[5] In addition, the ISA and IPEA (see background section) that do not search such applications to a certain extent have diverging practices with respect to determinations of exclusions as to computer programs.
On the contrary, it seems ... that according to the PCT searches and, if applicable, examinations of this type can and may very well (perhaps even should) be carried out if the competent authority is appropriately equipped.
In addition, as mentioned above, the ISA and IPEA that have made use of these provisions have diverging practices with respect to determinations of exclusions as to computer programs.
[6] For instance, the European Patent Office (EPO), acting as ISA and IPEA, is not obliged to search, by virtue of Article 17(2)(a)(i) PCT, or examine, by virtue of Article 34(4)(a)(i) PCT, any international application to the extent that the EPO considers that such application relates to subject matter which does not comply with the provisions of the European Patent Convention to such an extent that it is not possible to carry out a meaningful search into the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the claims.
The computer program exclusion of Rule 39.1 PCT, which originally appears to be for "equipment" reasons, dates from 1969: [The subject matter for which the International Searching Authority is not required to search] includes mathematical and scientific theories, plant and animal varieties except for microbiology, ornamental designs.
According to some, the fact that the PCT does not deal directly with the scope of patentable subject matter, in relation to computer programs, adds "weight to the contention that, having been born out of administrative inconvenience rather than any great principle, restrictions on patentability of programs should be limited to the maximum possible extent.
"[14] In the judgment in CFPH LLC's Applications, Peter Prescott referred to Rule 39.1 PCT when discussing the motivation behind the exclusion from patent protection of programs for computers under UK law.