>You can read the full decision to find out precisely what it means but we don't recommend it: patent lawyers have habit of turning written English into a gaspingly turgid explanation of a concept.
Why should the language stop you, when this is the core of the issue? What the Reg has a problem with, is a side effect of the need for legal certainty, and it has to be written in a careful language defining exactly what this is. There are many requirements for a patent to be granted and one of the more difficult hurdles to pass is the obviousness test (or inventive step, as it is called in the European Patent Office). Everyday, ambiguous "plain language" will be full of loop holes. Think of the requirements as written in an imperative language of law, and it would at least invite to proper parsing.