Author Archive

Haptic feedback assisted text manipulation: technical

In this decision, the European Patent Office considered features that enable a user of a touch screen device to efficiently select a text portion as technical, but obvious in view of the prior art. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2741/16 (Haptic feedback assisted text manipulation / Immersion) of 28.11.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05:

Key takeaways

Enabling a user of a touch screen device to efficiently select a text portion: technical

The invention

This European patent application generally relates to user interface techniques, and particularliy to a device with a touch screen that provides tactile feedback when it senses a touch by a user’s finger. The addressed problem is to support the user as he or she manipulates text.

The solution as claimed provides for adapting the type of tactile feedback to the type of manipulation and to specific touch gestures.

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (22), cause the processor (22) to provide haptic feedback on a device (50) comprising a touchscreen (55), the instructions comprising:

displaying dynamically generated text (58) comprising a plurality of characters; and

sensing a touch by a user’s finger (56) within the dynamically generated text (58);

characterized by

determining if the touch is a manipulation of the dynamically generated text (58) and a type of the manipulation, wherein the manipulation comprises a selection of the dynamically generated text (58) by sliding the finger (56) across the dynamically generated text (58); and

while the finger (56) is being slid across the dynamically generated text (58) right or left from a handle (78) which is displayed when the user initially touches the dynamically generated text (58) and which indicates the initial position of the cursor,

highlighting (74) that portion of the text, indicating that the user is selecting that portion of the text, and

generating a type of haptic event based at least in part on the type of the manipulation, wherein the haptic event generates the haptic feedback with an actuator (26), wherein as the finger slides across the text (58), different haptic events are generated.

Is it technical?

The board of appeal used a document as closest prior art which discloses a device with a touch screen. The device is adapted to provide tactile feedback in different situations. The appellant had argued that this prior art did not anticipate the claimed feature of “as the finger slides across the dynamically generated text, different haptic events are generated”, and argued why this was non-obvious.

However, the board of appeal did not agree to the appellant’s analysis and took the view that the alleged difference was already disclosed in the prior art. As the only difference, the board identified the feature that “the user’s finger is being slid across the dynamically generated text and the corresponding portion of the text is highlighted”.

But this difference was found to be obvious by the board:

The technical effect of distinguishing feature (m1) is that the user is enabled to efficiently select a text portion.

The objective technical problem is considered to be how to enable the user to efficiently select a text portion.

Faced with this problem, the person skilled in the art would consider, based on his or her common general knowledge, that by dragging a selection cursor on a touch screen text can be selected and highlighted.

Similarly, document D1, which falls within the same technical field and discloses techniques for selecting information on a touch screen, discloses selecting and highlighting a region of text by a proximity-drag touch operation (Figures 45 and 46, paragraph 201). In this regard, the appellant confirmed (page 4, last paragraph of the statement of grounds) that document D1 discloses that “text may also (be) directly selected by sliding the finger over the text”.

Consequently, to solve the problem posed, the person skilled in the art would modify the teaching of document D2 by providing a possibility for the user to slide his or her finger across the text and thereby highlight the corresponding text’s portion. Moreover, the different haptic events of document D2 would clearly result as the finger slide across the text. In this way, the skilled person would arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 in an obvious manner.

What is interesting about this decision is that enabling the user to efficiently select a text portion was accepted as a technical problem without any discussion. Accordingly, innovative user interface control mechanisms can indeed be patented, if they are non-obvious.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2741/16 (Haptic feedback assisted text manipulation / Immersion)

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy Yes, I consent to the collection, processing and use of my above-mentioned personal data for the purposes of processing my message and for the purposes of contacting me via email. The legal basis of the processing shall be formed by my consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR. The data will be deleted three months after expiry of the purpose, provided that longer retention periods are not required by law. I can revoke this consent with future effect at any time. I have taken note of the privacy statement and consent to it. With regard to the processing of my data, I am entitled to inalienable rights, information on which can be found in the privacy statement.

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Scoring the competence of an organisation: non-technical

In this decision, the European Patent Office refused to grant a software patent on the concept of assessing the competence of an organisation by processing score data. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1902/13 (Assessing competence levels/SWISS RE) of 4.7.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Designing questions for determining competence levels and method steps and decisions leading thereto as well as mathematical/statistical operations of weighting, scaling and norming are all in the non-technical domain of an economist or a business person and do not make an inventive technical contribution.

The invention

This European patent application relates to a computer-based method for assessing competence levels of an organisation with multiple organisational units, as conventionally assessed by business consultants.

A computer stores scores related to answers given by a human representative of organisational units in response to defined questions. The computer assigns each score to one of the organisational units. For the organisational units, total scores are calculated in the computer by adding up the scores assigned to the respective organisational unit. Moreover, the computer calculates weighted total scores for the organisational units by adding up weighted maximum scores assigned to the questions. The weighted maximum scores each depend on the respective organisational unit and the respective question. Finally, the computer calculates competence levels of the organisational units. The results are provided by generating a graphical representation.

The applicant also filed an auxiliary request during the appeal stage, which adds the use of a rules-based expert-system.

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A computer-based method for assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units by computer means (1), the method comprising:

capturing, receiving and storing answer-data by the computer (1) to subsets of predefined questions stored in a memory (12) which are assigned and activated as subsets of the predefined questions based on organizational aspects of a selected organizational unit automatically by the computer (1) based on an organizational unit profile stored in the memory (12);

rating automatically by the computer by means of a rules based expert system the stored content data providing scores to the predefined questions:

storing the scores, in the memory device (12) of the computer (1) corresponding to the answer data from each of the organizational units in response to the set of defined questions, the organizational units corresponding to different groups of individuals, and each of the different groups performing a different function within the organization:

assigning, in the computer (1), each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units, wherein the scores assigned to the captured answer data are weighted with weighting factors before being stored in the memory (12), the weighting factors being determined by the computer (1) based on the organizational unit and the predefined questions assigned to the respective score from a table containing weighting factors assigned to organizational units and to the predefined questions;

calculating, in the computer (1), total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being calculated by adding up the scores assigned to the respective organizational unit;

calculating, in the computer (1), weighted total scores (71/81) for the organizational units, each of the weighted total scores (71/81) being calculated individually for the various organizational aspects by adding up weighted maximum scores assigned to the activated questions and to the organizational unit for each organizational unit, the weighted maximum scores each depending on the respective organizational unit and the respective question;

calculating, in the computer (1), competence levels of the organizational units that are scaled to a scale of competence (72/82) defined by a numerical range of zero to a maximum competence value (73/83/84) by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score calculated for the respective organizational unit to the weighted total score (71/81) calculated for the respective organizational unit;

generating a graphical representation (7/8) of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units in one common graph by means of a polygon-shaped spider diagram, each of the vertices being assigned to one of the organizational units; and

displayed the graphical representation (7/8) by means of display (3) so that the competence levels are visualized and so that deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence are visualized, and so that differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized.

Is it technical?

First of all, the board briefly assessed whether the invention as defined in claim 1 was patent-eligible. As the avid reader will know, patent-eligibility is a very low hurdle at the EPO and thus there was no problem in this regard:

The claims are directed to a mix of technical and non-technical features. The Board does not dispute that the methods according to claims 1 and 8 appear in a technical context. The methods can be considered to be performed by technical means, because they involve a computer with means for storing data, means for processing data and means for transmitting and receiving data, and, therefore, have technical character. Accordingly, the claimed subject-matter is an invention in the sense of Article 52(1) EPC (see T 258/03 “Auction method/HITACHI“).

But the challenging question with mixed-type inventions is regularly that of inventive step, which requires an assessment of whether the invention makes a technical contribution over the prior art. Readers of this website will know that features which do not make such a contribution cannot support the presence of an inventive step (see T 641/00 “Two identities/COMVIK“, Headnote I).

Here the board sided with the first-instance examining division and found that most of the features of claim 1 were non-technical:

The Board agrees with the contested decision that except for the features relating to the technical infrastructure of a general purpose computer system, the features pertain to an administrative method, i.e. to the non-technical part of claim 1 and claim 8. Thus, the assessment of inventive step in the decision under appeal correctly considered a notoriously known general purpose computer system to be the closest prior art (see points 2 and 10 of the decision). Such a general purpose computer system was capable of storing, assigning, weighting, calculating and presenting all kinds of data. The claims as well as the description of the application lack technical detail with regard to the claimed computer system. Consequently, the Board does not find a specific disclosure of any technical aspect that could distinguish the computer system, on which the claimed method is based, from such a general purpose computer system.

Regarding the part of the invention which concerned the selection of questions and evaluating the answers, the board came to the following conclusion:

Designing questions for determining competence levels and method steps and decisions leading thereto as well as mathematical/statistical operations of weighting, scaling and norming are all in the non-technical domain of an economist or a business person (Article 52(2)(a) and (c) EPC) and do not make an inventive technical contribution. The parameters resulting from those questions are considered to be non-technical, i.e. cognitive data.

Also the computer implementation did not help, since the board found that the computer system would still follow the same principles as the business consultant:

A business consultant, who wants to assess the competence of an organisation would design a set of rules and questions, which can be reused for another organisation. In order to present meaningful results, e.g. on a flip-chart using graphical diagrams like well known spider diagrams, the business consultant would have to transform the answers into numerical values, scale and weight them. No computer would be needed for performing these tasks. The more dimensions the quantities require, the more cumbersome and time consuming these tasks would be. According to the invention, parts of the process are therefore automated using a computer system. However, the computer system would still follow the same principles as the business consultant following the underlying administrative concept according to the set of rules and questions. The Board does not agree with the appellant’s argument put forward during oral proceedings, that the business person and the skilled programmer would have to sit together in order to elaborate a workable solution. Rather the underlying administrative concept following the traditional business consultant approach would be provided to the programmer as a requirements specification.

The appellant had also argued that the invention automatically initiated certain decisions, but without success:

The Board does not see how the claimed invention can automatically initiate decisions (“automatische Initiierung von Verfahrensentscheidungen”) as argued by the appellant (see page 5, last paragraph of the grounds). Every decision concerning what to do in order to improve competence has to be taken by a human interpreting the diagrams or the data in general. There is no automation in this regard and this goes beyond what is covered by the independent claims.

Furthermore, also the appellant’s arguments regarding the technical character of th rule-based expert system (pursued in the auxiliary request) did not prevail:

The application discloses “Generally, questions with assigned low scores will determine the steps and areas of possible improvements. For example, computer 1 retrieves the steps and areas of possible improvements from a table stored in memory 12. Preferably, the steps and areas of possible improvements are determined by means of an expert system” (see the paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16).

However, no detailed technical disclosure of an expert system is found in the application, in particular how it has to be implemented. The knowledge and rules on which such an expert system is based, are considered to be part of the non-technical business related concept, which are part of the requirement specification (see point 3.3 above). The computer follows the same rules and questions that were designed by the business consultant. There is no added value in the decision making process caused by the computer means except for automation of calculations for scaling and weighting the values corresponding to the answers.

One further argument by the appellant was that the invention provided an improved man-machine interface, which is regularly accepted as technical by the boards of appeal. However, not in this case:

The contribution of the invention also does not lie in an improved man-machine interface as argued by the appellant with regard to a graphical representation. The man-machine interface used according to claim 1 is that of a general purpose computer which was notorious knowledge before the priority date. The contribution lies rather in the way of associating information with collected competence related data. Such data, however, in the Board’s view, is not technical, since it is cognitive data, not functional data (see T 1194/97 Data structure product/PHILIPS, OJ EPO 2000, 525). Storage, selection and processing of such data is an administrative measure, such as would be performed by a human when designing questions and assessing competence levels, implemented in a straight-forward manner making use of general purpose computer functions (e.g. storing and retrieving information and displaying content in electronic form) without creating a further technical effect.

Also with regard to the specific selection of a spider diagram for the graphical representation, the board had doubts regarding its technical contribution:

The appellant further argued that generating a graphical representation constituted a technical contribution. The Board does not agree. The appellant specifically referred to spider diagrams. The application discloses “preferably in the form of a so-called spider diagram” (see the sentence bridging pages 14 and 15). This clearly shows that such diagrams were already known and widely used when graphically presenting multiple parameters in one diagram. The Board agrees with the contested decision that the effects are in the subjective and mental area of presentation of information. The Board doubts that the kind of a diagram like a spider diagram contributes to the technical character. However, it would be an obvious choice for graphically presenting multiple parameters in one diagram for human interpretation and decision making. This feature therefore does not provide an inventive technical contribution.

Therefore, the board’s point of view did not differ from the first instance examining division and the board thus dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1902/13 (Assessing competence levels/SWISS RE) of 4.7.2019

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Predicting the formation of mould fungi: technical

In this decision, the European Patent Office considered predicting the formation of mould fungi based on experiments technical. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision in German language) T 0547/14 (Verfahren zur Vorhersage von Schimmelpilzbildung/FRAUNHOFER) of 29.1.2020 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Method steps for determining physical quantities are likely considered technical since technical devices have to be used to carry them out.

The invention

This European patent application relates to a method for predicting the formation of mould fungi. Biological germination conditions or growth conditions for at least one mould fungus, which are determined experimentally or by a computer, are compared with the hygrothermic conditions on an object to be examined. Based on the obtained data, it is determined whether the germination or the the growth conditions are present on the examined object (cf. WO 03/014986 A2, Abstract).

Fig. 3 of WO 03/014986 A2

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 (translated by by the author of this post):

Claim 1 (main request)

A method for predicting mould formation on an object, for example a building component, by comparing experimentally and/or with a computer determined biological germination conditions and/or growth conditions for one or more moulds with the experimentally and/or with a computer determined hygrothermal conditions occurring on the object and determining therefrom whether the germination conditions and/or growth conditions are present on the object, comprising the following steps:

– determination of the temperature and relative humidity profile on the object,

– determination of a water content of a spore on the object and

– Determination of whether the water content of the spore reaches or exceeds the water content required for germination and/or growth (limit water content) over time.

Is it technical?

According to first instance examining division independent claim 1 would only comprise features that refer to a mental act and/or to an abstract concept. The only technical feature would be the computer that is presented as an option to compare determined biological germination conditions and/or growth conditions. However, according to claim 1, this comparison could also be done experimentally, i.e. without requiring any technical means:

3. The Examining Division found the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request without the feature “with a computer” to be method that falls under the exclusion conditions of Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.

3.1 The Examining Division submitted that the features of claim 1, which related to an experimental determination of biological germination conditions for moulds, did not differ from a purely intellectual activity, since the “experimental” determination was not technically specified and could be carried out by pure cognitive observation.

As a result, the Examining Division rejected the present application, without considering prior art. In order to counter this argument, applicant submitted that the claimed determination steps would refer to physical quantities. Hence, they would have to be considered as technical.

The Board in charge agreed to applicant’s argumentation and explained that the claimed determination steps are of technical character, even when no computer is used to carry them out. The reason is that an “experimental” determination would require the use of technical means:

3.6 If these are determined ‘experimentally’, it is necessary to carry out experiments and thus to use technical means. In this respect, the Board agrees with the appellant that the subject matter claimed is thus technical. If a computer is used, the subject matter is also technical with the use of this technical means.

The Board in charge concluded that the features relating to the determination steps as claimed have to be considered for the assessment of inventive step. Hence, the Board in charge remitted the case back to the first instance Examining Division for further examination, including a consideration of the searched prior art documents.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0547/14 (Verfahren zur Vorhersage von Schimmelpilzbildung/FRAUNHOFER) of 29.1.2020.

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Generated metadata file for OLAP tools: non-technical

In this decision, the European Patent Office considered a generated metadata file as non-technical. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2573/16 (OLAP-cube specification/ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES) of 6.11.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

If non-technical features could not contribute to a technical effect because they are non-technical, there would be no need for analyzing whether these features produce a technical effect over a computer. Hence, it has always to be analysed whether, and to what extent, a non-technical scheme, when implemented on a computer, produces a technical effect over that computer.

While a file itself is likely non-technical, the generation thereof might be technical.

The invention

This European patent application relates to online analytical processing (OLAP) which is a category of tools used to provide access to data in a database. With OLAP, multidimensional analytical queries can be quickly answered. Databases configured for OLAP may use a multidimensional data model that provides multidimensional views of data for quick access to strategic information for further analysis (cf. EP 2 312 465 A1, para. [0002]).

OLAP tools use OLAP cubes to achieve efficient data retrieval which is a data structure that organizes categories of data by dimensions and measures (cf. EP 2 312 465 A1, para. [0003]). If users want to change the OLAP cube, such as add or remove dimensions, a cumbersome process must be followed by the technical solution team to properly implement the changes. The back-and-forth communications and processes needed to implement changes to the OLAP cube are burdensome (cf. EP 2 312 465 A1, para. [0005]).

The present application seeks to to improve OLAP systems by means of a template metadata file including metadata defining the structure of the OLAP cube (cf. EP 2 312 465 A1, para. [0006]).

Fig. 1 of EP 2 312 465 A1

Claim 1 (main request)

An OLAP specification system (100) for creating a new OLAP cube from an OLAP cube template corresponding to an OLAP cube, the system comprising:

an OLAP cube template determination module (101) configured to determine the OLAP cube template and retrieve a corresponding template metadata file, wherein the template metadata file comprises metadata that define a structure of the OLAP cube of the OLAP cube template, wherein the structure of the OLAP cube comprises dimensions, hierarchies, and categories;

a metadata copy module (105) configured to create a base metadata file from the template metadata file, wherein the base metadata file comprises the metadata defining the structure of the OLAP cube;

a viable options generation module (106) configured to generate and present viable options for modifying metadata in the base metadata file to define the new OLAP cube, wherein the viable options for modifying metadata in the base metadata file conform with one or more predetermined rules, wherein the viable options only allow certain aspects of dimensions to be modified, wherein the one or more predetermined rules include a rule to specify that certain levels of a dimension must stay grouped in a view; and

a metadata receipt module (107) configured to receive input via a user interface indicating a modification to the metadata in the base metadata file based on the presented viable options and to store the modified base metadata file as a new metadata file defining the new OLAP cube,

wherein the modifications to the metadata in the base metadata file comprise one or more of:

– modifying – the dimensions, – the categories, – the hierarchies;- modifying the order of dimensions;- specifying the order of categories of a dimension and its respective hierarchies;in the base metadata file by modifying the metadata in the base metadata file; and wherein the system is configured to perform subsequent operations on the new OLAP cube.

Is it technical?

According to the first instance Examining Division, almost all features of claim 1 would refer to non-technical aspects:

4.1 (…) Point 10.1.1.5 of the decision essentially repeats point 10.1.1.3 by stating that the only technical aspects present in claim 1 were the feature specifying that the metadata receipt module was “configured to receive input via a user interface”, which implied the use of a general-purpose computer, and the features relating to “files”, which were to be interpreted as “electronic data files in a computer memory” of that general-purpose computer. All other aspects of claim 1 were non-technical in nature and therefore formed “part of a given framework within which the technical problem [was] posed, for example in the form of a requirements specification provided to the person skilled in a technical field”.

Hence, considering a common personal computer as closest prior art, the Examining Division rejected the present application due to lack of inventive step.

According to the present decision, however, the Board in charge considered the reasoning of the Examining Division not persuasive:

4.5 In sum, the contested decision’s inventive-step reasoning is incomplete as it stands, and the general approach to assessing inventive step taken in the decision is prone to overlook technical contributions made by non-technical features.

In more detail, the Board argues that the Examining Division failed to assess whether the claimed non-technical scheme produces a technical effect or not:

4.2 Although in many cases the implementation of a non-technical scheme on a general-purpose computer results in subject-matter that is obvious, this is not inevitably the case. As the Examining Division essentially stated in point 10.1.1.4 of its decision, non-technical features are to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step to the extent that they interact with the technical subject-matter of the claim to solve a technical problem or bring about a technical effect (see G 1/04, OJ EPO 2006, 334, reasons 5.3; T 154/04, OJ EPO 2008, 46, reasons 5, under (F), and 13 to 15). It therefore still has to be analysed whether, and to what extent, the non-technical scheme, when implemented on a computer, produces a technical effect over that computer.

Therefore, the Board in charge re-examined inventive step in all detail. In this respect, the Board, however, came to the conclusion that the process of generating a metadata file may be technical, but not the metadata file as such:

5.4 The overall effect of the four modules is the generation of a metadata file which defines the structure of an OLAP cube and which is to be used by the claimed system’s conventional OLAP functionality.

This generated metadata file cannot be technically distinguished from the metadata file produced by the technical solution team of the prior art: the four claimed modules do not ensure any special property of the generated metadata file that translates into a technical effect, occurring when the file is used by the system’s conventional OLAP functionality, that is different from the technical effects that occur when a metadata file produced by a technical solution team is processed.

(…)

Hence, the generated metadata file does not represent a technical effect achieved over the prior-art OLAP system. Any technical effect is thus to be found in the generation process itself.

However, the Board considered the technical aspects of the generation to be trivial:

Indeed, the only technical features here relate to reading and writing data from and to files and the use of implicit input and output devices for receiving input from and presenting information to the user. Since these features are well known and are used for their normal purpose, they do not support an inventive step.

As a result, the Board dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2573/16 (OLAP-cube specification/ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES) of 6.11.2019.

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Displaying medical information on a patient monitor: non-technical

In this decision, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent on a specific way of displaying medical information on a patient monitor. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1442/16 (Cabrera ECG/PHILIPS) of 30.8.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05:

Key takeaways

One criterion for assessing the credibility of an alleged technical effect in inventions involving presentations of information is the distinction between subjective psychological factors and objective physiological factors.

Intuitiveness of presentations of information is not an objective effect, but rather a subjective one which depends on the user’s individual needs and preferences (confirmation of T 584/10 and T 407/11).

The invention

This European patent application relates to medical monitoring, in particular in the context of patient monitors that are used for the observation of the condition of the patient.

As explained in the background section, known patient monitors can display more than hundred different parameters and trigger alarm signals in case one or some of them shows an undesired behavior. Because of the large amount of displayed parameters it is sometimes difficult for a physician to quickly recognize a critical or undesired situation of the patient. The human bounded perception capabilities, worsen by the stress resulted from extreme medical situations like in operation procedures for example, hinder the complete perception of all the information offered by such monitors.

The patent application sets out to solve this problem essentially by displaying the data in a particular manner, namely using a number of multiaxis diagrams in which the position of the axes is related to the position of the sensors arranged on the patient. Fig. 2 shows an example of such multiaxis diagrams:

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A method of medical monitoring, the method comprising the steps of

– providing a plurality of sensors (2) and positioning the plurality of sensors (2) on a patient such that the plurality of sensors (2) define a particular arrangement,

– collecting data by means of the plurality of sensors (2);

– simultaneously displaying said data using a number of multiaxis diagrams (6, 7) such that(i) a position and an angle of each of the axes (8, 10) in any of the multiaxis diagrams represents a location of a respective sensor (2) of the plurality of sensors (2) in the particular arrangement, and(ii) on each axis (8, 10) data from its related sensor (2) is displayed.

Is it technical?

The board of appeal primarily dealt with claim 1 of auxiliary request III, since the findings applied equally to the more generic higher ranking requests. This claim version differed from the closest prior art in that each axis of the multiaxis diagrams displaying ECG data displays data from its respective ECG lead data, the position and the angle of each of the axes correspond to the location of the respective ECG lead in the arrangement according to which the respective ECG electrodes of the leads were positioned on the patient, and a 3D heart model is displayed together with the multiaxis diagrams, each of the axes in the multiaxis diagrams extending from the centre of the heart model.

According to the board, these features related to the presentation of information (which is one of the items on the exclusion list) and thus it had to be carefully assessed whether they produce a technical effect:

These features relate to presentations of information (Article 52(2)(d) EPC) and may only contribute to an inventive step if they produce a technical effect, i.e. if they contribute to the technical character of the claim by interacting with its technical features to solve a technical problem (see T 641/00, Headnote 1 and T 1143/06, point 3.4 of the reasons).

Interestingly, the appellants drew an analogy with the famous “Bildstrom” decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH, X ZR 37/13, GRUR 2015, 660 – Bildstrom of 26 February 2015), and argued that in this decision the FCJ reviewed and explicitly confirmed the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office in relation to presentations of information. That decision was, however, noteworthy in that it identified a category of inventions related to presentations of information other than the “what” (“die Vermittlung bestimmter Inhalte” in the citation below) and “how” (“deren Vermittlung in besonderer Aufmachung” in the citation below) categories regularly used by the EPO, namely those which exploit physiological characteristics of human perception so as to enable or improve the perception of presented information by a human.

The appellants were not aware of any such distinction having been made in the case law of the Boards of Appeal and asked the board to also recognise such inventions as contributing to the solution of a technical problem.

The board, however, held that also this alleged third category of technical inventions was already recognized by the EPO, but did not apply in the present case:

However, the distinction between subjective psychological factors and objective physiological factors when assessing the presence of a credible technical effect in inventions involving presentations of information has already been made in several decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (see e.g. T 862/10, point 4.2 of the reasons; T 1375/11, point 4.6 of the reasons). This is not a further category of inventions involving presentations of information, but rather one criterion for assessing the credibility of an alleged technical effect. In the present case, although the Cabrera system evidently reflects the anatomy of the patient, an arrangement of the axes of the diagrams according to the Cabrera system clearly has nothing to do with the physiological characteristics of the physician’s eye or visual system.

The appellants were not able to demonstrate credibly that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of auxiliary request III produced a technical effect. Accordingly, they relate to presentations of information as such and are non-technical features which have to be disregarded in the assessment of inventive step according to the established case law (see T 641/00, Headnote 1).

Therefore, claim 1 of the main request and auxiliary requests I to III was found not to involve an inventive step.

The appellants also tried an auxiliary request IVa which essentially defined that two polygonal patterns are formed by connecting the values of ECG data on each of two multiaxis diagrams representing the horizontal and vertical planes in which the cardiac electrical field is projected.

The argument was that these polygons created new patterns which did not exist in raw ECG data and which provided additional information to the physician for locating a condition in a patient’s heart. Polygonal patterns were a more intuitive representation than mere points plotted on axes and could convey further information through their shape.

The board, however, did not follow these arguments:

The board is not convinced by these arguments since intuitiveness of presentations of information is not an objective effect, but rather a subjective one which depends on the user’s individual needs and preferences (see T 584/10, point 1.1.4 of the reasons; T 407/11, point 2.1.4 of the reasons).

Thus, also this request was found to lack an inventive step.

Finally, the appellants succeeded in filing another auxiliary request with numerous features related to polygonal patterns and parameters calculated on the basis of these patterns, which had not have been searched yet. The board decided to remit the case to the examining division for further prosecution on the basis of these claims.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1442/16 (Cabrera ECG/PHILIPS) of 30.8.2019

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Persisting database objects: technical

In this decision, one board of appeal confirmed that concepts for persisting database objects are technical. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0731/17 (Object persistence/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of 15.1.2020 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Decision T 1954/08 cannot be taken to mean that any effect resulting from the implementation of a non-technical feature or combination of features is non-technical.

The concept of accessing information contained in a database store via a database server is technical functionality.

The invention

This European patent application relates to persisting objects in a data store. The background section explains that Microsoft SQL SERVER, which integrates the Microsoft Windows .NET Framework Common Language Runtime (CLR), allows creating a “user defined type” (UDT) class, instances of which can then be persisted in the database store.

UDTs extend the scalar type system of the database and can be used in the same contexts as a system type, such as in column definitions, variables, parameters, function results, cursors, triggers, and replication. The class that defines a UDT can include methods that implement specific behaviours on objects of that type.

An object of a UDT class is persisted in the database store by a process known as “object serialisation”, which transfers the values of the variables of the class to the database store’s physical storage.

When a database query which references a behaviour of a persisted UDT object is executed, the object has to be deserialised, memory for the full object has to be allocated in the CLR to receive the object’s stored values, and the method implementing the behaviour has to be invoked on the full object.

The invention aims to reduce the processing overhead associated with allocating memory for storing the full object at runtime, deserialising and populating all parts of the object, essentially by providing metadata that allows “direct structural access” to the field values in the serialised representation of the persisted object.

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (sole request)

A method of executing a query on an object in a system in which the object is an instance of a user defined type that is persisted in a database store, wherein a definition of the user defined type comprises one or more fields and behaviors,

wherein at least one of the behaviors returns a value of one of the fields of the user defined type,

wherein each field of the user defined type is annotated with a first attribute that controls one or more storage facets of the field, wherein the first attribute in combination with an actual type of the field is used to control a storage layout of the value of the field, wherein the storage facets of the field comprise at least one of the maximum size of the field, whether or not the field is fixed length, the precision of the field, the scale of the field, and whether values of the field can be null,

wherein each of the at least one of the behaviors returning a value of the fields of the user defined type is annotated with a second attribute that denotes an equivalent structural access path, wherein the second attribute specifies a name of the field that is the subject of the behavior, wherein the name is used as the equivalent structural access path for the behavior,

wherein the object type is defined as a class in managed code, managed code being code running within a Common Language Runtime, CLR, environment, and

wherein the database store maintains information reflecting the storage layout as provided by the annotations to the type definition, the method comprising:

receiving (406), by a database server, a query that includes a predicate or an expression that references a behavior of the at least one of the behaviors returning a value of one of the fields of an object that is an instance of the user defined type;

accessing, by the database server, the information maintained by the database store to determine the storage layout of instances of the user defined type;

translating (408), by the database server, the query into the equivalent structural access path for a value of the field of the user defined type that is the subject of the referenced behavior;

structurally accessing (410), by the database server, the value in a table of the database store by parsing the object that is persisted in the database store without populating all parts of the object in the CLR environment and without invoking the referenced behavior of the object in the managed code; and

returning, by the database server, the value in response to the query.

Is it technical?

In the first instance decision, the examining division had argued that the only technical features of then claim 1 were “system”, “database store”, “server” and “persisted values” and that all other claim features, when taken in isolation, were non-technical because they were directed to a “non-technical rationale for providing ‘more efficient storage and retrieval of objects persisted in a database store'”.

The examining division then cited decision T 1954/08, arguiing that the non-technical features did not interact with the technical features to make a technical contribution because “effects stemming from the algorithmi[c] definition of a method do not define a technical character of the corresponding features”. Consequently, claim 1 was found to lack an inventive step over a “notoriously known distributed computing environment comprising general purpose computers and a network”.

The board, however, held that this reasoning is flawed:

According to decision T 1954/08 of 6 March 2013, reasons 6.2, “the sole processing speed” of a computer-implemented algorithm and “the sole amount of memory” it requires are not suitable criteria for determining whether a method step contributes to the solution of a technical problem.

However, these statements in decision T 1954/08 cannot be taken to mean that any effect resulting from the implementation of a non-technical feature or combination of features is non-technical. If non-technical features could never contribute to a technical effect just because they are non-technical, there would be no need to analyse whether non-technical features interact with the technical subject-matter of the claim to solve a technical problem or bring about a technical effect, which would be contrary to opinion G 1/04 (OJ EPO 2006, 334), reasons 5.3, and decision T 154/04 (OJ EPO 2008, 46), reasons 5, under (F), and 13 to 15.

The board also found that the inventive-step reasoning itself as provided by the examining division was not convincing:

In the present case, any attempt to properly formulate a problem that potentially would have led the skilled person from a network of general-purpose computers to the subject-matter claimed should have confronted the Examining Division with the fact that the claim, not analysed as a collection of disconnected terms but as a whole, contains various technical concepts.

For example, the claimed method involves the concept of accessing information contained in a database store via a database server. Such technical functionality is not disclosed by a network of general-purpose computers. The Board is aware that database management systems were well known at the priority date of the application (see document D1, column 1, lines 27 to 30), but that does not mean that an inventive-step reasoning can silently ignore the concept.

6.5 The separate section of the decision discussing documents D1 and D2 contains no detailed analysis. If the Examining Division was of the view that document D1, in column 3, lines 56 to 62, discloses direct access to object attributes “without de-serialization” because the cited passage does not positively state that serialisation takes place, the Board observes that no disclosure of serialisation is not a disclosure of no serialisation.

Since inventive step over documents D1 to D4 had not yet been assessed in detail, and since doing so by the board itself would have effectively replaced the examining division rather than reviewed the contested decision in a judicial manner, the board decided to remit the case back to the examining division for further prosecution.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0731/17 (Object persistence/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of 15.1.2020

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Animating a graphics icon by superimposing an image sequence on a static background: non-technical

The European Patent Office refused to grant a patent on a GUI design of a household appliance such as a baking oven. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1818/14 (User interface for appliance/ELECTROLUX) of 2.12.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03:

Key takeaways

The manner of presentation of information, i.e. how it is displayed, may relate to solving a technical problem and thus be able to contribute to inventive step if the way the information is displayed credibly assists the user in performing a technical task.

The invention

This European patent application concerns a user interface for an appliance such as a baking oven. Essentially, as defined in claim 1, the user interface has a controller for controlling a display panel which has first and second display panel sections. The first display panel section displays at least one of a time course and chart of linear, arrowed or curved geometry of at least one operation parameter, and the second display panel displays an operational mode of the appliance, the operational mode being represented by an animated graphics icon, the animated graphics icon being a superposition of at least one pictogram and an image sequence of several images.

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

User interface adapted to an appliance of household or industrial type selected from the group consisting of baking ovens, microwave ovens, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators and freezers, comprising a display panel (1), and a controller adapted to controlling the display panel (1), and adapted to processing operational parameters of a preset or user defined program into display information, wherein the controller is adapted to display in a first display panel section (7) of the display panel (1) at least one of a time course (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and chart of linear, arrowed or curved geometry of at least one operational parameter, and wherein the controller is further adapted to display in a second display panel section (9, 10), other than the first display panel section (7), an operational mode of the appliance, the operational mode being represented by an animated graphics icon, and the animated graphics icon being a superposition of at least one pictogram (12) and an image sequence (13) of several images.

Is it technical?

The board based its inventive step reasoning on a prior art document which discloses a baking oven with a user interface. Implicitly, the user interface was controlled by a controller. There were also first and second display panel sections.

According to the board, claim 1 differed from this disclosure in that the animated graphics icon consists of a superposition of at least one pictogram and an image sequence of several images. Here is what the board said regarding the technical character of this difference:

In accordance with case law (cf. e.g. T 1185/13, point 4.1 of the reasons), the manner of presentation of information, i.e. how it is displayed, may relate to solving a technical problem and thus be able to contribute to inventive step if the way the information is displayed credibly assists the user in performing a technical task.

In the present case, the distinguishing features have no technical effect beyond the technical details of implementing an icon with a static part and an animated part. In particular, there is no improvement in the ability of the user to operate the oven by enabling further indications of the operational mode to be displayed, as argued by the appellant. In this respect, the animated graphics icon may be nothing more than a foreground representation of an oven with a background image sequence of burning wood, or a foreground picture symbolising the operational mode and an image sequence representing a fireplace with glowing coals (cf. paragraph [0056] of the description), which, when compared with D4, merely concerns a more aesthetically pleasing way of displaying the operational mode. Consequently, any improvement here lies within the field of a presentation of information (cf. Article 52(2)(d) EPC). Using the established COMVIK approach (cf. T 641/00), this aspect therefore does not contribute to inventive step.

The technical problem therefore reduces to that of how to implement technically an animated graphic icon consisting of a static part and a dynamic part. The claimed solution, i.e. the superposition of a pictogram and an image sequence, is deemed to be obvious to the skilled person based on common general knowledge, as it is well known that simple animation can be produced by a sequence of image frames (e.g. of a ball) superimposed on a background. A well-known example of this type of animation is the use of multiple image layers in the context of GIF (cf. EP 1 107 605 A2 (= D7), paragraph [0005], which refers to the prevailing state of the art). Further, in the case of D4, it is obvious that the “square box” part of the icon could be a static “pictogram”, and the changing grill bars could be represented by a sequence of images. Furthermore, the appellant has not claimed that creating simple animation in this manner was per se not known in the art.

Therefore, the board concluded that claim 1 lacks an inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1818/14 (User interface for appliance/ELECTROLUX) of 2.12.2019

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Increased security when collecting and selling customer data: non-technical

The European Patent Office refused to grant a software patent on collecting and selling customer data. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1039/13 (Updating information/EQUIFAX) of 11.12.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The Board is not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments that the alleged increased security is a technical effect that counts towards inventive step. It is rather a question of what and how much information to give away. That is something for the business person.

The invention

This European patent application concerns a method involving an information supplier that gathers information about consumers and sells it to a number of information buyers. The information buyers may use the processed information for marketing purposes.

Looking at Figure 1 of the published application, the information supplier (102) stores the consumer data in a “universe database file” (UF, 104). Each record in the UF has a “unique universe identifier” (UUID), which is stable over time. The information buyers (108A-N), on their end, store information about their existing or potential customers in “customer database files” (CF, 120a-n). The records in the CFs are indexed by a “unique customer identifier” (UCID):

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A computer method for managing and updating massive amounts of information relating to at least one event generating entity (106A-ZZ, 402) and contained in a networked computer system having:-

a) an information supplier (102, 206, 306) having at least one memory device to store, in an information supplier universe database file UF (104, 310), a plurality of customer database files CF (120, 204, 304), each having a plurality of record entries (420);

b) at least one information customer (108A-N,202,410a) computer having at least one memory device to store a customer data file CF (120a-n, 204);

c) an Internet, wireless communication link, or other real-time communication link operable between the customer computer and the supplier computer;

wherein the information supplier (102, 206, 306) computer is organised and arranged to:

i) receive raw data corresponding to at least one event generating entity (106, 402);

ii) process the raw data and generate at least one processed record entry (420);

iii) associate each processed record entry with a unique universe identifier UUID (404);

iv) store in at least one memory device a plurality of processed record entries (420) for the universe database file UF (104, 210, 310);

characterised in that the information supplier (102, 206, 306) computer is further organised and arranged to:

v) receive a transfer customer database file CF (120, 204, 304) from an information customer (108A-N,202, 410a) using storage devices or via any communication means, including wired or wireless communications such as satellite transmissions and the Internet;

vi) store in at least one memory device a plurality of transferred customer database files CF (120a-n, 204, 304);

vii) assign a unique customer identifier UCID (412) for each record entry contained in the transferred customer database files CF (120, 204, 304);

viii) compare the content of the transferred customer database files CF (120, 204, 304) with the content of the universe database file UF (104, 210, 310);

ix) generate a conversion table CT (218, 318, 440) providing a mapping between the unique customer identifiers UCID’s (412) and a corresponding set of unique universal identifiers UIID’s (404) contained in the universe database file UF (104, 210, 310);

x) update a portion of at least one record entry in a transferred customer database file CF (212) with information contained in the processed record entry associated with the unique universe identifier UUID (404) corresponding to the unique customer identifier UCID (412) associated with the at least one record entry; and,

xi) deliver an updated transfer customer database file to the information customer via communication means.

Is it technical?

Although the overall purpose of this application was to collect and sell customer data, claim 1 included a number of features concerning the database implementation. As summarized by the board:

Claim 1 of the main request covers the initial transfer of information from the information supplier to an information buyer as depicted in Figure 2 of the published application. At this stage, the information buyer’s CF is essentially a list of customers that it presumably already knows about, but whose records do not have UCIDs assigned to them (page 7, lines 18 to 19).

The information buyer sends the list of customers to the information supplier in a “transfer customer database file”. The information supplier assigns a UCID to each entry in the list, compares the list of customers with the information stored in the UF, and updates the customer database file (page 7, line 31 to page 8, line 8). The information supplier may, for example, add information about the customers’ income and debts. The information supplier also generates a conversion table (CT) that provides a mapping between the UCIDs and the UUIDs. The CT will be used for mapping the records in the CF to the records in the UF the next time the CF is to be updated (Figure 3; page 8, lines 18 to 28).

According to the board, claim 1 differed from the closest prior art in that the information buyer provides a database file to the information supplier, which, in turn, assigns unique identifiers (UCIDs) to the records in the file and updates them. The identifiers used for the customer database file are different from the UUIDs used in the central database. The information supplier also creates a conversion table between the UCIDs and the UUIDs.

The examining division had found that the provision of customer database files by the information buyer, as well as the updating of those files by the information supplier, were non-technical business requirements. The appellant argued that the invention increased the security of the information supplier’s database by limiting the extent to which it was accessed by outside systems, whilst also increasing the efficiency of information retrieval at the client end, because the CF could be hosted on the information buyer’s systems.

Thus, the key question and the point of dispute in this case was where to draw the line between the technical and non-technical features of the invention. Here is what the board said:

This is crucial, because the non-technical features are given to the skilled person as a set of requirements to implement. Since they are part of the problem rather than the solution, they cannot contribute to inventive step (see T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK).

Drawing the line between what is technical and not technical requires careful consideration of all the features of the invention and their associated effects.

In decision T 1463/11 (Universal merchant platform/CardinalCommerce), the “notional business person” was used as a tool for drawing the line between the non-technical requirements and the technical implementation of those requirements. The business person can require things such as “Move the money from the payer’s account to the payee’s account”, but the choice of technical means for carrying out the business requirements is normally left to the technical skilled person.

The Board is not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments that the alleged increased security is a technical effect that counts towards inventive step. It is rather a question of what and how much information to give away. That is something for the business person.

The Board agrees with the examining division that the invention is to a large extent a consequence of the relationship between the information supplier and the (plurality of) information buyers. The information supplier sells data to the information buyers. It wants to retain control over its data as much as possible. That is good for business. The information buyer keeps information about its customers or potential new customers. That is part of their business.

The business person might say: We (the information supplier) do not want to give away more information than necessary, and we want to control what information we give away. Give us a list of customers and we will update the records with information that we have about those customers. Thus, those are non technical requirements that are given to the skilled person.

It follows directly from the business requirements that the customer list be provided to the information supplier in some appropriate format, and that the information supplier update the file.

The Board also has doubts whether assigning a unique identifier (a key) to the customer records is technical. The business person could require: “We must be able to identify each customer.” In any case, the use of unique identifiers (primary keys) to identify records in a database was standard practice since long before the priority date.

The skilled person implementing the business requirements would assign keys to the customer records. Whether to use the same keys as in the central database or different keys is, from a technical point of view, a matter of convenient choice. In view of the non technical requirement “Don’t give away information”, using different keys would be the natural choice.

Furthermore, the keys used in the source systems in D6 are different from the keys in the central data warehouse. The skilled person would not see this as a teaching limited to data acquisition. On the contrary, he would recognise that the same arrangement could be used for the central database and the information buyer’s customer database.

Also, it is evident to the skilled person that, if different keys are used, a conversion between them is necessary. That is also known from D6.

Therefore, the board concluded that claim 1 lacks an inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1039/13 (Updating information/EQUIFAX) of 11.12.2019

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Customizing a shared online environment: non-technical

The European Patent Office refused to grant a software patent on a system for providing customized experiences to client stations in a shared environment. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1308/13 (Customised shared environment/DISNEY) of 17.12.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Customising a shared environment according to the users’ preferences, and adapting the interaction between different users within the shared environment so as to fit with each user’s customised environment, is a matter of presentation of information or playing a game.

The invention

This European patent application concerns an online shared environment, e.g. a virtual world or a computer game, in which users can interact in a chat.

Figure 2 shows an example of a shared environment. There is a room with a flower painting, a clock, and an animal (a cat). Users A, B, and C, are present in the room and can chat with each other:

The invention allows the users to customise the shared environment according to their individual preferences. User A likes cats and wants to see a cat. User B, on the other hand, prefers dogs, and user C wants to see a big fish in an aquarium. A problem arises when users A, B, and C interact with each other in relation to a customised element. For example, user B might write to user A “Isn’t that a cute dog?!”. However, user A who sees a cat will not know what user B is talking about.

The invention solves this problem by translating “interaction data” (the chat message in the example above) so that it fits with each user’s customised environment. In other words, the chat message “Isn’t that a cute dog?!” from user B to user A is translated into “Isn’t that a cute cat?!”, because user A’s customised environment comprises a cat. This is illustrated in Figure 3:

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1

A system for providing customized experiences to a plurality of client stations in a shared environment, the system comprising:

an online client application for execution by a client processor of a first client station of the plurality of client stations and for rendering the shared environment on a client display of the first client station;

an accounts database having data relating to a plurality of clients; and

an online server hosting the shared environment for access by the plurality of client stations, and the online server having a server processor configured to:

retrieve client data from the accounts database relating to a first client of the plurality of clients;

determine client preferences of the first client based on the client data;

create a customized environment from the shared environment according to the client preferences;

send the customized environment to the online client application executing on the first client station of the first client for rendering on the client display;

receive interaction data from the online client application of the first client station, the interaction data having interactions specific to a customizable element of the customized environment;

translate the interaction data separately for each of the plurality of client stations based on a particular customization of the customizable element by each of the other of the plurality of clients; and

send separately translated interaction data to each corresponding of the other of the plurality of client stations for rendering on the client display.

Is it technical?

The Board considered the background art described in the published application itself to be a good starting point for assessing inventive step. According to the published application, networked shared environments were known at the priority date. Those shared environments allowed users to interact with each other. However, it was not possible to customise the elements of the shared environment itself.

The invention in claim 1 thus differed from the known shared environment by the customisation of elements of the shared environment, and the translation of interaction data relating to a customised element of the shared environment.

The appellant argued that the invention solved the technical problem of reconciling customised individual personalisation with a shared social environment. However, without success:

The Board does not share the appellant’s view that this is a technical problem. Customising a shared environment according to the users’ preferences, and adapting the interaction between different users within the shared environment so as to fit with each user’s customised environment, is a matter of presentation of information or playing a game, i.e. it falls within the categories of excluded matter in Article 52(2) EPC.

Neither decision T 1177/97 nor T 769/92 helps the appellant’s case. According to T 1177/97, a piece of information that is used in a technical system may have technical character if it solves a technical problem in that system. However, the Board does not see that any technical problem is solved by the distinguishing features of the invention in claim 1. Furthermore, the Board does not see that the invention in claim 1 involves any technical considerations other than those relating to the computer implementation.

According to T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK, non-technical features, i.e. features that fall within the non-exhaustive categories of excluded matter in Article 52(2) EPC, do not contribute to inventive step. Such features are instead considered to be part of the framework of the technical problem to be solved, which is often a set of requirements to be implemented. The Board considers that the invention in claim 1 solves the problem of implementing the customisation and the translation of interaction data in the known shared environment. In the Board’s view, the implementation would have been obvious to the skilled person using routine programming.

Therefore, the board concluded that claim 1 lacks an inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1308/13 (Customised shared environment/DISNEY) of 17.12.2019

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Cost-based optimisation of a query in a relational database system: technical

The European Patent Office considered cost-based optimisation of a query in a relational database system technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1965/11 (Cost-based materialised view selection/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of 24.3.2017 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Retrieving data in a computer database is normally considered to have technical character.

More specifically, cost-based query optimisation that searches for low-cost query execution plans using a cost estimate for computer resources involves further technical considerations.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision relates to a database query optimizer that selects materialized views on a cost basis (cf. EP 1 193 618 A2, para. [0001]). A known concept regarding databases is to materialize (store) the result of queries and then use the computed result when similar queries are submitted to the database (cf. EP 1 193 618 A2, para. [0004]). For maximum flexibility, applications should not need to be aware that certain views exist, or are materialized. A query processor should identify matches between user queries and existing pre-computed results, and use such results when applicable (cf. EP 1 193 618 A2, para. [0005]). However, on some complex queries, view utilization will be possible only in sub-expressions of the complete query. These sub-queries may appear only after some reordering has taken place, which is a time-consuming task (cf. EP 1 193 618 A2, para. [0009]). Hence, the present application aims at providing a cost based query optimizer that determines the applicability of materialized views to a query. View utilization alternatives are generated in the exploration stage of optimization, so that interaction with other transformations in complex queries is taken into account. A final decision on whether to use a materialized view is based on estimated costs (cf. EP 1 193 618 A2, para. [0010]).

Fig. 2 of EP 1 193 618 A2

Claim 1 (auxiliary request IV)

1. A method for a computer-implemented query optimizer for selecting an execution plan for use in execution of a relational database query, the method comprising:

generating, by a cost-based query optimizer, a table (300) of alternatives, the table (300) of alternatives comprising several groups, one group having a root entry representing the database query and additional entries representing alternative possibilities for executing the database query and the other groups having root entries representing sub-expressions of the database query and additional entries representing alternative possibilities for executing the respective sub-expression of the database query;

selecting candidate views for the query from a number of materialized views by using information about what database tables are referenced in the query and whether or not the query contains aggregations;

for each root entry,

extracting an operator tree for the root entry,

collapsing binary joins contained in the operator tree to obtain a query graph for the root entry, the query graph listing all underlying tables along with predicates that are applied on them,

matching the query graph for the root entry and the candidate views, and

if a match is found, extending the table (300) of alternatives with the corresponding candidate view by extending the group of the root entry with the corresponding candidate view; and

using the cost based query optimizer to select an execution plan based on the extended table (300) of alternatives.

Is it patentable?

The examining division rejected the present application at the end of the examining phase due to added subject-matter. This decision was appealed. In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision be set aside and also asked the Board to decide that the claims of at least the fourth auxiliary requests were allowable.

A plurality of prior art documents were discussed during the oral hearing. When it came to the assessment of inventive step, the Board in charge argued as follows:

5.1 According to decision T 1569/05 of 26 June 2008, reasons 3.6, retrieving data in a computer database is normally considered to have technical character. While the method of claim 1 does not include the actual data retrieval, the Board considers that the cost-based optimisation of a query in a relational database system has normally technical character (see T 1003/09 of 29 April 2015, reasons 13.3 and 13.5). Such cost-based query optimisation searches for low-cost query execution plans using a cost estimate for the computer resources (such as CPU, main memory or hard disk) needed to execute a query plan (see D8, section 2, for technical background). Hence, this cost-based approach involves further technical considerations (see opinion G 3/08, “Programs for computers”, OJ EPO 2011, 10, reasons 13.5) relating to the internal functioning of the computer system.

Furthermore, the Board was of the opinion that none of the cited prior art documents could render-obvious the subject-matter as defined by claim 1 of auxiliary request IV:

5.3 None of these prior-art documents addresses the problem of extending a table of alternatives generated by the query optimiser by adding further alternatives using materialised views. The invention makes it possible to find low-cost query execution plans that make use of the available materialised views in order to improve query performance (see page 2, third paragraph). Moreover, in order to explore the search space for such low-cost query execution plans, it proposes integrating the materialised views into the table of alternatives during the plan exploration stage. For this integration, it is necessary to match query plans with materialised views in order to identify useful plan alternatives for such views. The invention teaches using query graphs for the matching in order to substantially reduce the complexity of extracting operator trees which encode a specific join order. In the technical context of query optimisation in relational database systems, this teaching is based on further technical considerations and solves the problem of providing a technically feasible implementation, in particular one that achieves an acceptable time complexity for query optimisation in relational database systems.

As a result, the Board remitted the application back to the examining division with the order to grant a patent based on auxiliary request IV.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1965/11 (Cost-based materialised view selection/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of 24.3.2017.

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (auxiliary request IV)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop