T 0115/85 (Computer-related invention) 05-09-1988

I. European patent application No. 81 108 567.9 filed on 20 October 1981 (Publication No. 52757), claiming priority of 20 November 1980 (US) was refused by a decision of the Examining Division 065 of the EPO dated 23 November 1984. That decision was based on Claims 1-8 filed on 24 December 1983.

II. These claims relate to a method of decoding stored phrases and obtaining a read-out of events in a text processing system, this method using a message build program.

III. The reason given for the refusal was that the sole contribution to the art in the subject-matter of Claim 1, as interpreted in the light of the application documents as a whole, resides in a program for a computer as such within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC, and consequently that Claim 1 does not relate to a patentable invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. In arriving at this conclusion the Examining Division considered that it was clear from the description and drawings that the only hardware required for implementing the subject-matter of Claim 1 is that of a classical text processinhe Examining Division considered that it was clear from the description and drawings that the only hardware required for implementing the subject-matter of Claim 1 is that of a classical text processing system. There is no disclosure of an embodiment comprising specifically designed hardware and no suggestion that such an embodiment is envisaged. It seemed, moreover, that the program routines, which are stored in random access memory are used in a conventional manner for to, or new uses of the hardware were implied by the implementation of the claimed method.

IV. The Appellant lodged an appeal against this decision on 1 February 1985. The appeal fee was paid on the same date. The statement of Grounds was filed on 29 March 1985.

V. In the Statement of Grounds the Appellant argued essentially as follows: Neither Claim 1 nor the dependent claims relate to a computer program in the sense of a set of instructions but rather to a new method of operating a text processing system. Moreover, hardware elements included in the preamble of Claim 1 are required for the implementation of the new method which forms the characterising part of Claim 1. Even if this method were assimilated to a program, the claims could not be refused since Article 52(2)(c) EPC excludes programs from patentability only to the extent to which the invention relates to a program as such (Article 52(3) EPC). The claimed method defines an unconventional way of operating the hardware elements. Such a way based upon an original memory organisation results in a new functional relationship or combination of the hardware elements. It is clear that the skilled man will be able to implement the invention as a special device in logic circuits. The same man, who has nowadays the knowledge in programming, will also be able to implement the invention as a program by using the teachings of the description. Besides, even though the current trend is in favour of software implementation instead of logic circuitry, the skilled person may well decide to carry out the invention by mixing logic circuits and software.

VI. In a communication dated 15 September 1987 the Rapporteur informed the Appellant that in the provisional opinion of the Board the valid claim essentially sought protection for a method for performing a mental act (i.e. decoding stored phrases) expressed in the form of a computer program. Its subject-matter, therefore, was excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC and could not become patentable merely because some technical means were mentioned in the claim. It was observed, however, that the application in effect concerned a method for displaying one of a set of predetermined messages, each such message indicating a specific event which may occur in the input/output device of a text processing system and that such a method was basically concerned with a technical problem.

VII. In his reply of 31 October 1987 the Appellant did not dispute the Board's provisional opinion. He submitted a set of amended Claims 1-8, and requested the grant of a European patent on the basis of these claims. Claim 1 reads as follows:

1. Method for displaying one of a set of predetermined messages comprising a phrase made up of a number of words, each such message indicating a specific event which may occur in the input/output device (1), in a text processing system comprising furthermore a processor (2), a keyboard (6), a display (8) and a memory (4); said method comprising the following steps : upon receiving a message of event from said input/output device (1), said processor (2) calls into operation a message build program (52) stored in the memory (4) said message build program outputs a message number to a message frame index table (56) stored in the memory (4) to obtain therefrom an appropriate pointer into a phrase table (57) stored in the memory (4), upon receiving the message from said message index table, the phrase table pointer is advanced to the next pointer and the first pointer position is substracted from the second pointer position to obtain the number of bits included in the phrase, the bits making up said phrase are compared with a decode table (58) stored in the memory (4) comprising words coded and ordered on a byte value/frequency of use basis, until a match is found thereby providing a word pointer, the word pointer is provided to a word table (59) stored in the memory (4) containing words encoded on a user basis to define the beginning of a word to be displayed which is transferred to an output buffer, and the contents of said output buffer are displayed when a test determines that the end of the phrase has been reached.