1. The perceptual processes taking place in the mind of a test
person presented with odours in an odour selection test do not
constitute mental acts within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) EPC
(point 2.1 of the reasons). Nonetheless, human perception
phenomena cannot be qualified as being of a technical nature
(point 2.3.2).
2. The prerequisite of technical character inherent to the EPC
cannot be considered to be fulfilled by an invention, as claimed,
which, although possibly encompassing technical embodiments, also
encompasses ways of implementing it that do not qualify as
technical (point 2.2).
3. The technical character of an invention is an inherent
attribute independent of the actual contribution of the invention
to the state of the art and consequently the potential of a
claimed method to solve a problem of a technical nature should be
discernible from the aspects of the method actually claimed
(point 2.6.1).
4. Neither the fact that the result of a method may be usable in
a technical or in an industrial activity, nor the fact that the
result may be qualified as being useful, practical or saleable
expresses a sufficient condition to establish the technical
character of the result of the method or of the method itself
(point 2.6.2).
5. If, apart from a possibly commercially promising but purely
aesthetic or emotional and therefore technically arbitrary
effect, the distinguishing features of an invention over the
closest state of the art do not, in the context of the claimed
invention, perform any technical function or achieve any
technical effect, no specific objective problem of a technical
nature can be considered to be solved by the invention (points
4.2.1 and 4.2.2).
