According to the Registrar, even if there is merit in the claim that patent law is suitable for the incentive to create machines that create inventions and to disclose their products to the public, "it is doubtful whether the protection of such inventions by a small number of States will fulfill the purpose of intellectual property law" (paragraph 46 of the decision). The Registrar found that in the absence of international agreement regarding the desired arrangement on this issue, it would be inappropriate to anchor this in Israeli law by way of interpreting the law, anchoring that it would create asymmetry between Israel and other countries and would lead to the inventions of an AI machine being in the public domain in most of the world, but in Israel they would be subject to the exclusive rights granted by patent protection.
The Registrar concluded in this regard: "Recognition of artificial intelligence as the inventor of a patent application[s] or registration of a patent for an invention made without any human involvement should be left to the legislature to decide on the policy questions set forth above and with reference to comparative law and international standards, in light of the global nature of the field of intellectual property on the one hand, and the characteristics of the economy and industry in Israel on the other" (paragraph 48 of the decision).
- Against the background of all of the above, the Registrar reached the conclusion that the examiner was correct in determining that in view of the data stated in the applications themselves, they could not be contracted for registration. The appellant's objection to the examiner's decision was rejected and it was determined that the patent applications would be refused registration.
Before signing, the Registrar clarified that his decision "does not deal with the question of what human involvement is required for a person to be considered an inventor in an invention made with the help of a machine", a question that will be left to the appropriate case (paragraph 78 of the decision).