DE

Deautomation is not per se Inventive – an Exemption from the Rule under the EPC

An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art (Art. 56 EPC). The European Patent Office regularly applies the so called “problem and solution approach” in deciding whether or not a claimed subject-matter is obvious in view of the state of the art.

The “problem and solution approach” consists essentially the following three steps:


  • Determining the “closest prior art”,
  • Establishing the “objective technical problem” to be solved, and

  • Considering whether or not the claimed invention, starting from the “closest prior art” and the “objective technical problem”, would have been obvious to the skilled person.


For an inventive step to be present, it is not necessary to show any improvement over the prior art. Generally, it is more important to show that there is no recognizable pointer in the prior art which would have prompted the skilled person to solve the “objective technical problem” according to the claimed invention.

In a decision of September 2014 (T 0835/10), the Boards of Appeal had to decide on inventive step where the generally used “problem and solution approach” failed. The concerned European patent application related to a method of using a behavioural synthesis tool to design integrated circuits. The “objective technical problem” in view of the closest prior art was the “need to provide a method for reorganizing an array layout to achieve more efficient memory designs more quickly using customizable design options”. The solution of the “objective technical problem” according to the application was in essence the feature: “allowing a user to modify at least one of the memory allocation constraints via a graphic user interface …” The automated approach of the closest prior art led the skilled person in a completely different direction than the application: a fully automated design optimization is preferable and desirable! According to the established “problem and solution approach”, the claimed invention must therefore be inventive.

However, in the absence of any technical effect (e.g. manual computation and entering of optimisation values would not be quicker than an automatic computation of these values), the Board decided that a half-automated memory allocation design process used to design an integrated circuit cannot be inventive compared with a maximally automated memory allocation design process for the same purpose as disclosed in the closest prior art. The Board stated: “as little as merely automating human behavior is usually considered to be inventive …, the inverse – i.e. ‘deautomating’ or undoing (in a computer-implemented method) the automation performed by a prior art software - cannot in general be considered to be inventive.”

This case is one of the rare cases where the established “problem and solution approach” failed in deciding inventive step under Art. 56 EPC.

More articles from Dr. Raphael Bösl

The “Druckexemplar” determines the extend of protection conferred by a European patent

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Restoration of the Right of Priority under the PCT – different “Criterion for Restoration” before the USPTO and the EPO

Dr. Raphael Bösl

License Fees for a Compulsory License – Isentress II – German Federal Patent Court

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Follow-up: Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO clarifies practice in the area of plant and animal patents

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO stays all proceedings in which the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Communication from the Chairmen of the UPC Preparatory Committee and the EPO Select Committee dealing with the Unitary Patent of July 1, 2016

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Features – Essential Features: A New Perspective under Article 84 EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Plant Patent Protection and Plant Variety Protection – Two Independent IP Rights?

Dr. Raphael Bösl

A pitfall to supplement information incorporated by reference under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO: claims directed to the use of a product produced by a process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO decided on Clarity – expected decision now issued (G 3/14)

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Deautomation is not per se Inventive – an Exemption from the Rule under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Four Step Approach in Determining Sufficiency of Disclosure of a Parameter under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Refocus on the Interpretation of “Undue Burden” for the Determination of the Scope of Protection under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Definition of Compounds in Use Claims – Different Decisions in Germany and “Europe”

Dr. Raphael Bösl