4.6.6 Firstly, the Board is not convinced that there is a problem of unequal treatment of specific applicants and categories of inventions which is in conflict with the objective purpose of the EPC and calls for an evolutive interpretation of the law. The Board is not aware of any case law which would prevent the user or the owner of a device involved in an inventive activity to designate himself as inventor under European patent law. The EPC, in turn, does not prevent the applicant from providing information in the application which is not relevant for carrying out the invention but may satisfy the fairness concerns identified by the appellant in the addendum of 24 July 2019 (see above, Facts and Submissions, XIV).
「The Board is not aware of any case law which would prevent the user or the owner of a device involved in an inventive activity to designate himself as inventor under European patent law」とあるように、発明行為に関与する装置の使用者または所有者が発明者として指定することを妨げる判例は今のところ認められないとして、AIは発明者とできないですが、その救済の可能性の一つの案を挙げているように思われます。
4.3.7 As to the argument of fairness, even if it was relevant under the EPC, it does not require allowing an applicant to designate a machine as inventor. Applicants can explain how the invention was made elsewhere, and in particular in the description. This is not required, but also not prohibited by the EPC.