Claimed Subject Matter:
Detection of files that do not contain executable code (Microsoft).
The claim was found to differ from the prior art by the fact that:
a. parsing comprises the step of parsing said input file with all the component parsers, said parsing continuing even if a component parser has already recognized said file format;
b. the compound parser is configured to allow extension by addition of a new component parser to the compound parser, the new component parser recognizing a further file format and recognizing executable code within the further file format and
c. the input file is stored only if no executable code has been found.
The Board of Appeal debated whether a step of “parsing” per se had technical character. They concluded that it did not necessarily rely on technical considerations or have technical effects – i.e. it may lack a technical character in certain cases.
In the case in question the appellant added a concrete step of “storing” based on the output of the “parsing” step. The Board of Appeal concluded that the storage of a file was a technical step that provided a further technical effect. This could then lend technical character to the preceding “parsing” step.