Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06 denies patentability of a programming language.
The Board ruled that the definition and provision of a programming language per se does not contribute to the solution of a technical problem, even if the choice of how it is expressed serves to reduce the mental effort of a programmer.
Renner, Peter (Applicant), Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06, 18 July 2013, Case No. T 1539/09 Reported by Stefan V. Steinbrener (Bardehle Pagenberg) Having regard to the activity of a programmer, the Enlarged Board of Appeal found in its opinion G 3/08 "Programs for computers" that "it would appear that the fact that fundamentally the formulation of every computer program requires technical considerations in the sense that the programmer has to construct a procedure that a machine can carry out, is not enough to guarantee that the program has a technical character (or that it constitutes "technical means" as that expression is used in e.g. T 258/03, Hitachi).