#### Please help the dense (dunce(?))...

First the disclaimer – Not an engineer, not a programmer, and as IANAL I do tend to get tripped up by the upholding of the unreasonable often being the purpose of the legal system.

“ cannot be patented,..., if it is "a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer ... as such"..."a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method" “

How is the above not contradicted by the following?

“ the IPO had failed to recognise that the patent claims were only made in relation to the computer simulations themselves “

How does one perform a computer simulation without implementing the simulation in a computer program that is either off the shelf (i.e. MS Excel for simple cases) or custom code in cases not suited to off the shelf software?

"The claimed method cannot be performed by purely mental means and that is the end of the matter. Put another way, the contribution is a computer implemented method and as such cannot fall within the mental act exclusion," the judge said.

“ It said that the inventions merged mathematical calculations with computer software and were sufficiently technical to be considered patentable. “

How is this different from any other mathematical calculation or process which is impractical to perform manually (i.e. determining if a particular large number is prime)? What engineering computation implemented in computer code would not fall within this broad statement? Are there computer programs/code that are not implementations of “mental means”?

"Is it more than a computer program as such? The answer is plainly yes," the judge said in his ruling.

Citation needed. When is a computer simulation more than the math/algorithms and applied methods that constitute every computer program?

"Although obviously some mathematics is involved, the contribution is not solely a mathematical method (on top of being a computer program) because the data on which the mathematics is performed has been specified in the claim in such a way as to represent something concrete (a drill bit design etc)," the judge said.

When does engineering data not represent something concrete?

"The mental act exclusion is a narrow one," said Bould. "It only covers calculations actually carried out mentally. So, patent claims which are limited to calculations carried out on a computer fall outside the exclusion," she said.

So balancing your books by hand is not patentable, but using Quickbooks or some custom coded equivalent is patentable?

Am I just dense or does this not read as some massive rationalization to reach a predetermined outcome?

@Graham Bartlett : “If you've invented a new way of simulating something...”

Again, I may be dense or simply a dunce but I can't think of any other method of simulating something beyond modeling – either physically or mathematically with or without the use of code to assist in the process.