Source: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_2.htm
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 16:26:16
Document Index: 611141735

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52']

﻿ G‑II, 2. Examination practice - Guidelines for Examination
2. Examination practice
In considering whether the subject-matter of an application is an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1), there are two general points the examiner must bear in mind. Firstly, any exclusion from patentability under Art. 52(2) applies only to the extent to which the application relates to the excluded subject-matter as such (Art. 52(3)). Secondly, the subject-matter of the claim should is to be considered as a whole, in order to decide whether the claimed subject-matter has a technical character. If it does not, there is no invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).
It must also be borne in mind that the basic test of whether there is an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1) is separate and distinct from the questions whether the subject-matter is susceptible of industrial application, is new and involves an inventive step. Technical character should be is assessed without regard to the prior art (see T 1173/97, confirmed by G 3/08).
It should is to be noted that the assessment of technical character should does not stop as soon as it has been established that the claim as a whole is not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) and Art. 52(3). In claims comprising technical and non-technical features, each feature has to be evaluated to see if, in the context of the invention, it contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter, since this is relevant for assessing inventive step (see G‑VII, 5.4).
Where it is found that the claims relate in part to excluded subject-matter, this may have led to the issuing of a partial European or supplementary European search report under Rule 63 (see B‑VIII, 1, B-VIII, 3.1 and B-VIII, 3.2). In such cases, in the absence of appropriate amendment and/or convincing arguments provided by the applicant in his response to the invitation under Rule 63(1) (see B‑VIII, 3.2) or to the search opinion under Rule 70a (see B‑XI,8), an objection under Rule 63(3) will also arise (see H‑II, 5).