a) Design 

In T 471/05 the main request was directed to a method of designing an optical system, the method consisting essentially of designing the optical system so that substantially all light rays imaged by the optical system between two predetermined points on the optical axis of the system satisfied the algebraic condition specified in the claim. The board held that the claim merely formulated a series of mathematical and optical abstract concepts without properly requiring a physical, technical implementation. Neither the claimed design method nor the resulting "design" required a technical activity or a technical entity. It followed that the subject-matter was the "mere design" of an optical system and encompassed purely abstract and conceptual implementations. More particularly, the claimed method could be carried out as a purely mental act or as a purely mathematical design algorithm.

In T 835/10 the board held that "de-automating" or undoing (in a computer-implemented method) the automation performed by a prior art software – could not in general be considered to be inventive. In particular, the board could not see an inventive activity in leaving the optimisation task mainly to the designer and providing him with the necessary aid to perform that task (reporting the evaluation parameters for the current design and providing him with a GUI for modifying the design).