“The EPO applies what might be referred to as a ‘subtraction’ test for claims containing a mixture of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible features, those features that are patent-ineligible being disregarded and novelty and obviousness under aa. 54 and 56 EPC being evaluated on the basis of the remaining features.”
Paul,
Nice EPO counterpoint to my article on this case. The “subtraction test” employed by the EPO is supposedly “verboten” in view of Diamond v. Diehr (and CLS Bank International definitely follows the Diehr rule), but you would never believe it after Mayo Collaborative Services or Bancorp Services. That’s one reason why determinations of patent-eligibility of busness methods and systesm under 35 USC 101 are in chaos here in the States. As I’ve said before, I could do better using a Ouija Board.
