Author Archive

Identifying an overall suspicion level for a transaction: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to a video-based method and system for detecting whether goods or items have been properly scanned at point-of-sale or cashier terminals. However, since the distinguishing feature was considered to refer to a subjective perception, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2156/17 (Detecting suspicious activity using video analysis / NCR Corporation) of June 10, 2022 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.01.

Key takeaways

Terms that merely concern a subjective perception (like a “suspicion level”) can typically not contribute to the technical character.

The invention

The invention underlying the present decision may be summarized as follows:

Conventional cashier or point-of-sale (POS) systems that provide for purchase of items using a scanner or other automated identification of items via code suffer from a variety of deficiencies. In particular, operation of such systems can be compromised either knowingly or unknowingly by an operator in a manner that allows a customer to receive possession of one or more items without paying for them. In particular, such systems are susceptible to “pass-throughs”, also know as “sweethearting” in which an operator purposefully or accidentally fails to scan an item as that item moves through the transaction area. In such cases, the POS system never detects the unscanned item and the item is thus never totaled into the purchase price. In such cases, the customer effectively receives the item for free. Retail chains lose millions of dollars a year to operator error or fraudulent activity of this nature. In a non-fraudulent example, an operator may unknowingly pass an item through the scanning area during a transaction and place the item into the item output area such as a downstream conveyor belt, but no scan of the item took place. Perhaps the operator was not paying attention and did not notice (or did not care) that the scanner failed to beep during scanning of an item (cf. WO 2006/105376 A2, p. 2, l. 9-25).

The system according to the invention uses video data analysis techniques as will be explained to detect activity such as sweethearting or pass-throughs. In particular, the system detects incidents of theft or loss of inventory at the cash register, POS or other transaction terminal when an operator such as a customer or store employee passes one or more items around the scanner (or RFID reader) without being scanned, or when the operator scans or manually enters an incorrect code into the transaction terminal for an item. The system can also detect items which may be mislabeled with an incorrect bar code to be misread by the scanner or entered as the wrong item by the operator (cf. WO 2006/105376 A2, p. 3, l. 30-37).

 

Fig. 1 of WO 2006/105376 A2

  • Claim 1 of the first Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

First of all, the Board in charge rejected the Main Request because of a lack of inventive step (cf. Reasons for the Decision, items 1-30). Then the Board turned to the first Auxiliary Request and determined the distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D6 as follows:

33. The claimed method is further distinguished from the method of D6 in that the process is automatic, in that it incorporates a step of comparing the set of transaction events with the transaction data in order to identify a discrepancy in the respective number of items, and in the further step of identifying an overall “suspicion level” for the transaction.

However, according to the Board, specifically the comparison step to identify a discrepancy to generate a suspicion level would lack technical character:

34. Contrary to the appellant’s view, the step of comparing the set of detection events with the set of transaction data to identify a discrepancy is not technical. Independently of the nature of the events, it must be stressed that the comparison carried out simply compares data. All in all, the claimed step of comparing said data amounts to a mere comparison of lists by computer means.

35. The origin of the data are without bearing on the claimed step of comparing. The technicality of the transaction, as it manifests itself in the movement of items in a sequence of video frames, is lost when it comes to the step of comparing the data. The Board further rejects the view that the count that results from the comparison is technical in the context of the invention. The mere fact that the identification of a discrepancy is used to generate a “suspicion level” is also not sufficient to confer technical character to said method. The notion of “suspicion” is essentially subjective and as such not technical. The same applies to any parameters that may be derived therefrom.

Against this background, the Board concluded that the only feature of technical nature that distinguishes the claimed method from the teaching of D6 resides in the automation of the claimed process (cf. decision, item 36). However, since this would simply reflect a trend in technology, this feature would not be sufficient for an inventive step.

Since all other requests would either be inadmissible or would lack inventive step, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2156/17 (Detecting suspicious activity using video analysis / NCR Corporation) of June 10, 2022.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Labelling a package with cross-referenced information and using this information for retrieval: technical

This decision concerns an application relating to tracking of packaged products, such as milk. However, despite the technical contribution of one of the distinguishing features, the EPO refused grant since the claimed subject-matter would be rendered obvious by the cited prior art. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2771/18 (Content tracking/TETRA LAVAL) of January 11, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

While the meanwhile abandoned “contribution approach” led to the conclusion that the entirety of a claimed subject-matter is excluded from patentability under Article 52(3) EPC, the currently applicable COMVIK approach determines the technical contribution of individual features (by taking into account the complete claim), which may the be considered or not for the assessment of inventive step. Hence, the COMVIK approach can only lead to rejections under Art. 56 EPC.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns the tracking of packaged products, such as milk (published application, first paragraph).

1.2 The claimed method comprises steps of obtaining various pieces of information about a product, such as information about the raw material and the packaging, storing this information in an electronic database together with corresponding time stamps, “cross referring” the information, and labelling a packaged product with the cross-referenced information. Finally, based on the labelling information, stored information about the product is retrieved and used to recall the packaged product (page 5, line 3 to page 6, line 34).

This information about the origin and processing of a product enables, for example, packages containing milk from a contaminated farm to be identified and discarded (e.g. page 9, lines 3 to 10).

Fig. 3 of WO 2011/010958 A1

  • System Claim 1 of Main Request

Is it patentable?

During the appeal stage, the Appellant argued that the first instance examining division would have incorrectly the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This is because the examining division would have indicated which features of claim 1 of the main request were non-technical before identifying the closest prior art. This process would be known as the “contribution approach” which, however, has been abandoned:

2.2 The appellant argued that the examining division did not correctly apply the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This approach required identifying the closest prior art and the distinguishing features over this prior art before assessing the technical and inventive step contribution of these features. In contrast, the examining division indicated which features of claim 1 were non-technical before identifying the closest prior art. In the appellant’s opinion, the approach taken by the examining division was similar to the abandoned “contribution approach” (e.g. the Case Law Book, 10th edition, I.D.9.2.1).

However, the Board in charge did not agree to the Appellant’s arguments:

2.3 The Board cannot see how the examining division failed to follow the COMVIK approach. At point 3.1 of the decision, the division identified a computer and an electronic database as the only technical features of claim 1. The rest of the claim was said to define a business/administrative method. This led the examining division to choose a general-purpose networked data processing system as the closest prior art (point 3.2). The Board considers that it is legitimate to select the closest prior art based on the technical features of the claim (e.g. T 0172/03 – Order management/RICOH, points 11 to 18). This approach is also outlined in the Guidelines for Examination, section G-VII, 5.4.

After choosing the closest prior art, the examining division identified the distinguishing features as the steps of the business scheme listed previously under point 3.1 (see point 3.3). The division then formulated the objective technical problem as how to implement this business scheme in the known computer system (point 3.4). Finally, the division argued that the solution in claim 1 was obvious and concluded that the claim lacked an inventive step (point 3.5).

As a result, the Board arrived at the conclusion that the examining division correctly applied the COMVIK approach since the examining division determined that the distinguishing features did not contribute to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter. This would be something different than denying the technical character of an invention as a whole, as done in the past according to the “contribution approach”:

2.4 Hence, the examining division followed a generally established approach for assessing the inventive step of inventions comprising mixtures of technical and non-technical features. The division acknowledged that claim 1 comprised technical means and, therefore, had technical character as a whole. The division, however, concluded that the claim lacked an inventive step since the distinguishing features did not contribute to this technical character. This is different from the “contribution approach” mentioned by the appellant, where the lack of technical contribution over the prior art leads to the conclusion that the entirety of the claimed subject-matter is excluded from patentability under Article 52(3) EPC.

Since the Appellant was of the opinion that prior art document D2 would form a more promising starting point to arrive at the claimed subject-matter, the Board in charge, for the sake of completeness, exercised the COMVIK approach based on D2 as closest prior art document and identified the following distinguishing features:

2.8 … Hence, D2 stores and retrieves information in the same way as the claimed invention … D2, however, does not disclose labelling a package with cross-referenced information and using this information for the retrieval ….

The Board considered this feature technical and thus formulated the objective technical problem to be solved as follows:

2.9 The Board agrees with the appellant that labelling a package is technical, as it relates to a physical activity. A label comprising cross-referenced information enables retrieving information about the packaged content. Hence, the problem solved can be formulated as how to obtain information about packaged content from the database of D2.

However, the combination with prior art document D1 would render obvious the claimed subject-matter:

2.10 It is standard practice to label a package with information about its content (see e.g. D1, [0008]). In view of this, and when faced with the problem above, the skilled person would have chosen to label the package with a piece of information that can be used to retrieve further information about the packaged content. As the content’s identifier of D2 (i.e. the WorkID, [0044]) fulfils this requirement ([0053] to [0056]), it would have been an obvious choice. Since the further information (e.g. information about processing and transport events) is cross-referenced to the WorkID, the skilled person would have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 in an obvious way.

To counter the assessment of the Board, the Appellant argued that the invention would provide further technical effects:

2.12 According to the appellant, the cross-referencing ensured that “the entire process meets the necessary standards with respect to the sequence of the process and is performed within the required time period”. The process thus ensured that a package “meets the requirements of safety prior to labelling”.

2.13 The appellant also argued that the invention helped avoid counterfeit products since a fake label could be easily identified when querying the database with the information on the label.

2.14 Finally, the appellant argued that the method allowed for retrospective and accurate recall of contaminated packages.

Concerning the argument according to item 2.12, the Board doubted that this effect is technical. Moreover, this feature would be known from D2.

With respect to the argument of item 2.13, the Board argued that this consideration would extend beyond the scope of the claim and the application as a whole.

Finally, with respect to item 2.14, the Board found that the feature in question would only relate to a non-technical activity.

As a result, the Board dismissed the appeal since the claimed subject-matter would lack inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2771/18 (Content tracking/TETRA LAVAL) of January 11, 2023.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Insurance-risk prediction: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to insurance-risk prediction. However, the EPO refused the application as an obvious implementation of a non-technical scheme. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) of September 28, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

A comparison with the prior art, for example with what humans did before an invention, is not a suitable basis for establishing technical character of subject-matter excluded from patentability.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1 The invention concerns insurance-risk prediction and provides a model analysing potential losses of a company to be insured in order to determine the price of the company’s insurance policy (originally filed application, page 2, line 6 to page 4, line 15).

The model analyses a hypothetical scenario, in which an event causes a loss to the company (page 18, line 1 to page 19, line 9). While not explicitly disclosed, but argued by the appellant during oral proceedings, such an event could be, for example, an accident on the company’s premises. Looking at the Table on page 35 of the original application, the model contains interconnected components called liability risk drivers or LRD members. For example, there is a liability risk driver predicting possible property damage and human injuries resulting from human error (page 44). Another liability risk driver predicts the amount awarded by courts to injured persons as a result of mass litigation (page 35, line 19, to page 36, line 25). The model combines the output of the liability risk drivers and calculates the expected loss cost (page 51, line 26 to page 52, line 8). As shown in the third column of the aforementioned Table, the liability risk drivers employed by the main embodiment analyse business and legal factors only.

3. The claimed invention

The claimed invention additionally assigns to the liability risk drivers physical parameters acquired by measuring devices. The application is not specific as to what sort of physical parameters are used; it discloses merely that the measuring devices “can comprise…all kind of sensors and data capturing or data filtering devices” (page 14, lines 9 to 11). The application does not disclose any embodiment in which particular sensor measurements are processed.

Furthermore, the claimed invention comprises a loss resolving unit that resolves an unspecific loss occurring at a so-called loss unit.

The claims do not provide any technical details of the computer implementation. The application merely states that the claimed units can be implemented in software (page 15, lines 20 to 22).

 

Fig. 1 of EP 2 461 286 A1

  • System Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request I

Is it patentable?

In accordance with the first instance examining division, the Board considered that an appropriate starting point to arrive at the claimed invention (according to Auxiliary Request I) is a computer system connected to sensors (rather than just a computer). Then, the Board defined the distinguishing features as follows:

4.5 The claim differs from this starting point by the control unit controller, its sub-units, the loss units and the loss resolving unit.

Afterwards, the Board commented on the main point in dispute, i.e. whether the distinguishing features contribute to the solution of a technical problem, as follows:

4.6 The main point of dispute in this appeal is whether these distinguishing features define a technical solution, as argued by the appellant (see section XI., above), or non-technical matter that could be envisaged by the business person and thus be part of the requirement specification given to the technically skilled person, as considered by the examining division.

4.7 Based on the above understanding of the claimed invention, the Board concludes that the distinguishing features relate per se to an abstract insurance model for predicting future losses and resolving losses that have already occurred. The Board agrees with the examining division that this model constitutes a business method excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

Against this finding, the Appellant argued that the claimed model could be automatically executed on a computer, thereby replacing human experts in performing the risk analysis. While the Board accepts that the claimed invention predicts losses in a different way from a human expert, the Board also found that this difference cannot establish technical character:

4.9 The Board also accepts that the claimed model predicts future losses in a different way from a human expert.

However, it is established case law that a comparison with the prior art, for example with what humans did before the invention, is not a suitable basis for establishing technical character of subject-matter excluded from patentability or for distinguishing between technical and non-technical features (see T 1358/09, Reasons, point 5.4).

As a result, the Board in charge disregarded the above-mentioned distinguishing features in accordance with the COMVIK approach and thus found that the claimed subject-matter lacks inventive step. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) of September 28, 2022.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Avoiding redundant displaying of notifications: technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to an arrangement of multiple electronic devices receiving content of internet services. By using a synchronisation server, it is avoided that corresponding notifications are displayed redundantly on the electronic devices. The Board in charge considered the usage of a synchronisation server programmed to track received and viewed notifications based on information received from the user devices technical. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2712/18 (Synchronisation server/APPLE) dated November 14, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Technical implementation choices regarding administrative schemes that may not be envisaged by the business person are in the sphere of the technically skilled person.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns an arrangement in which a user sets up multiple electronic devices (“plurality of associated devices” in the claims), for example a mobile phone and a desktop computer, to receive content (“notifications”) from Internet services ([3] and [18]). Looking at Figure 2, in such an arrangement notifications are provided to local applications 205A-205D by servers 104A-104D (“a first server” and “a second server” in the claims of the third auxiliary request). For example, an email server 104C provides emails to a local email application 205C and a weather server 104D provides weather updates and forecasts to a local weather application 205D ([20]).

The problem with this arrangement is that multiple electronic devices contain overlapping notifications and the user has to sift through notifications which they possibly already viewed on another device ([3] and [33]). The invention seeks to avoid the redundant display of notifications which have already been viewed on one of the user’s devices ([13]).

1.2 Looking at Figure 3, the invention provides a synchronisation server 108 tracking which notifications are received and which user devices they are displayed on ([33]). To this end, the user devices inform the synchronisation server about each received notification ([31] and [32]).

The synchronisation server also receives from a user device an indication that the user selected and viewed a particular notification on it ([41]). Upon receiving such an indication, the synchronisation server sends an indication that the notification has been viewed to each user device on which it is present ([41] to [43]). Upon receipt of this indication, the user devices may remove the viewed notification from a user interface displaying it ([43]).

Fig. 2 of EP 2 669 854 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the third auxiliary request:

  • Claim 1 (third auxiliary request)

Is it technical?

The first instance examining division considered that the technical aspects of claim 1 of the main request (which generally corresponds to claim 1 of the third auxiliary request that has only submitted during the appeal proceedings with some further limitations) would not go beyond a general purpose networked computer system performing its commonly known functions. Specifically, the task of managing notifications was an administrative one and the steps of receiving and sending notifications and indications did not per se have technical character. In addition, the examining division pointed out that avoiding presenting duplicate notifications to a user was merely an administrative problem (see appeal decision, items 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).

Against this assessment, the applicant argued as follows:

4.2.4 The appellant argued that exchanging messages between the synchronisation server and the user devices was part of the technical solution and the features defining this functionality should be considered for inventive step.

At the appeal stage, the Board in charge generally agreed to the applicant’s arguments:

4.2.7 It is established case law that the business person giving the non-technical requirements to the skilled person does not have technical appreciation of how business concepts are implemented on a computer system (see T 1082/13, Reasons, point 4.8). However, the provision of the synchronisation server and the decision on what electronic messages to communicate in order to remove viewed notifications from the user devices require such understanding of computer technology and involve technical considerations on how this technology can be used to implement the above administrative requirement. These steps have the character of a communication protocol. It follows that these features could not be envisaged by the business person and are technical implementation choices which are in the sphere of the technically skilled person.

Hence, the Board found that claim 1 of the main request comprises several other technical features which applies a fortiori to the narrower independent claim 1 of the third auxiliary request:

4.2.8 Accordingly, the Board judges that the following features of claims 1 and 7 of the third auxiliary request are part of the technical implementation and, therefore, subject to the assessment of inventive step:

– providing a user device programmed to:

– run two applications and to receive notifications

for these applications from two different servers

– inform the synchronisation server which

notifications have been received and which among

them have been viewed

– remove a notification from a user interface on

which it is displayed in response to the

indication, from the synchronisation server, that

the notification has been viewed

– providing the synchronisation server programmed to

track received and viewed notifications based on the

information received from the user devices and to

provide to the user devices the indication that a

notification has been viewed on one of them.

According to the Board, the technically skilled person would not have arrived at the claimed subject-matter when starting from a general purpose networked computer system. Specifically, the features specifying the use of the synchronisation server and the exchanged messages clearly go beyond the routine knowledge of the skilled person (see item 4.2.9 of the appeal decision).

Since the examining division failed to assess the claimed subject-matter with regard to the pertinent prior art, the Board remitted the case back for further examination. Thus, the decision under appeal was set aside.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2712/18 (Synchronisation server/APPLE) of November 14, 2022

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Monitoring airport data and automation of cover payments in case of airport closures: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a system that deals with airport closures and related flight plan changes due to natural disaster events. More specifically, based on given business rules, an automatic payment of financial compensation is paid to the airlines affected by the airport closures. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the the relevant features would only refer to a non-technical business scheme. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0524/19 () dated September 16, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Policies drawn up by the notional business person are typically non-technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1.1 The volcanic activity in Iceland in 2010 and the subsequent closure of airspace led to an estimated loss of 1.7 billion dollars for the airline industry. Between 15 and 21 April 2010 almost the entire European airspace was closed resulting in cancellation of all flights in, to and from Europe. The invention relates to dealing with such airport closures and related flight plan changes due to natural disaster events.

2.2 When aircraft are grounded for more than ten days, airline companies may no longer be able to pay the operating resources (kerosene, salaries, maintenance etc.) due to lack of revenues. It is an aim of the invention to reduce the risk that airline companies go bankrupt due to lack of cash for operation during or after natural disaster events. The airlines seek risk transfer by means of insurance technology to cover such unforeseeable events and to ensure operation of the aircraft fleets. The related technology should be able to cover risk events such as 1) strikes, riots etc.; 2) war, hijacking, terror; 3) pandemic-based risks; 4) extreme weather situations; 5) instabilities in Air Traffic Control (ATC); 6) volcanic ash. However, the covers are technically difficult to design because no standards e.g. for critical ash concentrations exist. It is an object of the invention to provide an automated system preventing imminent grounding of aircraft fleets due to missing financial resources after risk events and to provide a systematic and automated management of risk exposure.

2.3 The invention proposes determining, based on given business rules, the automatic payment of financial compensation to the affected business units, i.e. airlines and their fleets. This object is solved by monitoring relevant airport data, defining critical thresholds, and automation of cover payments in case of airport closures.

Fig. 1 of WO 2014/009415 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request (filed as Annex A):

  • Claim 1 (main request - labelling added by the Board)

Is it technical?

The Board in charge considered D1 to form the closest prior art for the subject-matter of claim 1 and identified the following distinguishing features, wherein technical ones are presented in italic:

2.6.1 The main differences are therefore (…):

(a) payment-receiving modules;

(b) automated transfer of risk exposure associated to the aircraft fleets is provided (= automated premium payment);

(c) means for receiving flight plan data stored in a selectable trigger-table;

(d) airport closures are matched with natural disaster event data comprised in a predefined searchable table of natural disaster events;

(e) wherein each risk is related to parameters of a table element, defining the natural disaster events,

(f) setting flags in the table of corresponding risk together with storing related natural disaster event data and/or measuring parameters indicating at least time of occurrence and/or affected region of the natural disaster event;

(g) for a match a trigger-flag is set to the assigned risk exposed aircraft fleets of the airport indicator and a parametric transfer of payments is assigned to the trigger-flag;

(h) the payments are automatically scaled based on the likelihood of said risk exposure, the number of pooled risk exposed aircraft fleets is self-adapted;

(i) the payouts are activated only if said transmission comprises a definable minimum number of airport identifications assigned to airport closings thus creating an implicit geographic spread of the closed airports of the flight plan;

(j) a failure deployment device (6) of the system (1) triggers the payout.

Then, the Board identified the effects of said features as follows (technical ones in italic):

2.7 Technical effects

2.7.1 The following (technical/non-technical) effects can be identified:

(a) payment-receiving modules: these means are implicit for any automated payment system; no specific technical effect is related thereto.

(b) automated transfer of risk exposure: these features are purely related to a business method;

(c) means for receiving flight plan data: these means are implicit when dealing with flight plan tables;

(d) a selectable trigger-table for flight plan data: storing flight plan data (in a table) implies that assignments of aircraft to specific airports can be extracted from the table;

(e) airport closures are matched: from the closed airports it can be inferred that a natural disaster has occurred;

(f) natural disaster event table: a time-dependent mapping of the occurrence of a natural disaster can be established;

(g) table with predefined risk: a risk evaluation based on the impact of a natural disaster related to a specific airport/fleet can be performed;

(h) automated and scaled payments: risk evaluation for calculating insurance cover and insurance reimbursement is related to a business method;

(i) geographic spread: mapping of airport closures in combination with the previous features allows matching of airport closures to a specific natural disaster;

(j) failure deployment device of the system: D1 discloses a failure deployment device. Linking the failure deployment device to the automatic payout realises electronically triggered payments.

Specifically with respect to feature (T), the Appellant was of the opinion that this features provides a technical effect:

2.7.2 The Appellant argued that feature (T), namely that an automatic payout can only take place if a minimum number of airport closings created “an implicit geographic spread of the closed airports of the flight plan”, had the technical effect that a certain natural disaster can be inferred from easily ascertainable data (which airport is closed when and where?) without a great deal of computing and detection effort. This did not directly result from the insurance conditions and could not be specified by the notional business person. Consequently, this feature was purely technical.

2.7.3 Since the primary technical effect of feature (T) was that a natural disaster could be detected, it could not be argued that the technical effect was “diminished” by the fact that in the final effect it served exclusively to pay out an insurance premium. In general, the primary technical effect of a non-technical feature could not be diminished by the fact that in the final effect it serves exclusively a non-technical or business purpose. This would be tantamount to imputing technical knowledge to the notional business person. If non-technical features had both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect had to be taken into account when assessing inventive step (see related case T 698/19, catchword).

However, the Board in charge found that feature (T) would only refer to a pure business constraint which is not technical:

2.7.4 However, the Board is of the opinion that, while a trigger feature such as a “minimum number of airport identifications assigned to airport closings” might, in certain contexts, be seen as technical, feature (T) must be assessed as a whole and in the context of the claimed invention. The above trigger condition serves exclusively as a condition that “said assignment of the parametric transfer of payments is automatedly (sic) activated”, hence to implement the insurance policy and initiate the payment.

2.7.5 Feature (T) as a whole does not allow a natural disaster to be “detected” in any technical sense, it is merely an arbitrary rule based on a statistical inference from known data on airport closures. Certainly the notional business person has no knowledge of computer programming or detector design, but this is not what is claimed. The insurance business is based on probability and statistics, and the insurance business person must surely have some knowledge of their own business. Such a person would understand that if only one airport were closed, there is a high probability that it may be due to a local problem, whereas if ten airports in western Europe were closed, it is much more probable that a natural emergency is the cause. If the aim is to insure only against natural emergencies, then looking at previous statistical records would provide a suitable minimum number of airport closures to use in the policy. The Board does not see any technology at work here, it is just a choice by the notional business person drawing up the policy. For example, if, in a given region, the minimum number of airport closures required to trigger a payout is set to four, then if only three airports are closed, there is no payout, even if the closures are actually due to a natural disaster. So it is not a matter of “recognising” a natural disaster in the technical sense, but only a rule for a payout, which therefore has a purely economic effect.

Then, the Board summarized the effects of the distinguishing features as follows:

2.7.7 …

(i) minimum number of airport closures triggers the automated payment; the character of the features concerned is non-technical, the purpose is non-technical (transfer of financial risks)

(ii) identifying type and risk factor of a natural disaster based on flight plan data, airport closures and a natural disaster event table with associated risks; the character of the features concerned is technical, the purpose is both technical (risk evaluation) and non-technical (transfer of financial risks).

(iii) automatisation of payments; the character of the payment means used is technical, the character of the implemented method (features (Q) to (S2), (U), (V)) is non-technical.

Afterwards, the Board found that the notional business person would define the business framework described in the application as follows::

2.8.1 The Board is of the opinion that the notional business person, who does not have any technical knowledge or technical skills, defines in the insurance policy the following business framework conditions for the system:

(a) It must be defined which specific geophysical events (volcano ash, riots, hurricanes, strikes etc.) are covered (or not).

(b) It must further be defined in the insurance conditions which airports/specific regions, which specific time interval and which specific types of event are to be taken into account, e.g. only Eurasian and American airport closures may be taken into account for a minimum of seven consecutive days of closure, financial damage due to strike within the airline company and closures for less than seven days may not be taken into account etc.

(c) Another implicit condition is that only groundings of scheduled aircraft (i.e. according to a flight plan) are considered.

(d) The correlation between the risk factor and the premium payed out must further be defined in the policy.

(e) The scaling factor for the scaled payments must be defined.

(f) As discussed above a further condition may be that payouts are triggered only when a minimum number of aircraft of a fleet is concerned. A clause may be provided that reimbursement is only provided when “clustering” of airport closures occurs, i.e. the payments are only activated if there are massive airport closures and a natural event is classified as a natural disaster (e.g. four airports in a given region).

To solve this problem, the notional business person would simply instruct a computer specialist to program a computer system accordingly:

2.8.2 … In the present case the notional business person (e.g. insurance company in cooperation with the airline companies concerned) instructs a computer specialist with the implementation of an automated system. Their task is to adapt the software in the central computer.

The Board then concluded that the problem to be solved could be formulated as follows, including the wording of the features that it considered non-technical:

2.8.4 The technical problem to be solved therefore can be defined as providing a systematic and automated management of financial and technical risk exposure associated to cancellation of scheduled flights due to airport closures caused by natural disasters, including implementing the claimed non-technical features (Q) to (V).

On the effects (i)-(iii) identified above, the Board commented as follows:

ad (i)

…

2.9.3 The failure of several airports in Germany due to lack of gas, in France due to strike, in Ukraine due to war and in Italy due to earthquake was discussed. These cases may not all be covered by the insurance policy, but it needs a quantitative parameter to determine a “disaster”, and this quantitative parameter is defined in the insurance policy and given by the notional business person to the technically skilled person for implementation. The insurance conditions require monitoring airport closures within defined regions (“geographic spread”), and it would be straightforward for the technically skilled person to arrive at an appropriate means for implementing this in an automatic manner.

ad (ii)

2.9.4 It is (at least implicitly) a non-technical constraint that the amount to be paid out should be dependent on the number of aircraft actually impacted by the airport closures. Therefore, in order to deal with the technical and financial consequences of airport closures, the Board is of the opinion that it is obvious to the skilled person to consider the concerned airports and flight plan routes to and from the closed airports according to a selectable flight plan table (if only scheduled flight are covered by the insurance policy). In view of the objective technical problem to be solved, it is a normal option to monitor which flight plan connection (and therefore which fleets and airlines) are concerned by the closure of specific airports and air-spaces. Furthermore, the emergency system of D3 teaches ([0084]) to take flight plan data into account. The skilled person would therefore adapt the software architecture of D1 and correlate the airport closure events with the flight plan data. Flight plan data is in general available in form of a selectable trigger-table in order to retrieve the data.

2.9.5 It is a normal option to provide a time-dependent mapping of airport closures in relation to the aircraft being concerned and setting a trigger-flag to the assigned risk exposed aircraft fleets of the airport indicator.

2.9.6 Clustering, i.e. a minimum number of aircraft closures in a mapped region, is considered a pre-requisite for payment and a non-technical constraint. Also paying out according to the number of aircraft concerned is a non-technical constraint (see the related case T 288/19). The technically skilled person merely has to solve the (technical) problem of the technical implementation, i.e. the implementation of the business constraints, into the software system. The skilled person would therefore extract the flight plan data accordingly and map the (temporal or geographical) evolution. It is a normal option to monitor which flight plan connections (and therefore which airlines and aircraft) are concerned by the closure of specific airports and to provide a time-dependent mapping of the data (feature (P)).

ad(iii)

2.9.7 Features (Q) to (V), relate to automatically triggering payouts of insurance covers, and directly result from the problem to be solved. Furthermore, the parameterization of the risk evaluation and reimbursement model is ultimately influenced by business requirements (see also reasons 2.13 of T 1798/13).

2.9.8 In T 848/15 (reasons 3.2) it was held that insurance risk management related exclusively to economic considerations in the framework of purely economic models defined by an economist and therefore was not inventive within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (cf. also T 698/19, reasons 3.8.2 ff). Accordingly, non-technical features purely relating to an insurance model (e.g. non-technical part of features (b), (h) to (j) in the present case, see point 2.7.1 above) are obvious for the same reasoning.

…

Against this background, the Board found that claim 1 lacks inventive step and thus dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0524/19 () of September 16, 2022

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Presenting information of interest to a user based on a user profile: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a system with the ability to self-configure after the installation of new data sources. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the the distinguishing features would only refer to the mere presentation of information. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2021/17 (Intelligent agents/UNIVERSITY of STRATHCLYDE) dated October 7, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The customisation of information to be displayed according to the interest of a user is not technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns monitoring the condition of hardware and/or machines, such as transformers in a power station (see Figure 17 of the published application).

Data from e.g. vibration or temperature sensors (“condition data sources”) is processed in a “conditioning monitoring platform” and displayed via a user interface. The objective is to dynamically adapt to new data sources and processing capabilities without the user having to search for new features (paragraph bridging pages 25 and 26).

This is achieved by using “intelligent agents”, which are software entities that act autonomously to achieve goals based on the environment (see e.g. page 8, lines 20ff.). Such agents are said to react to changes in the environment (reactivity – R), work without external prompting (pro-activity – P) and interact with other agents (social ability – S).

Fig. 1 of WO 2011/045571 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the third auxiliary request:

  • Claim 1 (third auxiliary request)

Is it technical?

Since the third auxiliary request provides the narrowest scope, the Board in charge directed its assessment to this request. According to the Board, in accordance with the Appellant’s view, D1 forms the closest prior art for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request. The Board identified the following distinguishing features over D1:

2.6 In the Board’s view, D1 does not disclose dynamically building a user profile based on the interests of the user. There is no mechanism for interacting with the user by presenting user selectable options and receiving user selections. …

Another difference is that, while in D1 the different functions are all preformed by the same agent, the tasks are in claim 1 divided between “user assistants”, “data managers”, “service managers” which communicate with each other. …

In D1, when a new data source is added, a new agent is added to handle it. In claim 1 of the third auxiliary request, when a new data source is added, an associated data manger is added. The claimed system also allows the addition of one or more data analysis functions and an associated service manager. …

Based on the above-identified distinguishing features, the Board in charge discussed the existence of a technical effect concerning these features as follows:

2.7 The question is what technical effect, if any, is provided by the user profile and the division of tasks and interaction between the various agents.

In the Board’s view, presenting information of interest to the user based on a user profile is not technical, and cannot therefore contribute to inventive step under the “Comvik approach” (see T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK). …

Specifically, the Board found that this kind of customization of the data to be presented is only based on the interest of the user:

Although the presentation of information relating to a technical condition in an apparatus or system may arguably be regarded as technical (see e.g. T 115/85 – Computer-related invention and T 528/07 – Portal system/ACCENTURE), the Board does not consider that the technical character extends to the customisation of such information. The customisation is not based on any technical criteria, but merely on the interest of the user.

Against this view, the Appellant argued that the invention would, besides the customization of what is shown to the user, control communication between the claimed data managers and user assistants to provide better data. However, the Board did not follow this argument:

2.9 The Board does not see that this is a technical effect that could support the presence of an inventive step. In any personalised information system, the user profile determines how the system responds. The particular organisation of tasks, and the interaction between the various agents is, in the Board’s view a matter of software implementation.

In addition, the application underlying the present decision would lack any technical definition that could distinguish the claimed agents from a common software implementation:

The Board notes that there is no definition for what an agent is in terms of technical properties either in the application or even generally in the art (see D1, II.A). Thus, the agents in claim 1 cannot be distinguished from software modules suitable for implementing the desired functions. In the Board’s view, the internal structure of a computer program, for example the particular configuration of software modules, objects, or, indeed, “agents”, does not provide a further technical effect in the sense of T 1173/97 – Computer program product/IBM, i.e. an effect that goes beyond the normal effects of running software on a computer.

Hence, in the Board’s view, the distinguishing features could not provide any technical effect. As a result, and because the main and the first and second auxiliary requests cover the subject-matter of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step according to the COMVIK approach.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2021/17 (Intelligent agents/UNIVERSITY of STRATHCLYDE)

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Randomly selecting a number of game results for which dynamic raised odds are respectively generated: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a gambling game system that provides additional awards. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the the first distinguishing features of claim 1 would be rendered obvious, whereas the second distinguishing features would fail to provide a technical effect. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1497/19 () of May 18, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Rules for playing a game cannot contribute to an inventive step within the meaning of Articles 52(1) EPC in combination with Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

The invention

In the Abstract of the application, the invention is described as follows:

The invention refers to a gambling game system providing additional awards aims to increase the odds thereof. The gambling game system includes a central control unit to receive game results generated by a game result generation device, players’ betting received by a betting table and dynamic raised odds generated by a dynamic raised odds calculation element. After the betting is stopped in each round of game, the dynamic raised odds are output to an electronic display board to be displayed instantly and respectively on a plurality of display zones, and the game results, the players’ betting and the dynamic raised odds are transmitted to a payout element. The payout element pays out to the players who win the betting in one round of the game according to the payout odds or the dynamic raised odds which are at higher priority, so that the players can expect to get extra awards, and the appeal of the gambling game system is higher to further increase utilization of the gambling game system (cf. EP 2 899 701 A1, Abstract).

Fig. 1 of EP 2 899 701 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

As a first step, the Board in charge determined the following two distinguishing features, which are not disclosed by the closest prior art document D1:

The subject-matter defined in claim 1 differs from the gambling game system known from document D1 by the following two distinguishing features:

– the use of a touch screen and

– the random selection of a specific number of game results for which dynamic raised odds are respectively generated / selected.

According to the Board, the two distinguishing features do not produce a synergistic effect. Hence, both features do not have to be considered together but it is enough to show that each of the two features is individually obvious.

Concerning the first distinguishing feature, the Board found that it relates to a straightforward non-inventive design option:

2.3.1 The first distinguishing feature solves the problem of how to efficiently realise the input panel. It concerns a well-known, straightforward design choice which cannot provide an inventive contribution. Document D1 even hints at this realisation in figures 3, 5 and 7, all of which show versions of the game table display on the electronic screen on which interaction with the players or bankers is possible. The shown screens include user-interaction buttons inside/on the display, i.e., the cash out, redo bet, cancel, help buttons in the lower line or lower right corner of each of these figures. The realisation of these buttons is not further specified in document D1. However, the skilled person would have been aware of the two most obvious realisations: either in form of physical buttons or in form of a touch screen. Hence, the implementation using a touch screen represents one obvious choice out of the limited number of two possible choices. This feature does not provide any inventive contribution over the prior art.

With respect to the second distinguishing feature, the Board found that it would only relate to game rules. Hence, this feature was considered non-technical and therefore cannot contribute to inventive step.

2.3.2 The second distinguishing feature concerns rules for playing a game and as such does not contribute to an inventive step within the meaning of Articles 52(1) EPC in combination with Article 52(2)(c) EPC, because it relates to a non-technical feature. The claim’s overall technicality is not questioned, but the technical contribution of the second distinguishing feature resides only in the standard automation and implementation of a non-technical rule, namely a specific gaming rule in the gambling game system. The specific gaming rule concerns the choice of how the dynamic raised odds are to be calculated or determined. It is consequently a non-technical rule selected by the game designer. It also offers no further technical advantage nor produces a further technical effect, as it is merely implemented into the gambling system in a straightforward manner by the software programmer. Hence, the second distinguishing feature cannot provide an inventive step, either, due to its missing technicality.

Against this background, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1497/19 () of May 18, 2022

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors based on a simulation: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors based on a simulation. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the relevant features of claim 1 would not produce a technical effect. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2660/18 (Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors/GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL-AMERICAS) of December 7, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

A technical effect must be achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision relates to determining rod pattern (or blade pattern) designs for a nuclear reactor core.

The description outlines the underlying problem as follows:

[0002] A core of a nuclear reactor such as boiling water reactor (BWR) or pressurized water reactor (PWR) has several hundred individual fuel bundles of fuel rods (BWR) or groups of fuel rods (PWR) that have different characteristics. These bundles (fuel rod groups) are preferably arranged so that interaction between rods within a fuel bundle (rod group), and between fuel bundles (fuel rod groups) satisfies all regulatory and reactor design constraints, including governmental and customer-specified constraints. Additional, the rod pattern design, e.g., the arrangement of control mechanisms such as control blades (BWR) or control rods (PWR) within the core must be determined so as to optimize core cycle energy. Core cycle energy is the amount of energy that a reactor core generates before the core needs to be refreshed with new fuel elements, such as is done at an outage.

[0006] A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed core simulation program reads the resulting input file and outputs the results of the simulation to a text or binary file. A designer then evaluates the simulation output to determine if the design criteria has been met, and also to verify that no violations of margins to thermal limits have occurred. Failure to meet design criteria (i.e., violations of one or more limits) require a manual designer modification to the input file. Specifically, the designer would manually change one or more operation parameter and rerun the core simulation program. This process was repeated until a satisfactory rod pattern design was achieved.

[0007] This process is extremely time consuming. …

Fig. 4 of EP 1 435 626 A2

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

First of all, the Board stated that the closest prior art document D1 fails to teach the following two features of claim 1:

7. The distinguishing features of claim 1 having regard to the disclosure of document D1 are thus:

(DF1) defining the sets of limits using a database server

(DF2) comparing the simulated results against the limits using a total objective function which is the sum of all individual constraint components defined by

OBJpar = MULTpar * (RESULTpar- CONSpar),

where CONS is a limit of the defined set of limits for a particular constraint parameter (par); RESULT is one of the simulation results for that particular constraint parameter and MULT is a multiplier for the constraint parameter.

However, both features would only refer to obvious measures.

In addition, more interestingly, the Board ruled that claim 1 also lacks an inventive step in view of a general-purpose computer. Against this assessment, the Appellant argued as follows:

15. The appellant argued that the technical effect was “reducing the time to design rods and doing so in a safe manner” and the “implicit use of the modified rods in the reactor that was simulated for operating the reactor safely within target operating and core performance value limits”. The technical effect resulted from a computer-based arrangement that provided “a way to efficiently develop a rod pattern design for a nuclear reactor, where the rod pattern design represented a control mechanism for operating the reactor”, as well as a “computer-based method for providing internal and external users the ability to quickly develop, simulate, modify and perfect a rod pattern design for (implicit) use in their reactor” (letter of 19 November 2021, pages 8 and 9).

However, the Board in charge explained that such an effect would not be produced by the distinguishing features:

15.1 The board does not see such an effect coming from the distinguishing features. Moreover, the same effects are achieved by the method disclosed in document D1 (see abstract: “The system is successfully demonstrated by generating control rod programming for the 2894-MW (thermal) Kuosheng nuclear power plant in Taiwan. The computing time is tremendously reduced compared to programs using mathematical methods.”).

Furthermore, to convince the Board, the Appellant referred to T 0625/11, cited in the G1/19 decision:

16. During the oral proceedings, the appellant also cited decision T 625/11. In case T 625/11, the board concluded that the determination, as a limit value, of the value of a first operating parameter conferred a technical character to the claim which went beyond the mere interaction between the numerical simulation algorithm and the computer system. The nature of the parameter thus identified was, in fact, “intimately linked to” the operation of a nuclear reactor, independently of whether the parameter was actually used in a nuclear reactor (T 625/11, Reasons 8.4).

However, contrary to the parameters used in T0625/11, in the Board’s view, the claimed limits might correspond to limits set by a human person or by an organization:

17.1 The limits are “limiting or target operating and core performance values for a specific reactor plant or core energy cycle”. They might correspond to limits set by an administrative authority such as the NRC mentioned in the application (page 2, second full paragraph).

Hence, the Board maintained its position that no technical effect is produced by the distinguishing features as no parameter is identified by the claimed method that is intimately linked to the operation of a nuclear reactor, as it is the case in the method according to T 0625/11:

18. The board is of the opinion that no technical effect is achieved by the method’s functionality as the method merely produces a test rod pattern (i.e. a fuel bundle configuration) design and data “indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation”.

19. Thus, contrary to case T 625/11, no parameter is identified that is “intimately linked to” the operation of a nuclear reactor.

Moreover, the rod pattern design and the limits cold both not be directly used in a reactor:

Although the method yields a rod pattern design and provides limits of core performance values for a reactor plant having this design, this rod pattern design and the limits cannot be used directly in a nuclear reactor system. The rod pattern would first need to be manufactured.

In addition, a rod pattern could also be used for study purposes and thus may be utilized in non-technical applications, and therefore, a technical effect would not be achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95):

Moreover, a rod pattern design appears to have non-technical uses such as for study purposes. These are “relevant uses other than the use with a technical device”, and therefore a technical effect is not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95). In fact, the reactor for which the rod pattern was designed may not yet have been built and may never be built.

Hence, the present case would not be an exceptional case in which calculated effects achieved by a simulation could be considered as implied technical effects:

Hence, this is not an “exceptional case” in which calculated effects can be considered implied technical effects (see decision G 1/19, points 94, 95 and 128).

Since also the auxiliary requests were considered obvious, as a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2660/18 (Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors/GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL-AMERICAS) of December 7, 2021

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Publishing of addresses and programs: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a method of creating a generic wireless communication platform for user applications in an area of wireless communications. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the relevant features of claim 1 would either be rendered obvious by the cited prior art or would only refer to non-technical aspects. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0999/16 (Wireless communication platform/IQRF) of February 4, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03:

Key takeaways

Activities depending on administrative considerations are non-technical and thus cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

According to EP 1 768 268 A2, the invention underlying the present decision relates to an arrangement of a module for wireless communication between electric or electronic equipment or systems, in high frequency bands at least in the range of 300 MHz to 2.60 GHz, particularly for home and office automation systems. Said electric or electronic equipment includes controls for electronics, and can be controlled or can provide data, for example a cordless thermometer. The invention also involves the method of controlling it and a method of creating generic platforms for user applications in the area of wireless communications with those modules (cf. EP 1 768 268 A2, para. [0001]).

Fig. 1 of EP 1 768 268 A2

Here is how the invention is defined by the limiting features of claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (feature labeling introduced by the Board)

Is it technical?

First of all, the Board in charge determined the distinguishing features of the closest prior art document D1 as follows:

3.2.4 The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore differs from the disclosure of D1 in features D1, I, J, J1 and J2.

Then, the Board outlined that features D1, J, J1 and J2 are rendered-obvious by D1. Specifically with respect to feature I, which reads “the addresses and the method of selecting the individual services of the operating system are published”, the Board explained that it would refer to a non-technical activity and thus could not contribute to inventive step:

3.2.6 Re feature I: the “publishing” of addresses and programs is a non-technical activity, depending on administrative considerations, which therefore does not contribute to inventive step (cf. T 641/00, headnote I). In any event, the publication of a list of “memory addresses” of operating-system routines stored in a non-volatile memory, e.g. a ROM, to be called from user programs was a technique notoriously known already in the 1980s (e.g. “KERNAL” calls in the 8-bit computer Commodore C64). Hence, the skilled person would have readily considered this technique when implementing the “operating functions of the Real-time Operation System 210” (see D1, paragraph [0035]).

Notably, the Appellant did not contest this assessment and just presented generic arguments why the subject-matter of claim 1 would comprise an inventive step. However, the Board did not follow these arguments.

Against this background, at the end of the hearing, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0999/16 (Wireless communication platform/IQRF) of February 4, 2022

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Translating a predicted amount of electrical energy into fuel savings: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to estimating the electrical energy production of a photovoltaic system of an aircraft. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the relevant features of claim 1 would only refer to a simulation method that does not produce a technical effect. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1035/18 (Estimating airborne photovoltaic energy production/BOEING) of November 2, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Simulation accuracy might play a role in the assessment of inventive step only if the simulation contributes to the technical character of the invention.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present application as follows:

1.1 The invention is about estimating the electrical energy production of a photovoltaic system of an aircraft in flight (paragraph [0002] of the published application).

1.2 Looking at Figures 1 and 2, the method starts by estimating a first amount of solar irradiance 106 generated by the Sun 108 and received at a plurality of geographical points 104 as a function of time (feature [a]). Based on this, a second amount of solar irradiance received by an aircraft 110 travelling along a flight path 112 is determined. The flight path 112 includes a subset of the geographical points 104 and has a starting and an ending time … . Based on the solar irradiance on the aircraft, the amount of electrical energy produced by the photovoltaic system 200 on the aircraft 110 is predicted … .

Finally, the predicted amount of electrical energy is translated into estimated fuel savings.

Fig. 1 of EP 2 899 685 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the ninth auxiliary request:

  • Claim 1 (Ninth auxiliary request)

Is it technical?

Since the ninth auxiliary request was considered to be the most concrete one, the Board based its assessment on this request.

During the first instance examination phase, it was found that the first three features of claim 1 would relate to a prediciation method that could be performed by purely mental or mathematical means:

2.3 The examining division held that steps [a] to [c] defined a prediction method at a high level of abstraction that could be performed by purely mental or mathematical means. This was in contrast to the case in T 1227/05 (Circuit Simulation/Infineon) where the deciding Board held that the simulation could not be performed purely by such means and provided for realistic prediction of the performance of a designed circuit.

Against this assessment, the Applicant/Appellant argued that a technical system is simulated by the prediction method. Hence, in view of T 1227/05 (Circuit Simulation/Infineon), the claimed method has to be considered technical. However, the Board in charge found that T 1227/05 is rendered moot in view of G1/19:

2.5 The Board considers that the question of whether or not the present case resembles that of T 1227/05 is moot in view of G 1/19, which supersedes T 1227/05. According to G 1/19, whether a simulation contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter does not depend on the degree to which the simulation represents reality (point 111); nor does it depend on the technicality of the simulated system (point 120). What counts is whether the simulation contributes to the solution of a technical problem (point 120).

The Board then further found that the claimed simulation steps do not involve a technical character, since technicality in light of G 1/19 does not depend on the simulated system but on the further use of the data produced by the simulation:

2.6 It is common ground that steps [a] to [c] define a simulation method. The method produces calculated numerical data, i.e. a prediction of the amount of electrical energy produced by the photovoltaic system during multiple flight paths. The Board agrees with the examination division’s decision that these steps do not involve a technical effect.

2.7 Following the principles laid out in G 1/19, the Board considers that whether the simulation achieves a technical effect depends on the further use of these numerical data (G 1/19, point 124).

To counter this finding, the Appellant argued that the central point of the present case is whether the estimated fuel savings provide a technical effect:

2.7 … The appellant argued for such an effect on the basis of step [d], added during the appeal, which specifies a further use of the predicted amount of electrical energy, namely translating this amount into estimated fuel savings. The issue in the present case is, thus, whether the estimated fuel savings provide a technical effect.

However, the Board in charge was not convinced by this argument:

2.9 The Board is not convinced by this argument because estimating the fuel savings for a flight is a non-technical administrative activity.

Then, the Appellant presented to further arguments:

2.10 During the oral proceedings, the appellant argued that the estimated fuel savings implied a more precise estimation of the amount of fuel needed by the aircraft for a flight. This was a technical effect because refuelling the aircraft with the optimal amount of fuel would enable the aircraft to traverse the flight path more efficiently.

2.12 The appellant also argued during the oral proceedings that step [a] described an accurate model for predicting the solar irradiance at a plurality of geographical points. This, in turn, led to a more precise estimation of the fuel savings. According to point 111, second sentence, of G 1/19, the accuracy of a simulation might be taken into consideration in the assessment of inventive step.

However, also these arguments did not convince the Board:

2.11 The Board considers that although refuelling is a technical process, it is not a direct consequence of the estimated fuel savings but would only occur as a result of a human decision (see also G 1/19, point 123). Moreover, the estimated fuel savings can also be used for business decisions, such as whether the savings merit the production and installation of the photovoltaic system or whether they permit a reduction of the flight tickets’ prices. Hence, the estimations do not have an implied technical use that can be the basis for an implied technical effect (see also G 1/19, points 98, 128).

2.13 In the Board’s view, however, the simulation’s accuracy might play a role in the assessment of inventive step only if the simulation contributes to the technical character of the invention. In view of the above (points 2.8 to 2.11), the Board judges that the simulation does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. Hence, the simulation’s accuracy is irrelevant for the assessment of inventive step.

Against this background, the Board found that the features relating to the simulation are of non-technical nature and thus have to be ignored for the assessment of inventive step:

2.14 As features [a] to [d] do not contribute to the technical character of the invention, they can be legitimately incorporated into the technical problem solved, as constraints to be met (T 641/00). …

As a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1035/18 (Estimating airborne photovoltaic energy production/BOEING) of November 2, 2021

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy *
* = Required field