This is the second part of our article series where we provide a
summary of the results of the recent study jointly conducted by the
European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) that
aimed to provide patent applicants and practitioners with insights
into how each office examines applications directed to
computer-implemented/software related inventions.
Part one examined the cases contrasted for the
offices' approaches to whether the claims related to subject
matter excluded from patentability for not statutorily defining an
invention. This article examines the cases contrasted for the
offices' approaches to novelty and sufficiency. Our next
article, and final in this series, will examine the cases
contrasted for the offices' approaches to inventive step.
