data into a ‘file contents’ format and storing it as a data object. It disclosed the use of a ‘descriptor’ format for holding descriptive information on encapsulating the data into a file. It envisaged providing a handle to the data object for the creation of a file with the descriptor information during data transfer to a destination.
Thus, invention claimed entailed the metamorphosis of data during transfer from ‘non-file’ to ‘file’ form, via these specially defined clipboard formats.
The Board considered numerous legal issues, including, whether the: (a) amendments made to the claims during oral proceedings were allowable; (b) disclosure was sufficient and enabling; and, (c) claimed subject matter was an ‘invention’ (technical character), which met the novelty and inventive step criteria, while satisfying the exclusion provisions.
The appellate board upheld the admissibility of amended claims, made belatedly during oral proceedings. The amendments were found to be supported by the original disclosure in the full specs application as filed.
It was held that the claim is clear and supported. Although the application did not rigidly define “file data vs. non-file data,” the board was satisfied that a person skilled in the art could draw the distinction. Further, despite a full low-level implementation was not exhaustively detailed, the disclosure was considered sufficient for a skilled person to develop it based on common technical knowledge.
The Board further acknowledged that the method is implemented in a computer system (a technical means), and thus qualifies as an “invention” under Article 52(1) of EPC. Rejecting the notion that it is a “computer program as such,” the board concluded that the claims contribute to the technical character; they solve a technical problem (data exchange across formats) by technical means (clipboard formats, data structures)independent of mere cognitive or business content.
.jpg)
It was also held that the claimed method is novel and features an inventive step. Then again, the proposed solution (file contents +descriptor formats) was held to be non-obvious. The conclusion was that the invented method was a technical solution because it modified the internal operation of a computer system and offered a technical advantage over prior methods.
The Board decided in favor of the appellant holding that the amended claims of invention met all requirements under Articles 52, 54, 56, 83,84 and 123(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The method had "technical character," because it involved concrete steps within a computer system to achieve a technical effect, rather than being just an abstract idea.
Hence, the invention was eligible for patent protection under the convention. Accordingly, it ruled that the patent could be granted.
The decision helped define the boundaries of what constitutes a patentable "technical effect" in the context of computer-implemented inventions. It established that a process that modifies the internal operation of a computer to achieve a functional improvement can be considered a technical invention.
At BLAZE VENTURES, we have elaborate processes and qualified professionals for helping developers and enterprises obtain patent rights for computer-implemented and software-based ideas, innovations and inventions.
_______
[1] T0424/03 – 3.5.01 dated 23.02.2006 (Clipboard formats I/MICROSOFT)
