Case:
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.
Comments:
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.
