The Delegate has found that a method for "facilitating a person to integrate an inconsistency by comparison" in order to enhance personal effectiveness was not proper subject matter. Here's the case.
The applicant attempted to argue that the method of the claims produced an "observable effect" because it resulted in a change in the emotional and, consequently, the physiological state of the subject. But the Delegate said that this was not the sort of "physical phenomenon or effect" anticipated in Grant. Also, it was not an "artificially created state of affairs" within the meaning of NRDC.
The method claimed appeared "to be merely a process of psychological analysis and therapy based on analysing the subject’s responses to questions. It solely concerns human interactions and behaviours and is distinguishable from, for example, a method of treating a psychological condition with a drug producing a particular physiochemical interaction with the human body."
The Delegate said that " the subject matter of the claims clearly falls within the fine rather than useful arts in the same way as legal analysis and reasoning was not found to be patentable in Grant."
See also my post of 11 August 2010.