ɪt mˈeɪnli stˈeɪɾᵻd ðˈæt "ɐ mˈɛθəd ɪnvˈɑːlvɪŋ tˈɛknɪkəl mˈiːnz wʌz ɐn ɪnvˈɛnʃən wɪðˌɪn ðə mˈiːnɪŋ ʌv ˈɑːɹɾɪkəl fˈɪfti tˈuː wˈʌn ˌiːpˌiːsˈiː" ænd ɪn stˈeɪɾɪŋ sˌoʊ kˈɑːntɹæsts wɪð tˈiː nˈaɪnhˈʌndɹɪd θˈɜːɾi wˈʌn slˈæʃ nˈaɪnti fˈaɪv pˈɛnʃən bˈɛnɪfˌɪt sˈɪstəmz pˈɑːɹtnɚʃˌɪp, wˌɪtʃ hˈɛld ðˈæt "ðə mˈɪɹ fˈækt ðæt dˈeɪɾə pɹˈɑːsɛsɪŋ ænd kəmpjˈuːɾɪŋ mˈiːnz, ˈaɪ.ˈiː. tˈɛknɪkəl mˈiːnz, wɜː ɹᵻsˈaɪɾᵻd ɪn ɐ mˈɛθəd klˈeɪm dˈɪd nˌɑːt nˌɛsɪsˈɛɹᵻli kənfˈɜːɹ ɐ tˈɛknɪkəl kˈæɹɪktɚ tə ðə klˈeɪmd mˈɛθəd".
It mainly stated that "a method involving technical means [was] an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC" and in stating so contrasts with T 931/95 (Pension Benefit Systems Partnership), which held that "the mere fact that data processing and computing means, i.e. technical means, [were] recited in a method claim [did] not necessarily confer a technical character to the claimed method".