ɪn ˈʌðɚ wˈɜːdz, ðə bˈoːɹd ʌv ɐpˈiːl ɪn ðɪs dᵻsˈɪʒən "pˈɔɪntᵻd ðə wˈeɪ tə ðə nˈuː tˈɛst ænd ˈɑːɹɡjuːd ðætðə tˈɜːm ɪnvˈɛnʃən ɪnðə dˌɛfɪnˈɪʃən ʌv pˈæʔn̩ɾəbəl ɪnvˈɛnʃənz sˈɛt ˈaʊt ɪn ˈɑːɹɾɪkəl fˈɪfti tˈuː wˈʌn ʌvðɪ ˌiːpˌiːsˈiː wʌz mˈɪɹli təbi kənstɹˈuːd æz sˈʌbdʒɛkt mˈæɾɚ hˌævɪŋ tˈɛknɪkəl kˈæɹɪktɚ.
In other words, the Board of Appeal in this decision "pointed the way to the new test and argued that the term ‘invention’ in the definition of patentable inventions set out in Article 52(1) of the EPC was merely to be construed as ‘subject matter having technical character’.