Author Archive

Image data arrangement: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application for image data arrangement, which was considered non-technical by the EPO. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1294/16 (Image data arrangement/OMRON) of March 10, 2021 by the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06:

Key takeaways

It is of constant jurisprudence that only features contributing to the solution of a technical problem by providing a technical effect can contribute towards a finding of inventive step.

Differences in mathematics can lead to a finding of inventive step only if they contribute to defining a technical solution in a field of technology not excluded under Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.

The invention

The application relates to the detection of patterns on products in manufacturing context. Starting from the known technique of using normalized cross correlation (NCC) to detect known patterns in grayscale images, the application aims at providing a robust NCC method for color images. For this purpose, the 3-color image is transformed into a 2D or 1D matrix by rearranging the values according to predetermined rules. The NCC is then computed on this matrix.

Fig. 3 of EP1783664

Fig. 4 of EP1783664

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The Board considers claim 1 of the main request obvious in view of D1/D2.

The more interesting discussion for us is about the first auxiliary request:

21. This request differs from the main request in that it defines two alternative rules of arranging the color values in a single data array.

22. This arranging does not change the result of the color NCC, which remains identical to that of D1, as the order of the elements is irrelevant for the result of the computation (compare equation 2 of D1 with equations 1 and 4 in the application). This was not contested by the appellant. There is therefore no technical effect in terms of the results of the detection procedure.

The appellant argued why D1/D2/D7 do not solve the same problem. Furthermore, the appellant argued the following:

24. Moreover, there was no requirement under Article 56 EPC of a technical effect. Even if a technical effect was not acknowledged, the claim should be recognized as compliant with Article 56 EPC (1973) because it was not obvious. Starting from D1 or D2 there was no pointer to the specific data arrangements claimed.

However, the above-given argument was not shared by the Board:

25. In response to this second point, the Board recalls that it is of constant jurisprudence that only features contributing to the solution of a technical problem by providing a technical effect can contribute towards a finding of inventive step (T 0641/00 Two identities/COMVIK, point 6). This is because the EPC provides for protection of inventions, which require a technical solution to a technical problem (Rule 27(1)(c) EPC 1973). It is the (claimed) invention, i.e. the technical solution, that needs to involve an inventive step (Articles 52 EPC and 56 EPC 1973) for a patent to be granted.

Finally, the Board considers that the distinguishing feature of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request has no technical effect:

26.2 The Board does not dispute that a technical effect might be obtained under some circumstances. But this is not sufficient for acknowledging an inventive step, because those circumstances are not claimed (nor are they in fact made clear by the description), which means that the effect is not obtained over the full breadth of the claim, which in turn leads to the conclusion that at least a subset of the claimed matter is not to be seen as a technical solution to a technical problem and hence cannot be acknowledged as an invention involving an inventive step (see also T 0939/92, points 2.4 to 2.6).

27. Regarding the argument as to the convenience for the programmer, i.e. easing the programming effort, this, in principle, cannot be considered to define an invention at all (T 1539/09, Catchword). Arguendo, even if that could be the case, the technical effect cannot be objectively assessed here, because on the one hand the programming language is not specified, and because on the other hand the answer is a matter of subjective preference: while writing code with only two loops may be more convenient, the indexes will no longer intuitively directly represent the standard RGB format, making code reading less convenient.

28. Thus the claimed data transformation means does not solve any technical problem at all, and hence cannot contribute to a finding of inventive step. As in the case of the main request, claim 1 of this request lacks inventive step starting from D1 in view of the common knowledge in the art or from D2 in view of D1 and the common knowledge in the art.

The discussion about the third auxiliary request is also interesting. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request includes a specific mathematical formula.

35. The Board has already considered the argument as to the number of loops, so this cannot help the appellant’s case. The mathematical formula itself is different to the one in D1, but this is immaterial for the inventive-step assessment in the present context.

Differences in mathematics can lead to a finding of inventive step only if they contribute to defining a technical solution in a field of technology not excluded under Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC. This is not the case here, the proposed formula is only a mathematical equivalent of that in D1 causing no ascertainable technical effect, as discussed in the framework of the previous requests.

36. Claim 1 of this request lacks inventive step starting from D1 in view of the common general knowledge in the art, or from D2 in view of D1 and the common general knowledge in the art.

Hence, the Board arrived at the result that the subject-matter as claimed lacks inventive step and thus dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1294/16 (Image data arrangement/OMRON) of March 10, 2021.

This decision also concerns an interesting procedural aspect, discussed already by DeltaPatents Case Law. 

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Ensuring data integrity, facilitating centralized control of logistics plants and improving data exchange to other logistics plants: non-technical

This decision concerns a data exchange system in the area of logistics. However, none of the effects produced by said system were considered technical by the EPO. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2522/16 () of March 25, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Pure business-related aspects cannot establish technicality.

The invention

The subject-matter of the European patent application underlying the present decision was summarized by the Board in charge as follows:

2. The application

The application is directed at a virtual manufacturing network (VMN). The manufacturing processes of multiple geographically separated logistics plants are to be controlled and monitored (paragraph [30] of the published application), for instance in view of stringent regulation associated with pharmaceutical and processed food products (paragraphs [1] and [2] of the published application). For example, the application aims at improving and identifying alternatives to the cumbersome manual processes employed to compile batch records during production (paragraph [3] of the published application).

The ultimate aim of the invention is an impro­ved business administration process, in par­ticular involving rules and regulations for pharmaceu­tical products (see further paragraphs [4] to [6] of the published application).

For this purpose, information selected according to predefined criteria is kept consistent across different logistics plants. Data selected according to predefined criteria is copied, in a distributed or networked computer system, between local computers and a central computer, these computers being connected to each other through interfaces.

Fig. 2 of EP 2 199 960 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request - labeling f1, f2 ... added by the Board)

Is it patentable?

Against the rejection of the first instance examining division, the appellant argued as follows:

Care should be taken when distinguishing between non-technical and technical features according to the Comvik approach as set out in T 0641/00, in line with the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal.

For instance, for a feature to be technical, it was sufficient that it was based on technical considerations, as discussed in T 0769/92. Although this deci­sion dated from before the Comvik decision, it had not been invalidated in the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s opinion G 03/08. Instead, it had been endorsed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its recent decision G 01/19 under point 126 and thus still applied.

An app­lication to the present case would result in recognizing that, while the content of the rules defined in the claims reflected business needs, their implementation by means of the data structure de­fi­ned in feature f3, including technical aspects like a “copy flag”, was based on technical considera­tions.

In more detail, the appellant was of the opinion that the the subject-matter of claim 1 provides a technical effect and solves a technical problem:

… Instead, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request, directed to a data exchange system and further defined by features f1 to f6, achieved the effects of

i) ensuring data integrity in the sense of data consistency across different locations in a networked information system as defined in features f1 and f2 in real time,

ii) facilitating centralized control of logistics plants by the data structure and its functionalities defined in feature f3 and illustrated in Table 7 and paragraphs [75] and [76] of the published application,

iii) improving data exchange to other logistics plants by mirroring and converting relevant data according to features f4 and f5.

Effects i) to iii) were technical and the corresponding features of claim 1 of the main request had thus to be taken into account for assessing inventive step.

In view of technical effects i), ii) and iii) the objective technical problem to be solved by the skilled person starting from a networked information system could then be formulated as

– how to enable an efficient data exchange with improved data integrity within a heterogeneous networked information system.

However, the Board in charge takes a different position and considered none of these effects technical:

3.2.1 Effect i), data consistency

A process for achieving consistency of manufacturing information across different locations does per se not solve a technical problem, but merely fulfills a business administration aim.

…

3.3 Effect ii), centralized control

The centralized control of plants mentioned in the application (see paragraph [30]) does not relate to any technical industrial control system at produc­tion process level in the form of, e. g., a super­visory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system or a distributed control system (DCS). …

Such a centralized specification is, however, a ne­cessa­ry part of the administrative process to achieve the business administration aim of keeping certain manufacturing infor­mation consistent.

…

3.4 Effect iii), efficient data exchange by mirroring and converting relevant data

The “data conversion specifier” referred to in feature f5 relates to specifying which data are to be converted upon synchronization, or, in the words of the description, when being “copied” (see Table 8). The conversion may be as basic as leaving the data unchanged or transforming it to a blank data entry in accordance with the administrative needs. The “data conversion specifier” has therefore a similar functionality as the “material master views definition” and hence represents, like the latter, pure business matter.

Against this background, the Board in charge concluded as follows:

3.5 Conclusion concerning technical effects / closest state of the art

In line with the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal mentioned by the appellant, it follows from the above that the technical aspects of effects i) to iii) referred to by the appellant do not go beyond commonly known effects arising whenever a conventional networked information system is used to receive, store, process and send data. The Board is not aware of any other technical effects provided by the features of claim 1 of the main request, either.

A conventional networked information systems as generally known at the filing date of the present application may therefore be regarded as representing the closest state of the art, in line with point 2.6 of the contested decision.

…

3.6 Inventive step

The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request differs from such a conventional networked information system only by aspects relating to an administrative information exchange process which do not provide a technical effect, as set out by the Examining Division (see points 2.3.1 to 2.3.10 of the Reasons).

Since the distinguishing aspects represent pure business matter, they can be included in a non-technical requirement specification given to the technically skilled person in line with what was set out in T 1463/11 (see point 13 of the Reasons).

Thus, it is not appropriate to formulate the objective technical problem as suggested by the appellant. Instead, the objective technical problem can be formulated as how to implement the administrative information exchange process as defined by the Examining Division in points 2.3.1 to 2.3.10 of the Reasons of the contested decision on a generally known conventional networked information system.

Such an implementation would have been a straightfor­ward task for the technically skilled person.

Hence, the Board arrived at the result that the subject-matter as claimed lacks inventive step and thus dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2522/16 () of March 25, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Method for the detection of a movement characteristic of a vehicle: non-technical

This decision concerns a method for the detection of a movement characteristic of a vehicle. The EPO considered this non-technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0772/18 (recording a movement characteristic of a vehicle / TELEKOM) of February 26, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The information that a fuel consumption deviates from a reference fuel consumption or the cause of such a deviation (for example acceleration, air resistance, etc.) may be considered technical information. However, such information does not credibly support the driver in carrying out a technical task through constant and / or guided human-machine interaction.

On the one hand, the information only displayed to the driver does not contain any specific instructions on how he should control the vehicle, for example to optimize fuel consumption, and on the other hand, the real fuel consumption is not shown either, which is why this information does not contribute to the inventive step.

 

The invention

The European patent application relates to traffic telematics with the object to provide an efficient concept for detecting causes of fuel consumption of a vehicle.

For this purpose, a speed profile of the vehicle is recorded with the aid of a mobile communication device, for example a smartphone. Based on this, physical formulas are used to calculate the forces acting on the vehicle and associated partial energies, such as acceleration energy or air resistance energy, as well as a corresponding fuel consumption.

As shown in table 603 in Figure 6, these values ​​are compared with corresponding reference values ​​that are calculated from a specified reference speed. The column “LPH” in Figure 6 shows, for example, that the fuel consumption is 300% higher than the typical fuel consumption for the urban reference cycle.

Fig. 6 of EP2913792

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

Both the examining division and the Board did not question the technical character of the invention as a whole.

However, the Board considers that the distinguishing feature of claim 1 does not solve a technical problem:

2.4 The board agrees with the appellant that D2 does not disclose the calculation of a reference energy and a corresponding fuel consumption characteristic. However, it cannot see a solution to a technical problem in this, in particular not – as the appellant claims – the recognition of economical driving behavior and the optimization of fuel consumption (to be understood in the context of human-machine interaction, see T 336/14, guiding principle ).

2.5 The detection of the fuel consumption characteristic, as carried out in the last step of claim 1 …calculates an additional consumption or a saving of a fuel consumption compared to a specified reference consumption.

The mere calculation of such a characteristic does not include any feedback to the driver or any other output of this information. For this reason alone, this information cannot play a role in the interaction of the driver with the vehicle…

2.6 The information that a fuel consumption deviates from a reference fuel consumption or the cause of such a deviation (e.g. acceleration, air resistance, etc.) may be considered technical information. However, the board is of the opinion that this information does not credibly support the driver in carrying out a technical task through constant and / or guided human-machine interaction (as in T 336/14, reasons 1.2.4 and 1.2.5, or T 1000/09, reason 7, explained).

On the one hand, the information displayed to the driver does not contain any specific instructions on how to control the vehicle, for example in order to optimize fuel consumption, and on the other hand, as the testing department has already determined, it does not seem to reflect real fuel consumption either. Rather, this also depends on the preferences of the driver, for example on the selection of more efficient or less efficient gears.

At most, feedback may sharpen the driver’s understanding that he may be driving too fast or driving too often on roads with steep inclines and in city traffic. However, this alone is not sufficient to solve the technical problem mentioned by the appellant.

Since the distinguishing feature over D2 could not provide any technical contribution, the claimed subject-matter does not involve any inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0772/18 (recording a movement characteristic of a vehicle / TELEKOM) of February 26, 2021.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Performing pre-operating assessment more efficiently and intuitively: non-technical

This decision concerns conducting pre-operating assessments more efficiently and intuitively. However, the EPO considered this non-technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2520/16 () of 23.3.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Features aimed exclusively at improvements regarding the way information is perceived or processed by the human mind are generally regarded as non-technical.

Features defining presentation of information may be considered to produce a technical effect if they credibly assist the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process.

The invention

The subject-matter of the European patent application underlying the present decision was summarized by the Board in charge as follows:

2. The claimed invention

The claimed invention relates to a procedure and a system for performing pre-operating assessment of one or more anatomical structures.

Anatomical structures (e. g. a tumour) within organs (e. g. a liver) are rendered as 3D images in a 3D space and displayed at an output interface (e. g. a screen). One or more closed 3D volumes having a size and shape that are deformable represent(s) (a) safety margin indicator(s). These volumes are adjustable in order to conform to the shape and size of anatomical structures.

The user manipulates on the screen a safety margin indicator deforming it with respect to the anatomical structure it surrounds/encloses. The system provides immediate feedback to the user by re-rendering and displaying the deformed safety margin indicator immediately after the user’s manipulation.

For example, the user (a surgeon) deforms the safety margin indicator displayed around a tumour within an organ so that they can visualise the part of the organ that has to be removed in the operation. The pre-operating assessment is carried out by visualising several possible deformations of the safety margin indicator and assessing which approach would be best for the subsequent operation.

Fig. 1 of WO 2010/132606 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

According to the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03, the subject-matter as claimed would only differ in a minor aspect from the closest prior art document D1:

3.1.2 Summarising, D1 discloses a method and a system for rendering 3D and 2D images containing multiple volumes. The system allows a user to manipulate the volumes in the displayed images and provides real-time updating of the modified images (see for example paragraphs [0032] and [0038]). The description of the related art can be considered a hint that the system may be used in medical applications without any further details.

3.2 The claimed invention differs from D1 only in that the displayed volumes represent anatomical structures, organs and safety margin indicators. In other words, in the information the images convey to the user, i. e. their cognitive content (“what” is displayed).

The appellant did not agree to this assessment and argued as follows:

3.3.1 According to the appellant, the claimed invention comprised the displaying of 3D volumes representing anatomical structures. Making reference to paragraphs [0038] and [0039] as well as Figures 2a to 2c of the application, the appellant explained that the safety margin indicator was a closed 3D volume having shape and size that were adjustable to conform to the shape and size of anatomical structures. Based on input from the user, the safety margin indicator was deformed in its shape and/or size with respect to the anatomical structure (see also appellant’s letter of 23 February 2021, pages 2 and 3).

3.3.2 In contrast thereto, the system of D1 displayed 3D volumes as stacks of cross sectional 2D images. The user’s manipulation of those volumes consisted in moving section planes through the 3D volumes and displaying the corresponding cross sections (see appellant’s letter of 23 February 2021, page 4).

3.3.3 These differences provided a technical effect in that they enabled the user to perform pre-operating assessment more efficiently and intuitively.

However, the Board in charge was not persuaded by these arguments. According to the Board, pre-operating assessment would be a cognitive process and therefore not a technical activity:

3.4.1 First of all, the board does not consider the pre-operating assessment in the context of the present application to be a technical activity, but rather a cognitive process that takes place in the mind of the user (a surgeon in this case).

Furthermore, the Board outlined that features that only aim at improving the way how information is perceived has to be regarded as non-technical. Only in specific cases can such features contribute to the technical character of an invention:

3.4.2 Second, according to established case law and practice, features aimed exclusively at improvements regarding the way information is perceived or processed by the human mind are generally regarded as non-technical.

Such features defining presentation of information may be considered to produce a technical effect if they credibly assist the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process. Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the features (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 9th Edition, July 2019, I.D.9.1.6 a)).

In the present case, however, the task performed by the user would be non-technical:

… the task performed by the user (pre-operating assessment) is not technical. Moreover, there is no indication of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process that might guide the user in performing this task. The user (surgeon) is provided with information to which they may react by, for example, changing their mind about the subsequent operation.

Since the distinguishing feature over D1 could not provide any technical contribution, the claimed subject-matter does not involve any inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2520/16 () of 23.3.2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Method for determining comparability of service offers or products: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a method for determining comparability of service offers or products, which was considered non-technical by the EPO’s Board of Appeal in charge. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2379/16 () of 11.9.2020 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The closest prior art can be a generally known network-based computer system, so that there is no need to refer to a document to assess inventive step.

The invention

A dynamic online reservation system for events is proposed in the application underlying the present decision, in which customers can submit quality assessments for seating and standing space online. These ratings are then available to all customers when choosing a seat during the online reservation (see paragraphs [0004] to [0006] of the published application).

Fig. 1 of EP2079045

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

In the first instance, the application was refused due to lack of inventive step by the examining division.

At the appeal stage, the Board confirmed the decision of the examining division with the following reasoning:

No closest prior art was cited in the examination procedure. The board shares the examining division’s view that the closest prior art is a generally known network-based computer system, so that there is no need to refer to a document to assess inventive step.

Then, the Board categorised the features of claim 1 into technical features and non-technical features, as required by the COMVIK approach (see T 0641/00).

3.2.1 The Board identifies the following known technical features of a network-based computer system:

(B) data processing system (32) with at least one computer unit (32), a memory unit (30), an input / output unit (36) and a communication network (34),

(D) where by means of the input / output unit (36} [deleted: evaluations of quality] features [deleted: n according to a specified evaluation standard of the place (24) and / or place area (26, 28) and related to place or place area and related to quality characteristics] are saved,

(E) [deleted: where] the [deleted: evaluations] can be processed by means of an algorithm and a result can be stored and accessed in a user-specific manner using the input / output unit (36) [deleted: based on a selected quality feature].

3.2.2 The following, mainly “non-technical” features can be identified which can easily be implemented in such a computer system, but which relate to a business method:

(A ‘) Process for providing ratings for personal spaces (24) and / or space areas (26, 28),

(C ‘) where the place (24) and / or place area (26, 28) is assigned an individualizing identification, (D’) where [deleted: by means of the input / output unit (36}] evaluations of quality features according to a specified evaluation standard of the space (24) and / or space area (26, 28) are released and stored in relation to the space or space area and in relation to quality features,

(E ‘) whereby the evaluations [deleted: by means of an algorithm] can be processed and a result [deleted: can be saved and called up user-specifically by means of the input] [deleted: /] [deleted: output unit (36)] based on a selected quality feature.

3.2.3 These procedural steps could also be carried out in the case of over-the-counter sales through the experience and customer feedback of the seller, with the storage and the algorithm being carried out purely mentally. As a rule, such consultations take place at a counter sale. The features (A ‘) and (C’) – (E ‘) are not generally known for a web-based computer system.

Further, in line with the COMVIK approach (see T 0641/00), the non-technical features (A ‘) and (C’) – (E ‘) can be included in the formulation of the technical problem.

The Board agreed with the examining division that the task to be solved is to enable an accurate and detailed quality assessment of seat categories. Therefore, the objective technical problem reads as follows:

Computer-implemented realization of a dynamic, quality-optimized seat selection through a web-based computer-implemented method for the provision of ratings for personal seats and / or seat areas,

where the space and / or space area is assigned an individualizing identification, whereby evaluations of quality features according to a defined evaluation standard of the space and / or space area are issued and stored in relation to space or space area and in relation to quality features, whereby the assessments can be processed by means of an algorithm and a result is obtained can be called up on a user-specific basis for a selected quality feature.

However, the Board denied an inventive step of claim 1:

3.5.3 The Board … is also of the opinion that no unexpected technical solution is proposed for either the technical or the non-technical subtask. In addition, there is no apparent technical contribution that would appear unexpected or surprising to the person skilled in the art (T258/03, T172/03 and T641/00).

3.5.4 The inventive step can only be based on the particular type of implementation of a non-technical subject (see T336 / 07, catchword 1 and 2). When implementing the solution to the above task, beyond a pure computer implementation, no solution is offered that has an additional technical effect or special technical advantages. Such effects could be achieved by adapting the hardware, the input / output devices or special database structures and their linking. Even in electronic payment systems that serve a purely commercial purpose, there is patentable material for such technical features that go beyond a pure computer implementation.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2379/16 () of 11.9.2020.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Translation of a natural language into an abstract language: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to the translation of a human language into an abstract formal language which was considered non-technical by the EPO’s Board of Appeal in charge. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2825/19 (Natural language to machine language translator/RAVENFLOW) of 19.3.2021 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

All computer programs have technical effects, since when different programs are executed they cause different electrical currents to circulate in the computer they run on. However such technical effects are not sufficient to confer “technical character” on the programs; they must cause further technical effects.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision relates to a system and method for translating a natural (human) language into a formal language. The purpose of the formal language is to serve as a template for further translations into a variety of machine languages which are executable in specific operational environments (WO 02/103555 A2, page 1, first paragraph).

More specifically, the invention translates natural language input into internal formal language expressions and then further translates these expressions into executable formal expressions in a formal language such as SQL (structured query language) or SMTPL (the language of the mail protocol SMTP) (WO 02/103555 A2, page 34, last paragraph).

Fig. 2 of WO 02/103555 A2

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

In the first instance, the application underlying the present decision was refused due to lack of inventive step. According to the Examining Division, claim 1 comprises technical and non-technical features. However, in view of the cited prior art, the only identifiable technical contribution consisted in the claimed implementation of the non-technical features in the system disclosed in in cited prior art. More specifically, the Examining Division argued that the translation of linguistic considerations by means of a computer involves technical considerations, but no “further technical considerations” as required by the EPO’s case law:

3. (…) According to the examining division (see communication of 13 November 2018, point 4), referring to decisions T 598/14 and T 1177/97, the translation of linguistic considerations into a mathematical model with the aim of enabling the linguistic analysis to be done automatically by a computer could be seen as involving, at least implicitly, technical considerations. However, according to opinion G 3/08 (OJ EPO 2011, 10), point 13.5 of the Reasons, this was not enough as the technical character would have to be established on the basis that those considerations constituted “further technical considerations”. Moreover, machine-executable instructions per se were not technical as computer programs as such were explicitly excluded from patentability (Article 52(2)(c) EPC).

Against this assessment, the Appellant inter alia argued as follows:

4. (…) Furthermore, the appellant argued that linguistics was not concerned with translating expressions in an internal formal language into equivalent formal expressions executable in an external operational environment. Rather, steps b) to r) of the claimed method defined a technically advantageous method of translating natural language to executable formal expressions via an abstract formal language. This abstract formal language was explicitly designed to serve as a universal template for further translations into a comprehensive variety of machine languages which were executable in specific operational environments. This was evidence that the steps involved further technical considerations. The method of claim 5 did not use the computer merely as a tool for implementation but focused on improving the computer functionality itself.

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

5.3.6 (…) By contrast, the board sees no support for the appellant’s view that the concept “further technical considerations” should be interpreted with a broader meaning that would also cover considerations aiming to solve problems “merely” relating to programming such as maintainability, re-usability and understandability of program code, or, in this case, the use of a universal template for translating natural language into executable expressions in external operational environments. Such a broader view of the concept “further technical considerations” appears to be problematic with regard to the imperative to ensure legal certainty and judicial predictability requiring a uniform application of the law (see opinion G 3/08, Reasons 7.2.3) since no criteria are apparent which could then be used to establish a clear border between “technical” and “non-technical” aspects of computer programs.

5.3.7 In view of the above, the board agrees with the examining division that steps b) to p) do not contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention as these steps do not involve technical considerations going beyond “merely” finding an abstract computer algorithm to carry out the translation from natural language text into an internal formal language.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2825/19 (Natural language to machine language translator/RAVENFLOW) of 19.3.2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Method of providing a user interface for controlling a system: Technical

This decision concerns a European patent application for providing a user interface for controlling a system based to the body movement of the user. This application is one of the few applications relating to user interface that have been granted. Here is the practical takeaways from the decision T 3131/19 (Body movement dependent user interface/PHILIPS) of 7.4.2021 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05:

Key takeaways

Providing an improved and more flexible user input interface for controlling a system is a technical problem.

The invention

The European patent application concerns a method and a system for providing a user interface for controlling the system relative to the responsiveness of the user action. In particular, the invention provides a sensor for observing a body and a perceptible user interface. Based on the rate of displacement of the body, the underlying system is controlled.

In a simple example, a coffee maker has a mechanical switch and a sensor capable of determining the displacement rate of the user’s hand approaching the switch. Based on the rate of approach, the functionality of the switch changes. For instance, on the one hand, if the rate is higher (rapid action to the switch), the controller changes the switch functionality to a first action (stop pouring coffee). On the other hand, if the rate is slower (hand slowly brought to the switch), the switch functionality is converted to an ON/OFF function of the coffee maker.

Therefore, the rate of displacement determines the user interface of the functionality of the system.

Fig. 2 of WO 2009/069050 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The first-instance Examining division had refused the application for lack of novelty. The cited prior art document disclosed a video game where the user could control the character by moving the body.

On appeal, the Board agreed with the appellant that the cited document only disclosed using the displacement of the body to interact with the user interface (i.e., the character on-screen) and not to provide a part of the user interface associated with the functionality of controlling the system. Therefore, the claim was considered novel.

When deciding whether the distinguishing feature was technical, the Board provided the following reasoning:

The technical effect of the essential differences detailed above between the subject-matter of claim 1 and the disclosure of D1 is that a part of the user interface provides different functionalities for controlling the system depending on the rate of displacement of a user’s body part towards the user interface.

The objective technical problem can thus be formulated, as proposed by the appellant, as how to provide an improved and more flexible user input interface for controlling a system.

The Board then concluded that the subject-matter of the claim is inventive: None of the cited documents aim at improving a user interface. Moreover, none of the cited documents discloses the distinguishing feature.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 3131/19 (Body movement dependent user interface/PHILIPS) of 7.4.2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Call routing matrix: technical

This decision concerns an European patent application for a wireless device to manage cross-network telecommunication services. While the device is technical per se, the decision depends on whether the distinguishing feature(s) of the application are novel and involve an inventive step over the prior art. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1352/18 (Call routing matrix/AVAYA) of 23.3.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03:

Key takeaways

Although the technical problem to be solved should not be formulated to contain pointers to the solution or partially anticipate it, merely because some feature appears in the claim does not automatically exclude it from appearing in the formulation of the problem. In particular where the claim refers to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field, this aim may legitimately appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved, in particular as a constraint that has to be met. (cf. T 641/00, Headnote 2)

The invention

This European patent application centres on the provision and use of a user profile for call routing (“call routing matrix 1900”; see e.g. Fig. 19). In this user profile, based on a certain user activity mode (e.g. “At Home”; “At Office”, etc.) so-called communication management directives (e.g. call forwarding settings such as “Send to Voicemail”; “Ring Mobile”, etc.) are associated with the user’s distinct user addresses (e.g. telephone number, home/office email address) and the dedicated communication networks (e.g. PSTN, wireless networks, etc.). This user profile is supposed to be set up by the user and is most pertinently illustrated in Figure 19 of the present application:
Fig. 19 of EP 1 794 995

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The first-instance examining division had refused the application based on lack of novelty over the prior art on record.

On the appeal stage, the board of appeal re-assessed the disclosure of D1 and found that D1 does not disclose the second last feature:

– determining which communication management directive applies to the initiated communication is further responsive to a determination as to which user address was used in initiating communication.

However, the board of appeal denied an inventive step based on the well-known problem-solution approach:

2.1.3 The board considers that the technical effect associated with this distinguishing feature is that it provides more flexible handling of incoming calls because, in addition to the activity mode for the user, also the “user address” used in initiating the communication is considered.

2.1.4 The objective technical problem can thus be defined as “how to adapt the call system of D1 to the case of multiple communication subscriptions (i.e. user addresses) per user”, in which using more than one subscription per user is taken as an administrative requirement …

2.1.5 …For the skilled person, in view of the system of D1 – with each subscription comprising a respective single personal number (PN) associated with a respective subscriber profile – it would have been straightforward to associate a single user with multiple subscriptions in the underlying database, each subscription comprising a respective single PN associated with a respective subscriber profile.

The choice of a communication management directive for the initiated communication would inevitably have relied on both the user address used in initiating the communication (i.e. relating to which subscriber profile is to be used) and the retrieved association (i.e. the corresponding entry in the “Subscriber Schedule” for the corresponding subscriber profile).

As a result, the main request was found to lack an inventive step. Since none of the auxiliary requests was found to be allowable either, the appeal was dismissed in the end.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1352/18 (Call routing matrix/AVAYA) of 23.3.2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Auto-correction of text input: non-technical

This decision concerns the field of user interface design and the question, to which extent text-correction is a technical task. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2372/17 (Multi-word autocorrection/APPLE) of 25.2.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Text correction as such is not technical. Text auto-correction could contribute to a technical effect if it were used in combination with other user-computer interaction techniques for facilitating the user’s entering of text in a computer.

The invention

This European patent application concerns multi-word auto-correction which occurs when a user enters text with a touch-sensitive keyboard. The core idea was basically that a selection of an initial corrected word is revisited if a subsequently typed word indicates that it would be more appropriate to select a different correction for the initial word instead.

For example, the system may select an initial corrected word “new” based on a user’s input of “nes”. However, if the subsequently typed word is “york”, then the system can revisit the selection of “new” and instead correct the initial word to “New” and select a corrected word “York” to replace the typed word “york”.

Fig. 1 of EP 2 859 470
Fig. 1 of EP 2 859 470

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The first-instance examining division had refused the application based on lack of inventive step over the prior art on record, wherein some features were considered to relate to non-technical user requirements.

On the appeal stage, the board of appeal assessed whether teh auto-correction as claimed contributed to the technical character of the invention:

[…], linguistic aspects and presentation of information as such are not patentable pursuant to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC. Such features of a graphical user interface can be considered to contribute to a technical effect if they credibly assist the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (see decisions T 336/14 of 2 September 2015, Reasons 1.2.4, and T 1802/13 of 10 November 2016, Reasons 2.1.5 to 2.1.7).

However, the claim does not detail any interaction between the user and the computer in relation to the auto-correction that is taking place, and there is nothing to suggest that the user is taking into account what is being displayed. It is therefore doubtful that there is any continued and/or guided such interaction.

With regard to the use of touch points in the claimed method, the board notes that the first touch points are transformed into characters in advance of the correction and that claim 1 does not define any specific way of transforming any of the touch points to input characters or using the touch points to influence the text auto-correction.

In view of this, the board doubts that the text auto-correction in the context of the claimed method contributes to a technical effect.

Therefore, the board held that no technical effect can be established by the distinguishing features, which concern presentation of information. As a result, the main request was found to lack an inventive step. Since none of the auxiliary requests was found to be allowable either, the appeal was dismissed in the end.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2372/17 (Multi-word autocorrection/APPLE) of 25.2.2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Improving billing code accuracy with machine learning: non-technical

There are few decision yet which specifically address the question to what extent machine-learning aspects make a technical contribution. This decision explores whether using machine learning for improving the accuracy of medical billing codes makes a technical contribution.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0755/18 (Semi-automatic answering/3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES) of 11.12.2020 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

If neither the output of a machine-learning computer program nor the output’s accuracy contribute to a technical effect, an improvement of the machine achieved automatically through supervised learning to generate a more accurate output is not in itself a technical effect (Catchword)

A billing code is non-technical administrative data. Generating a billing code is a cognitive task. The process of generating a billing code on the basis of documents is thus a non-technical administrative task, which, as such, is not patentable.

The invention

This European patent application concerns billing codes for medical billing. Such billing codes may relate to a hospital stay of a patient based on a collection of the documents containing information about the medical procedures that were performed on the patient during the stay and other billable activities performed by hospital staff. This set of documents may be viewed as a corpus of evidence for the billing codes that need to be generated and provided to an insurer for reimbursement.

The patent application starts from known computer-based support systems that guide human coders through the process of generating billing codes. Such systems typically include “concept extraction components” (e.g. to extract concepts like “allergy” or “prescription” from a medical report) and an “inference engine” that generates appropriate billing codes.

The invention sets out to improve the accuracy of such automatically generated billing codes.

To this end, the invention allows a human operator to provide input as to whether the generated billing codes are accurate (e.g. a verification status). The system may automatically interpret the feedback, and the reasoning process may be inverted in a probabilistic way to assign blame and/or praise for an incorrectly/correctly generated billing code to the constituent logic clauses which led to the generation of the billing code.

Fig. 4 of EP2619661
Fig. 4 of EP2619661

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The first-instance examining division had refused the application based on lack of inventive step over a standard general purpose computer.

On the appeal stage, the board of appeal assessed which of the features of the invention actually makes a technical contribution, and took the view:

A billing code is non-technical administrative data which may take the form of a textual representation, for instance “Unspecified diabetes” (see paragraph [0050] of the international publication). Generating a billing code (see also point 1. above) is a cognitive task (paragraphs [0002] and [0015]). The process of generating a billing code on the basis of documents is thus a non-technical administrative task, which, as such, is not patentable pursuant to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.

The appellant had argued that simply because a certain feature offers a solution to an administrative, economic or business problem, it did not in and of itself prohibit the same feature from simultaneously solving a technical problem for which an applicant was entitled to seek protection. The board agreed that the presence of non-technical features in the claim does not mean that the claimed subject-matter is not patentable and that features which are non-technical when taken in isolation but which interact with technical features of the invention to solve a technical problem should be taken into account in assessing inventive step.

Moreover, the appellant argued that the invention used machine-learning techniques to improve the accuracy of the machine output. According to the appellant, the invention was technical because it improved the system so that it would generate more accurate billing codes in the future.

The board did not follow this argument:

In the board’s opinion, if neither the output of a learning-machine computer program nor the machine output’s accuracy contributes to a technical effect, an improvement of the machine achieved automatically through supervised learning for producing a more accurate output is not in itself a technical effect. In this case, the learning machine’s output is a billing code, which is non-technical administrative data. The accuracy of the billing code refers to “administrative accuracy” regarding, for example, whether the billing code is consistent with information represented by a spoken audio stream or a draft transcript (paragraph [0051]) or is “justified by the given corpus of documents, considering applicable rules and regulations” (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, improving the learning machine to generate more accurate billing codes or, equivalently, improving the accuracy of the billing codes generated by the system, is as such not a technical effect.

Also the further arguments made by the appellant were not successful, and the main request was found to lack an inventive step. In addition, since none of the auxiliary requests was found to be allowable either, the appeal was dismissed in the end.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0755/18 (Semi-automatic answering/3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES) of 11.12.2020

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field