ðə bˈoːɹd ðˈɛn kənfˈɜːmd ðə fˈækt ðˌæɾə mˈɪkstʃɚɹ ʌv tˈɛknɪkəl ænd nˈɑːntˈɛknɪkəl fˈiːtʃɚ mˈeɪ biː pˈæʔn̩ɾəbəl, ænd ɪnfˈɜːd ðˈæt "ɐ kəmpˈɛlɪŋ ɹˈiːzən fɔːɹ nˌɑːt ɹᵻfjˈuːzɪŋ ˌʌndɚɹ ˈɑːɹɾɪkəl fˈɪfti tˈuː tˈuː ˌiːpˌiːsˈiː sˈʌbdʒɛktmˈæɾɚ kənsˈɪstɪŋ ʌv tˈɛknɪkəl ænd nˈɑːntˈɛknɪkəl fˈiːtʃɚz ɪz sˈɪmpli ðætðə tˈɛknɪkəl fˈiːtʃɚz mˈeɪ ɪn ðɛmsˈɛlvz tˈɜːn ˈaʊt tə fʊlfˈɪl ˈɔːl ɹᵻkwˈaɪɚmənts ʌv ˈɑːɹɾɪkəl fˈɪfti tˈuː wˈʌn ˌiːpˌiːsˈiː."
The Board then confirmed the fact that a mixture of technical and non-technical feature may be patentable, and inferred that "a compelling reason for not refusing under Article 52(2) EPC subject-matter consisting of technical and non-technical features is simply that the technical features may in themselves turn out to fulfil all requirements of Article 52(1) EPC."