Example patent: European patent EP0870260.
This is a patent on combining a travel reservation which consists of multiple segments (e.g. a flight from Brussels to London and one from London to New York) into one single record, whereby the different currencies used to pay the individual voyages are converted to a single (selectable) currency. All this happens on computer systems. The first claim of this patent can be found at the end of this document.
"computer implemented invention" means any invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, the invention having one or more features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program or computer programs.
Our example: the "invention" obviously involves the use of a computer and computer programs, so it is a "computer-implemented invention" according to this article.
"technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology which is new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Our example: our technical contribution is in this case the idea to consolidate the different travel records into one record, so space is saved on the computer system. This requires conversion of all different currencies to one common currency, because you can store only one amount in the resulting record. All this is considered to be non-obvious by the patent office if there is no combination of written documents which (in)directly refer to each other and which together suggest that the above combination would be useful to try (i.e., the non-obviousness test is more or less an extended novelty test in practice).
The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between the state of the art and the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole, which must comprise technical features, irrespective of whether or not these are accompanied by non-technical features.
Our example: the difference between the state of the art (a computer, and travel software which works with multiple records in different currencies for each travel segment) and the patent claim (a computer, and our improved travel software) is the improvements that were made to the travel software.
"In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step."
Our example: one certainly can make money by selling this improved travel software and the software (technique) is new.
"In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution."
Our example: since there is a technical contribution according to Art 2 (b), this condition is fulfilled as well.
"A computer program as such cannot constitute a patentable invention"
Our example: the applicant asked for patent on a "method" which involves the use of computers (as does everyone else who wants to get a software patent), and not for "a computer program as such" .
"A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus."
Our example: our technical contribution stems from making more efficient use of memory (we have to store only 1 travel record instead of many), and to be able to do this we had to convert all different currencies into one and the same currency (so they could be added together).
Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs, whether expressed as source code, as object code or in any other form, which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable
Our example: we are using less memory in our travel management technique, and the way this was done was considered to be not just a "normal technical effect", but a "further technical effect" by the European Patent Office. We are not asking for a patent on a particular program, but on all programs which merge travel records this way, so this is not a patent on a "program as such" according to the Council text.
This means we just got ourselves a patent on a (in this case business) method when executed by a computer. So it's not a patent on the program itself, you can for example still publish source code which implements this method and so others can download and look at the source code to study how it does things, right? (since patent law is all about spreading information)
Unfortunately, no. There is still:
A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless the program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1.
Our example: this particular patent does not include a so-called "program claim", but there is no reason why it couldn't (under the Council version of the directive) contain an extra claim at the end which simply states "A computer program product which, when loaded on a computer, enables the method according to any of the claims 1 to 18" (as can e.g. be found in claim 53 of patent EP948175).
A method of consolidating at least two travel reservation records, having at least two different currencies, that are generated from locally operated computer systems configured to access a computer reservation system, the method comprising the steps of: