Examples of using Excluded from patentability in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
Software, is excluded from patentability.
I, however,think that all use of human embryos ought to be excluded from patentability!
Also excluded from patentability under Art.
Computer programs"as such" are excluded from patentability.
These methods had formerly been excluded from patentability through the legal fiction that they were not susceptible of industrial application.
People also translate
A method comprising this step should be excluded from patentability.
If the claims were not excluded from patentability on that basis, the subject-matter of the claims in any event did not involve an inventive step.
It is seminal to firmly make the statement that data processing and transmission are excluded from patentability.
These method claims are excluded from patentability under Art.
Such a method must be regarded as not susceptible of industrial application and, therefore, excluded from patentability.
Computer programs as such were excluded from patentability because they were covered by copyright.
Therefore, plant varieties containing genes introduced intoan ancestral plant by recombinant gene technology are excluded from patentability.
Therefore, such a process is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC but qualifies as a potentially patentable technical teaching.
An additional reason for adisclaimer could be that the subject-matter is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons.
The fact that therapeutic surgery is considered excluded from patentability tells nothing about what would be the Enlarged Board's position with respect to non-therapeutic surgery.
Any invention the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to"ordre public" ormorality is specifically excluded from patentability.
In any case,there is general agreement that treatments may only be excluded from patentability if they are carried out on a living human or animal body.
In decision T 1242/06, the referring Board explains why the referred questions are in its view decisive for thedecision on whether the subject-matter of the main request is excluded from patentability.
If the patent application is considered to contain only subject-matter excluded from patentability, no meaningful search can be carried out.
As in the consideration of novelty the claimed subject-matter as a whole must be assessedas to whether it is a method of surgery and therefore excluded from patentability.
EPO case law says that controlling orcarrying out a technical process is not excluded from patentability, irrespective of whether it is implemented by hardware or by software.
It should also be noted that Article 27(3)(a) of the TRIPSAgreement states that'diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals' may be excluded from patentability.
Therefore, the board feels free toassess the extent to which the claimed method is excluded from patentability before any examination of inventive step.
The third field is plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals and the plants or animals exclusively obtained by such processes,which are expressly excluded from patentability.
Secondly, it could be considered whethermethods comprising both surgical and non-surgical steps are to be excluded from patentability or whether a different approach should be adopted.
Any such additional technical steps which are performed either before or after the process of crossing and selection shouldtherefore be ignored when determining whether or not the process is excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC.
It maintained that both the method andthe product claims of the patent were directed to subject-matter excluded from patentability, being essentially biological processes for the production of plants or being plant varieties.
By contrast, the intended purpose defined in the present claim 1 was exclusively non-therapeutic andso not excluded from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC.
The claim is amended by an undisclosed disclaimer to disclaim subject-matter which, under Articles 52 to 57 EPC,is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons.
Such an approach would contradict the practice of the EPO of granting claims whichmight encompass aesthetic creations explicitly excluded from patentability according to Article 52(2) EPC.