The Board reversed a refusal of the patent application for lack of technical contribution. The underlying decision had expressed the view that the idea of making chance encounters depend on time was a game rule, which is itself excluded from patentability and had been implemented in straightforward manner. In its classical sense game rules form the abstract formal structure of a game, describing the interplay between player actions and the choices offered within the game. According to the Board the claimed solution is not so much concerned with this rule per se, as with the particular manner in which it is realized. Also, the way in which the time dependent chance encounters are generated do not derive from a game rule in some wider sense. That is, as a condition or regulation that governs the internal as well as the external, explicit workings of the game. The Board is unable to identify such a game rule pertaining, say, to the inner logic of the game that might underlie the claimed time dependency of the appearance probability.

The full summary of this case has been posted on Kluwer IP Law.



To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF