Author Archive

Detecting relative movement between a user’s face and an augmented reality element: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for controlling an augmented reality (AR) user interface by detecting a user’s face and its movement relative to AR elements displayed on a device screen. The key features at issue were the detection of relative movement between a facial reference feature and a first AR element, and the subsequent modification of the AR element’s presentation along with the display of a further AR element. The Board of Appeal considered these distinguishing features to be non-technical, as they relate to the presentation of information as such.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0971/24 (User interface for augmented reality/SNAP) of 5 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

Detecting relative movement between a user’s face and an augmented reality element, and modifying the AR element’s presentation accordingly, concerns the presentation of information as such and is non-technical. Controlling the presentation of AR objects on a GUI does not constitute a “technical task” performed on a device within the meaning of the established case law (T 336/14, T 1802/13).

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The application relates to an augmented reality system for controlling a user interface with an object depicted within the user interface. The system initiates an augmented reality mode on a device, such as a smartphone, configured to present AR elements within a graphical user interface. A face of the user is detected within the field of view of a camera coupled to the device. In response to detecting the face, a set of AR elements is sequentially presented within the GUI, with a subset of AR elements and the face depicted contemporaneously. Movement of a reference feature of the face is detected by tracking landmark points across video frames. The movement is detected relative to a first AR element, which itself changes positions across successively captured frames. In response to detecting this relative movement, the system modifies the presentation of the first AR element and presents at least one second AR element. A practical example described in the application is a game where AR objects fly toward the user’s face, and the user dodges or catches them by moving their face or the device.

  • Main request, claim 1

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application on the basis that, among other grounds, the claims lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC and certain auxiliary requests contained added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. With respect to inventive step, the Examining Division relied on document D1 (EP 2759909 A2), which likewise discloses a method relating to augmented reality where movement of parts of an image is detected and the presentation of a virtual object is modified. The Examining Division found that D1 disclosed all features of claim 1 except the detection of relative movement between the face and the AR element (feature (e)) and the resulting modification and presentation of a further AR element (feature (h)). The Examining Division considered these distinguishing features to relate to presentation of information as such and held that in both D1 and the present invention, movement of displayed objects is detected regardless of whether they are AR objects or a video of real objects. For the second to fourth auxiliary requests, the Examining Division found that the combination of features relating to detecting relative movement (feature (e)) and determining a proximity threshold (feature (j)) constituted an impermissible combination of separately disclosed embodiments, violating Article 123(2) EPC.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the distinguishing features provided several technical effects, namely facilitating interactions between a user and an AR object, enabling real-time control of AR objects through real physical movements, enabling control of functions of a device through real physical movements, and providing an improved method of control for a computer device. The Appellant submitted that the objective technical problem should be formulated as “how to facilitate control of a device or GUI with a captured real world object.” With respect to obviousness, the Appellant argued that D1 taught away from the distinguishing features because D1 detected simply the movement of two real objects, functioning as a mirror without any interaction between the user and the objects. The Appellant also relied on a number of Board of Appeal decisions in support of its position that the distinguishing features provided a technical effect. Regarding added subject-matter, the Appellant argued that paragraphs [0053], [0061], and [0062] and Figure 7 of the application as filed provided a clear basis for combining operation 340 of method 300 (Figure 3) with the steps of method 700 (Figure 7), pointing to paragraph [0053] which stated that “certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300.” The Appellant further argued that the combination was based on the “intention of the invention,” was “intuitive for the skilled person,” and constituted “a very natural and intuitive pairing of features.”

The Board’s analysis

Main request (inventive step)

The Board held that the distinguishing features (e) and (h) did not lead to any technical effect. In particular:

  1. It was not apparent which interactions would actually be facilitated. When the user’s face does not move and the AR object moves, the presentation of the AR object is modified without any input by the user’s face.
  2. “Real physical movements” do not lead to a control of AR objects. According to feature (e), it is the relative movement that is detected, which may equally result from movement of the AR element alone.
  3. Controlling the presentation of AR objects on a GUI is not per se a “technical task” performed on a device within the meaning of T 336/14 (catchword) and T 1802/13 (Reasons 2.1.5). Claim 1 does not refer to any device functions beyond the modification of the presentation of an AR object and the presentation of a further AR object.
  4. The relevant features concern the presentation of information as such and are non-technical (citing T 1143/06, T 1741/08, and T 336/14).
  5. The reference to paragraph [0025] of the application made by the Appellant did not relate to the distinguishing features.

Since the distinguishing features have no technical effect, the Board reformulated the objective technical problem using the COMVIK approach (T 641/00): to modify the method of D1 such that when relative movement between the face and the AR element is detected, the presentation thereof is modified and a further AR element is displayed. The Board found that the skilled person would have effortlessly solved this problem, as the detection referred to does not pose any difficulties to a skilled person in GUI design and the claimed subject-matter does not provide any additional information regarding technical implementation. The Board was not persuaded by the teaching-away argument, agreeing with the Examining Division that in both D1 and the invention, movement of displayed objects is detected regardless of whether they are AR objects or real objects.

First auxiliary request (inventive step)

The added features (i) and (b1) relate to depicting the first AR element as passing behind a portion of the user and specifying the face as that of a user. The Board held that these features concern a mere presentation of information, in particular the manner how information is presented (cf. T 1802/13), and thus cannot contribute to inventive step either. The first auxiliary request was rejected for the same reasons as the main request.

Second to fourth auxiliary requests (added subject-matter)

The Board endorsed the Examining Division’s finding that these requests violated Article 123(2) EPC. The combination of feature (e) (detecting relative movement) with feature (j) (determining a proximity threshold) extended beyond the original disclosure because these features relate to separate embodiments (Figures 3-6 vs. Figures 7-10). The Board found that paragraphs [0061] and [0062] and Figure 7 do not actually disclose “detecting a movement of a reference feature of the face relative to the first augmented reality element.” Although paragraph [0053] states that “certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300,” the description does not disclose which operations may be combined, and the result of detecting relative movement plays no particular role in these auxiliary request claims. The Board also rejected the Appellant’s criteria of “intention of the invention,” “intuitive for the skilled person,” and “a very natural and intuitive pairing of features” as unsuitable standards under Article 123(2) EPC, which requires that the combination be derivable directly and unambiguously from the application as originally filed.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. For the main request and the first auxiliary request, the Board found that the distinguishing features over D1 relate to the presentation of information as such and do not produce any technical effect. Including these non-technical features in the formulation of the objective technical problem under the COMVIK approach, the Board concluded that the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed subject-matter without inventive effort. For the second to fourth auxiliary requests, the Board confirmed that the specific combination of features from different embodiments was not originally disclosed, constituting added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. The application was therefore refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0971/24 (User interface for augmented reality/SNAP) of 5 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Duplicating hardware components: non-technical

The invention underlying the discussed decision concerns a supply chain management device with dual biometric scanners and dual card readers that authenticates both a supplier and a recipient during a product handover within a 10-second “virtual handshake.” The Board of Appeal found that the use of a dual device (paired scanners and readers) was an obvious design choice and that the transaction time constraint and authentication sequencing reflected non-technical business rules, ultimately confirming the refusal for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0520/22 (Logging the transfer of a product/GB-E) of 15 April 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Duplicating hardware components (e.g., using a pair of biometric scanners and card readers instead of a single set) to allow parallel user input is an obvious design trade-off, not an inventive technical contribution. Transaction rules — such as requiring both parties to authenticate within a fixed time window — are non-technical requirements that cannot support inventive step, even when they impose constraints on hardware design.

The invention

The BoA summarized the invention as follows:
The invention relates to a method for monitoring and tracking transactions in a supply chain, specifically the distribution of goods from a supplier to a recipient, such as the delivery of a pharmaceutical product from a pharmacist to a customer. The primary objective is to improve transparency, traceability, allocation, and accountability of resources along the supply chain. This is achieved by requiring that both the supplier and the recipient are present and successfully identify and authenticate themselves using a single supply chain management device. The device integrates a pair of biometric fingerprint or finger vein scanners and a pair of smart card readers, one for each participant. Authentication is performed by comparing a live biometric sample captured by the scanner against biometric data stored on the participant’s individual smart card. Only after the supplier (operator) is successfully authenticated is the product-identifying component — such as a barcode scanner — activated to scan the product. A data record on a remote server is then updated, linking the identifiers of the supplier, the recipient, and the product. An additional feature is a time constraint: all three identifiers must be captured within a predefined interval of 10 seconds or less, forming a so-called “virtual handshake,” and if this condition is not met, the transaction is cancelled.

  • Sole Request — Claim 1

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The examining division held that claim 1 defined an administrative logistics scheme implemented in a straightforward manner on well-known hardware — namely a computer with a display, two smart card readers, two fingerprint or finger vein scanners, and a barcode scanner or RFID reader. In its view, the claim was a direct mapping of non-technical requirements onto conventional components and therefore lacked an inventive step.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that the examining division had incorrectly applied the Comvik approach (T 0641/00) by disregarding key technical features. Specifically, the appellant contended that:

  1. The dual device — a single supply chain management device integrating a pair of card readers and a pair of biometric scanners — was a significant technical feature that should not have been ignored.
  2. The 10-second transaction time interval imposed a meaningful technical constraint on the system.
  3. Features F1 (pair of scanners), F2 (pair of card readers with smart-card-based biometric authentication), and F4 (10-second interval) produced a synergistic technical effect: they ensured a reliable and secure transfer by enabling both participants to authenticate in parallel and nearly simultaneously, constituting a “virtual handshake.”
  4. Using a smart card for local biometric retrieval (instead of querying a remote database, as in D1) enabled faster authentication, and this speed advantage was enhanced by the dual hardware enabling parallel operation.
  5. D1 (WO 2013/106584 A1) taught away from the claimed solution, because enforcing a 10-second transaction window would not be practical within D1’s framework. There was no incentive to modify D1 toward a dual device.

The Board’s analysis

The Board agreed with the appellant on one point: the examining division’s characterization of the claim as a straightforward mapping was not entirely correct. However, the Board ultimately found no inventive step over D1, for the following reasons:

1. Non-technical transaction rules (Features F3 and F4)

The Board held that the concept of identification and authentication of participants in a product transfer, and the registration or tracking thereof, does not involve technical considerations at an abstract level. The specific transaction rules — i.e., that both participants must authenticate, that the product scanner is activated only after provider authentication (F3), and that all identifiers must be captured within 10 seconds (F4) — were either formulated by a business person or reflected legal requirements such as the U.S. Drug Supply Chain Security Act. The 10-second interval was characterized as arbitrary and set merely to ensure identifiers are obtained “near simultaneously.” Consistent with T 1082/13, the Board viewed the timeout criterion as a non-technical rule defining a valid transaction time.

2. No synergistic effect (Features F1 and F2)

The Board rejected the appellant’s synergy argument. It found that the effects of using smart cards for local biometric data retrieval and of using a dual device for parallel authentication operate independently. Using a smart card instead of a remote database is functionally unrelated to whether authentication occurs via a single or dual device. The combination therefore does not yield a technical effect beyond the sum of its individual contributions, making it a mere aggregation to be assessed separately.

3. Individual features are obvious

Smart cards for biometric authentication were well-known before the priority date — a fact not contested by the appellant.
A dual device instead of a single device offers at most subjective advantages (e.g., convenience). The Board noted it is obvious that duplicating hardware components can allow multiple users to input data in parallel. A skilled person would choose between a single or dual device based on standard design trade-offs — convenience, cost, and portability — none of which support inventive step in this case.

4. Alleged effects not reliably achieved

The Board observed that several of the appellant’s claimed effects depend on unspecified conditions. For example, if the remote database is small, querying it may be faster than inserting a smart card. Similarly, while a dual device may speed up the authentication step, it does not necessarily reduce overall transaction time, which also depends on the product scanning step. Feature F3 could even increase transaction time, as the provider must complete authentication before scanning the product.

5. No teaching away in D1

The appellant’s argument that D1 teaches away from a 10-second time interval amounted to claiming a non-technical prejudice. The Board found no indication of any technical barrier that would prevent a skilled person from setting such a time interval if required. Implementing the constraint using timestamps of scanning events would be a routine task.

Conclusion

The Board concluded that the distinguishing features over D1 either reflect non-technical business or regulatory requirements or represent obvious design choices for the skilled person. Claim 1 of the sole request was found to lack an inventive step under Article 56 EPC. The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the application was confirmed.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0520/22 (Logging the transfer of a product/GB-E) of 15 April 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Shipping documentation: non-technical

The application concerns shipping documentation processing operation that spawns intelligent generation subprocesses. The Board of Appeal (BoA) held that the claimed subject matter is not technical. 

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1851/22 of December 12, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The presence of algorithmic steps conceived by a computer programmer, rather than by a business person, is not sufficient to confer technicality to the claimed subject-matter, since computer programs are not inventions and are excluded as such from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.  

The mere automation of administrative steps on generic computer means does not lend technicality to the steps per se.

The invention

The BoA summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application concerns the generation of shipping documentation. Known systems, although partially automated, are said to require a degree of user interaction. At various steps, users are required to enter or select information and are presented with advices, warnings or error messages they must resolve. All this must generally be completed before the system starts the generation of the shipping label, and this may render the overall process slow and tedious (see description, [0005], [0006]).

2. To overcome these problems, when the user starts the documentation generation process, one or more of verifications, checks, warnings or the like (collectively referred to as advices) are suspended, and a default configuration is used in respect of various configuration factors which would normally be entered by the user ([0008], [0009], [0035]). The user then selects one or more orders for which the documentation generation subprocess must be started ([0038], [0039]). For the selected orders, the system determines whether critical issues concerning the suspended advices or the current default configuration are present and, if so, tries to solve them (“failure state mitigation processing”). For example, if the postage funds are insufficient, the system may initiate a postage fund refill operation ([0048], [0049]). The system proceeds to generate the documentation only if either no issues were detected or all the detected issues were resolved ([0051], [0052]).

 

Fig.1 of EP3427202

  • Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request reads as follows:

Is it patentable?

The BoA started with the assessment of the third auxiliary request, being the highest ranking auxiliary request.

According to the BoA, the mere generation of shipping documentation (i.e., a dataset) does not have a technical significance and is not used for a technical purpose:

5. Claim 1 defines a method for generating shipping documentation. The method does not imply the production of a physical document or the display of the documentation to the user but the mere generation of a dataset which, in itself, does not have a technical significance and is not used for a technical purpose.

Moreover, the following steps of claim 1:

  • populating a documentation queue (304) of the shipping management system (111) with an instance representing an intelligent generation subprocess adapted to autonomously generate the shipping documentation for the one or more orders (303)
  • spawning (206) the instance of the intelligent generation subprocess to autonomously generate (207) the shipping documentation for the one or more orders (303) using the defaulted one or more configuration factors

are interpreted as defining the load (“populating” step) and the executing (“spawning” step) of a software module (the “intelligent generation subprocess”) on generic computer means.

The remaining steps in claim 1 were also found to be not technical:

7. None of the remaining steps involves any technical consideration concerning, for example, the machine on which they are implemented or any underlying technical process. In particular, in the absence of any technical detail, the Board regards the “shipping management system advices”, the “configuration factors”, the conditions used to determine the presence of critical issues and the manner in which such issues are resolved as non-technical, administrative requirements. Pursuant to the well-established Comvik approach, they may be considered as requirements provided to the skilled person for implementation.

The appellant argued that while the “notional business person” might come up with the abstract idea of automating the generation of shipping documentation, they would not be able to define “new devices, infrastructure or protocols necessary, such as those defined in the independent claims”. Moreover, at least defining when the failure state mitigation processing was initiated (i.e. in response to a critical issue arising from a suspended advice or defaulting a configuration factor) implied technical considerations. However, the BoA did not agree:

10. This is not, however, sufficient to lend technicality to these steps. The presence of algorithmic steps conceived by a computer programmer, rather than by a business person, is not sufficient to confer technicality to the claimed subject-matter, since computer programs are not inventions and are excluded as such from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC. Such steps have a technical character only in so far as they involve technical considerations, for example concerning the implementing machine or a controlled technical device or process, and may contribute to the assessment of inventive step only if they solve a technical problem by providing a technical effect.

11. The definition of critical issues, that is, issues indicating “that shipping documentation processing should not or cannot be performed” (see claim 1), is considered part of the underlying non-technical requirements. It follows directly from this definition that these issues must be overcome in order to produce the documentation. Furthermore, even if it were considered technical, the choice of the point in time at which the state mitigation processing is initiated (i.e. after the issue has been identified and before the documentation is generated) would be self-evident and could not support an inventive step.

Furthermore, the appellant argued that the technical problem solved was “how to reduce the occurrence of failures in an automated computer process”.

However, the BoA did not agree:

14. The Board disagrees with this formulation. The alleged reduction in the occurrence of failures in the generation of the shipping documentation is achieved, if at all, through non-technical, administrative steps. Here again, the mere automation of these steps on generic computer means does not lend technicality to the steps per se.

In the end, the BoA concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1851/22 of December 12, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Allocating time-slots to trucks: non-technical

The application concerns methods and devices for management of resources and of traffic flow related to the transfer of goods, especially containerised goods, by truck, to and from a terminal, such as a shipping terminal. Both the Examining Division (ED) and the Board of Appeal (BoA) held that the claimed subject matter is not inventive over D5 (US 2009/021347 A1).

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0754/22 of November 4, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Scheduling trucks into specific time-slots to avoid too many trucks showing up at once is a non-technical activity.

Bonus effects, even if they were considered technical, do not confer technical character upon the scheduling method and, therefore, cannot support an inventive step.

The invention

The BoA summarized the invention as follows:

1.1 The invention relates to managing the traffic flow at a shipping terminal where containers are transferred between vessels and trucks.

Typically, trucks arriving at the terminal are serviced on a “first come, first-served” or “first in, first out” (FIFO) basis resulting in inefficiencies, delays and causing pollution (see page 7, lines 6 to 18 of the A1 publication).

1.2 The core idea of the invention is to allocate specific time-slots to trucks, ensuring that each truck aligns its arrival at the terminal with its assigned time slot (page 14, lines 1 to 15).

A terminal operator manually allocates resources and corresponding time-slots to service vessels and trucks. This information is entered into a reservation system’s database (page 15, lines 1 to 27). As illustrated in Figures 3A to 3D, a truck operator can access the system remotely, reserve a time-slot for truck service, and enter various details such as the truck’s license number.

1.3 The system incorporates dynamic rescheduling: In the event of schedule disruptions, warning messages are dispatched to truck drivers affected by the changes (page 22, lines 27 to 31). Conversely, if a truck driver experiences delays, he can communicate this to the reservation system, which then provides a new time-slot (page 25, lines 14 to 20).

1.4 The reservation system timely alerts the truck driver to proceed to the designated lane at the terminal entrance, which is obstructed by a barrier. When the truck reaches its turn, a “truck-identifier device” scans the license plate (“identity” in claim 1) and transmits the information to a terminal control system. This system then verifies the match with the reservation, and if successful, the barrier is opened (page 39, line 9 to page 40, line 5).

 

Fig.2 of EP2805290

  • Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows (feature labelling by the Board):

Is it patentable?

The BoA judges that claim 1 is not inventive over D5 and the skilled person’s common general knowledge:

2.1.2 It differs from claim 1 in features F1 to F7 and in the data used for the discrepancy check in feature F11.

As explained in the following, the distinguishing features boil down to a scheduling method, i.e. a non-technical activity scheduling trucks into specific time-slots to avoid too many trucks showing up at once.

These activities include: providing time-slots available for servicing trucks at the terminal, based on certain criteria (F2); a trucking operator reserving a time-slot, not more than 30 minutes long, for a specific truck and service (F1, F3); moving the reserved slot from an “available” list to an “unavailable” list (F3); associating the reserved slot with information about the truck and the service to be performed (F4); a terminal operator allocating resources to service vessels, which causes certain time-slots to become unavailable (F5); notifying a truck driver of any changes to the reservation (F6); allowing a truck driver to report delays in real-time (F7); and allowing a truck to enter the terminal when it arrives at the reserved time-slot (F11).

2.1.3 Essentially, the distinguishing features define a method that allows a terminal operator to set available time-slots for servicing trucks, enables a truck operator to book a time-slot, and by which the parties involved can communicate changes to the schedule.

Choosing and setting up a scheduling method generally does not require any technical insight. For example, appointments at a doctor’s office, repair shop, or hair salon typically follow a bookable time-slot model rather than a walk-in basis. In practice, it is usually the shop owner or manager who defines the scheduling rules, such as how far in advance customers may book, the duration of time-slots, or whether appointments are required at all. These are administrative decisions which do not require technical skill or address a technical problem. Technical aspects become relevant only in the implementation of such a scheme.

The appellant argued that the claimed reservation system generated an output signal to physically open a barrier which was a technical solution to the problem of “reduc[ing] the time trucks wait in the FIFO queue of a terminal without adversely affecting the needs of the ships”. In the appellant’s view, this resulted in further technical effects such as improved usage of the terminal’s resources or reduced carbon emissions (see statement of grounds of appeal, first half of page 5). However, the BoA did not agree:

2.2 … First, the Board notes that not the reservation system, but the control system using data from the reservation system opens the barrier. This is also the case in D5 (see paragraph [0050]).

Second, while scheduling through bookable time-slots may indeed be more efficient, i.e. resulting in a reduced waiting time or improved resource management, than other approaches – such as a “first come, first served” system (FIFO queue) – this is an inherent property of the scheduling method itself and as such cannot be considered a technical effect. Other possible effects or benefits such as improved working conditions for truck drivers or reduced carbon emissions are, if at all, a direct and inevitable consequence of the scheduling method and therefore mere bonus effects. Such effects, even if they were considered technical, do not confer technical character upon the scheduling method and, therefore, cannot support an inventive step.

In the end, the BoA concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0754/22 of November 4, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Risk management of sports-associated businesses: non-technical

The application concerns risk management for enterprises associated with sports activities, particularly involving the calculation of a sports-based financial index on which futures, options, or other derivative contracts could be traded. Both the Examining Division (ED) and the Board of Appeal (BoA) held that the claimed subject matter lacked technical character.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0710/22 of June 26, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Mathematical and administrative calculations on economic and sports related data do not make an inventive technical contribution.

 

The invention

The application discloses systems and methods for generating sports-based financial indices (“sports risk indices”, SRI) by applying statistical models to input variables (e.g. attendance, media ratings, demographic and economic data) that reflect the economic value and risk associated with sports participants or businesses. These indices are intended to underlie derivative contracts (e.g. futures, options) which can be traded or used by enterprises to hedge or otherwise manage sports-related financial risk.

 

Fig.1 of EP2353137

  • Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

Is it patentable?

The BoA applied the classic COMVIK approach and assessed the technical and non-technical features as follows:

2.3 The Board agrees with the contested decision that the technical features of claim 1 consist of a system comprising one or more processing components, one or more data-storage components, and one or more communication interfaces, the processor, data-storage, and communication interface components being configured for receiving and storing information in a database of the data storage and a user terminal providing a structured and hierarchical arrangement of successive display screens whereby a user is able to make selections.

However, the Board is not convinced that the information based on the user selections made using the terminal being a reduced selection from the full range of available information actually contributes to the technical character of the claim.

2.4 The Board agrees that the features outlined in point 16.5 of the decision were known from the closest prior art D1. …

2.5 The subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D1 in the claimed steps for deriving a sports risk index (SRI) model, which are regarded as business related administrative aspects.

The aim of claim 1 is to calculate a value (sports risk index, SRI) using a model (SRI model) derived from received data (sports variables describing economic values and/or associated risks of a sports activity and a plurality of further sports variables determining or explaining such values or risks of the sports activity). The SRI model can calculate values of the SRI of subsequently received data.

These steps, however, do not make an inventive technical contribution, since they are based on mathematical and administrative calculations on economic and sports related data. In the Board’s view, such data 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 are administrative measures when creating a sports risk index (SRI) model. Additionally making use of general purpose computer functions (e.g. storing and retrieving information and sports variables in electronic form) does not create a further technical effect.

The fact that the steps of retrieving, selecting and creating are performed automatically is an obvious consequence of using a computer system.

…

2.9 The Board has doubts that a simplification of calculation in the invention by sacrificing a tiny amount of accuracy in order to save time and computing power is achieved by technical means. It rather appears that the appellant has come up with a new concept for facilitating management of sports-associated economic risk, in particular of calculating an SRI index, i.e. non-technical data (see above), which is in the sphere of the non-technical business person and, hence, would be part of the requirement specification given to the technical person, the programmer, for implementation. It does not therefore involve an inventive technical contribution, since there are no details given as to how such an implementation is achieved. There are no technical hurdles which would require non-obvious programming skills.

Therefore, the BoA concluded that, in the absence of any technical contribution beyond the straight-forward computer implementation, the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0710/22 of June 26, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Isolated islands of cryptography: non-technical

The opposed patent relates to a hearing device and related method.  The patent propieter argued that the interrelated claim features provided a credible technical effect of secure, resource-efficient hearing device communication, supported by expert declarations. However, the Board disagreed and held that the alleged technical effect was not credibly achieved across the claim scope.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1465/23 of June 24, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

The problem-solution approach may be terminated at this stage if the distinguishing features do not credibly achieve any technical effect over the whole scope claimed.

The introduction of a distinguishing feature having no credible technical effect may then be considered to be no more than an arbitrary modification of the design of a known subject-matter which, being arbitrary, cannot involve an inventive step under Article 56 EPC.

The invention

The Board summarize the invention as follows:

1.1 The opposed patent addresses the problem of securing wireless communications for hearing devices. The background section of the opposed patent explains that, as hearing devices become more advanced, they increasingly communicate wirelessly with external devices like fitting apparatuses or smartphones. This use of open standard-based communication interfaces poses, according to the opposed patent, security challenges, making the hearing device vulnerable to attacks that could cause malfunction or battery exhaustion. A further challenge in that regard is that hearing devices are resource-constrained in terms of computational power and memory, i.e. that complex, “off-the-shelf” security algorithms and protocols cannot be readily implemented.

1.2 To solve this problem, the opposed patent proposes a hearing device and a corresponding method for establishing a secure communication session between the hearing device and a client/fitting device. The claimed solution is based on a specific authentication protocol, which is best illustrated by the signalling diagram depicted in Figure 4 of the opposed patent…

Fig.2 of EP3113515

  • Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows (board's feature labelling):

Is it patentable?

The patent propieter argued that the distinguishing features provid the following effect:

2.2 The respondent submitted that the technical effect of features (b) to (h) was to provide a hearing device that was “capable of performing various levels of authentication of a communicating party and received messages as well as deriving keying material for securing communication, e.g. against eavesdropping and modification attacks as illustrated in the application as filed, page 2 lines 15-19”. During the oral proceedings before the board, this was refined to providing protection against “modification attacks” (cf. page 2, lines 12 to 14 of the application as filed).

However, the Board disagreed:

2.3 The board is not satisfied that the technical effects mentioned by the respondent are credibly achieved by the claimed features, especially by the combination of features (b) to (h), over the whole scope of claim 1 as granted. In particular, this claim is silent on any “levels of authentication” and its features do not necessarily imply protection against attacks such as “eavesdropping” or “modification”. Instead, as the appellant argued during the oral proceedings before the board, the features of claim 1 as granted constitute a mere aggregation of functionally disconnected security-related jargon, i.e. a collection of “islands of cryptography” without a clear and reliable interrelationship. The respondent’s counter-argument that these features were all causally interrelated was not substantiated beyond a mere reference to the use of definite articles (e.g. “the session” and “the verification”). The board finds that, while this use of definite articles may arguably create a linguistic link between the features, it fails to establish a technically meaningful, functional interrelationship that would in fact be required to produce the alleged security effect. As will be detailed in point 2.4 below, claim 1 remains fundamentally ambiguous as to how these “islands” are actually connected.

2.4 For the purposes of claim construction regarding claim 1 as granted, the board, in accordance with the finding of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/24 (see its Order and Reasons 12 and 18), has “consulted” and “referred to” the present patent description and drawings to define the skilled reader from whose perspective or view point a claim is to be interpreted (see e.g. T 1924/20, Reasons 2.7). In view of, for example, paragraphs [0001] to [0007] of the patent description, the technical field of that skilled reader is apparently “hearing device security”. Such a skilled reader of present claim 1 would however be faced with fundamental ambiguities that militate against the presence of a credible technical effect over the whole scope claimed. In the relevant technical field, terms relating to communication protocols have typically a stable and well-understood meaning. Therefore, contrary to the approach taken by the respondent during the oral proceedings before the board, these terms are not to be re-interpreted or understood in a more limited way in the light of the specific embodiments of the patent description, which, in addition, contain subject-matter that is more limited than that claimed (see e.g. also T 1999/23, Reasons 5.6).

Specifically, the board points to the following deficiencies in the claim’s definition of the underlying subject-matter for which the respondent seeks to derive a technical effect:

2.4.1 Claim 1 as granted fails to define any necessary link between the “connection request” of feature (b), the “session” of feature (b) and the “session identifier” of feature (c). It is not even apparent that a “session” must be established for the steps underlying features (b) to (g) to occur.

2.4.2 According to the wording of claim 1, the “hearing device identifier” transmitted within the meaning of feature (d) is not required to be an identifier of the “hearing device” performing the method. It could, for instance, well be the identifier of a contralateral device in a binaural system, rendering it irrelevant for authenticating the party at the other end of the connection.

2.4.3 Present claim 1 does not require that the sender of the “connection request” in feature (b) is the same party that receives the “connection response” in feature (d) and sends the “authentication message” in feature (e). Instead, the process steps underlying features (b) to (h) could in fact involve multiple, different devices.

2.4.4 Furthermore, claim 1 as granted fails to specify what is actually being “authenticated” by the “authentication key identifier” in feature (e). The board notes that the respondent’s own expert witness (see declaration E2) implicitly assumed that this authentication step related to “the authenticity of a message” and highlights that this particular purpose of the “authentication” mentioned in feature (e) is not apparent from the claim itself.

2.4.5 The terms “based on” and “verify” used in features (f) and (g) are fundamentally ambiguous, leaving their technical implementation open to a myriad of interpretations:

– The term “based on” used in feature (f) does not require a direct functional or causal link between the “authentication-key identifier” and the selected “hearing-device key”. Rather, the selection could be mediated by a series of indirect look-ups, meaning that there is no guaranteed, technically meaningful constraint between the identifier received and the key selected.

– Feature (g) suffers from a similar ambiguous definition. While the verification of the “client device data” must be “based on” the selected key, this term, as established for feature (f), is itself vague. More fundamentally, the nature of the “verify” operation is undefined. As the appellant argued, it could range from a robust cryptographic check to a technically trivial, non-cryptographic comparison, such as confirming the presence of a data field or checking a message length. Claim 1 as granted therefore does not necessarily imply any cryptographic operation that would provide “various levels of authentication” or security against “modification attacks”.

2.4.6 The condition for termination according to feature (h), i.e. “if the verification fails”, is equally ambiguous. This is because a verification could “fail” for many non-security-related reasons, such as a processing timeout or a user error.

2.5 Due to these deficiencies, the asserted technical effects of providing multiple “levels of authentication” or protecting against “modification attacks” are not credibly achieved over the whole scope of claim 1.

2.6 Given that the alleged technical effect is not credibly achieved and the board cannot identify an effect either, it is not possible for the board to formulate an objective technical problem that is directly and causally related to the claimed invention, in particular to the alleged distinguishing features (b) to (h).

2.7 Following the principles established in G 1/19 (cf. Reasons 49, 82 and 124; see also points 3.1 and 3.3 below), the problem-solution approach may be terminated at this stage if the distinguishing features do not credibly achieve any technical effect over the whole scope claimed. This emanates from settled case law according to which, if a technical effect is not obtained over the full breadth of a claim, at least a subset of the claimed subject-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 within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (see e.g. T 939/92, Reasons 2.7; T 176/97, Reasons 4.4, last paragraph; T 1294/16, Reasons 26.2). Hence, the introduction of a distinguishing feature having no credible technical effect may then be considered to be no more than an arbitrary modification of the design of a known subject-matter which, being arbitrary, cannot involve an inventive step under Article 56 EPC (see e.g. T 939/92, Reasons 2.5.3; T 72/95, Reasons 5.4; T 746/22, Reasons 1.5). The rationale behind this is to avoid irrelevant and thus superfluous comparisons between claim features which, after all, may be selected by the skilled person in an arbitrary way, and the prior art. In other words, the comparison between a claim, whose subject-matter cannot credibly solve any technical problem, and the technical teaching of a prior-art document can only lead to an artificial and superfluous exercise, i.e. looking for incentives, hints or a motivation comprised or implied in that prior-art document for arriving at a solution which falls within the terms of such an ill-defined subject-matter. This exercise may be likened to a search for a black cat in a dark room that is actually not there. Similarly, searching for an alternative way to cause a technical effect that is not credibly achieved by the claimed subject-matter does not help either; as also looking for a grey cat in the same dark room does not appear to be useful (see also point 3.3.2 below). In such a case, the distinguishing features which have no effect are considered to be an arbitrary and/or non-functional modification of the prior art, which cannot support an inventive step (see T 72/95, Reasons 5.4; T 1294/16, Reasons 26.2; T 287/23, Reasons 2.8.2 and 2.8.3; T 1580/23, Reasons 2.2.8).

2.8 In the present case, for the above observations, the board concludes that features (b) to (h) represent such arbitrary and non-functional modifications.

Therefore, the Board considered that the subject-matter was not inventive.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1465/23 of June 24, 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Multi-user project handling: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application concerning multi-user project handling in a digital environment. The Examining Division (ED) refused the application for lack of inventive step. The applicant appealed the decision, but this did not alter the outcome of the application. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 0409/24 dated April 9, 2025, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

An access or security policy corresponds to a non-technical requirement, since access restrictions to one or more resources for users are in general set up for non-technical reasons.

A “push” communication scheme was a well-known alternative to the “pull” communication scheme.

The invention

The object of the invention is to run multi-user project handling systems in the digital environment more efficiently and more reliably, and at the same time to avoid user frustration when simultaneous changes of various users on the same project, such as an infrastructure planning and building project, are carried out in a document database.​

Fig. 1 of EP4202721

Here is how the invention was defined by independent claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The ED argued that document D1 (WO 2019/070766 A1) disclosed all features of claim 1 of the main request except for features d, g2 and h1. The ED found that the independent claim 1 of the main request lacked an inventive step based on the following assessment:

3.2.1 The examining division considered that feature d did not interact with the further distinguishing features to bring about a synergistic effect and applied the problem-solution approach separately to feature d on the one hand and to the two further distinguishing features g2 and h1 on the other hand. Feature d was merely a trivial implementation of the non-technical constraint that a user has only access to a single module of the application.

The distinguishing features g2 and h1 specified that changes were pushed by change notifications whereas document D1 disclosed that the changes were pulled. However, a push distribution of data by sending change notifications was well known in data exchange systems as shown by document D3, for example.

In the appeal, the appellant argued that the system of D1 was very different from the claimed invention and that document D1 did not disclose features d, g1, g2, h1, h2 and h3. The appellant did not contest that document D1 disclosed features a, b, c, e and f of claim 1.

The TBA reviewed the decision from the ED and concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of document D1 in features d, g1, g2 and h1.

According to the appellant, the objective technical problem to be solved over D1 was “to provide a multi-user project management system with improved efficiency and reliability, thereby avoiding user frustration”.

However, the TBA did not see that the alleged technical effect is achieved over the whole scope of the claim by the distinguishing features d, g1, g2 and h1. In detail, the TBA assessed whether the distinguishing features contribute to any technical effect:

  • Regarding feature d 

d “wherein a user (U1) has access to only one module (M1)”

3.9.1 Regarding feature d, …. Since document D1 already discloses using access privileges, the distinguishing feature d merely implements a different access policy. An access or security policy corresponds to a non-technical requirement, since access restrictions to one or more resources for users are in general set up for non-technical reasons (see e.g. decisions T 1195/09, Reasons 5.3; T 398/10, Reasons 9.3 and 9.4; T 1073/15, Reasons 6; T 1847/18, Reasons 6).

It is not derivable from claim 1 that the access restriction specified in feature d interacts with the further features of claim 1 to achieve any technical effect over the whole scope of the claim. Feature d of claim 1 specifies that a user has access to only one out of several modules. However, claim 1 encompasses that all entity data might be stored on and accessible via the module to which the user has access. Furthermore, features g1 to h3 of claim 1 encompass that a user who has access to only one module can update indirectly (via the change notifications) entity data stored in the document stores comprised in other modules. In other words, the access restriction by feature d does not restrict the user regarding the updating of entity data. Consequently, the appellant’s argument that by confining each user’s access to a single module, “the system effectively partitioned the editing workspace per user” is not convincing.

Since claim 1 is entirely silent on any relationship between a user’s specialisation and the accessible module, the appellant’s arguments based on such a relationship have no basis in the wording of claim 1.

In view of the above discussion, distinguishing feature d does not achieve or contribute to any technical effect over the whole scope of the claim in view of document D1.

  • Regarding features g1, g2 and h1

g1 “wherein the entities (A1, A2, …; B1, B2, …) can be changed by a user in the respective document store (DS1, DS2, …) of the respective module (M1, M2, …)”

g2 “wherein the system is configured such that, when a change is being made to an entity (A1) in the document store (DS1) of a module (M1), a change notification (N) is sent out to respective other module(s) (M2, …)”

h1 “wherein the system is configured such that in respective other module(s) (M2, …) in response to the change notification (N)”

3.9.3 Regarding feature g1 the board considers that allowing a user to update a data item was notoriously known at the filing date and cannot be the basis for acknowledging an inventive step. It was a commonplace option and thus straightforward to enable a user to input updated cost values, for example, in the third-party server 60.

The board does not see that the specific distinction of feature g1 over document D1 that the update of an entity is performed by a user (and not by the computer, for example) achieves any synergistic effect with the further distinguishing features or achieves, when considered in isolation, any technical effect beyond the use of a general-purpose computer (which enables a user to change stored data).

3.9.4 Features g2 and h1 change the communication scheme for update propagation from “pull” to “push”. As already stated in point 13.1 on page 8 of the decision under appeal a “push” communication scheme was a well-known alternative to the “pull” communication scheme disclosed in D1 with known advantages and disadvantages. The appellant did not contest the examining division’s view that push communication schemes were well-known and the board agrees. Consequently, the board concludes that the skilled person would arrive at features g2 and h1 as an obvious implementation option without exercising any inventive skill.

The appellant argued that changing between “pull” and “push” schemes was not a mere choice between alternatives. Firstly, a change notification was sent when a change was made, i.e. whenever a change was made and immediately. Compared to a pull-based approach, no delays were introduced and it led to a more synchronous state across the distributed system. Secondly, there was no indication in D1 that change notifications were sent from the server 40 to the third party application server 60 when changes are made in the server 40. In the invention, this made it possible for users in both the first module and the second module to receive changes from the other users in the other modules.

The board considers that the broad wording of feature g2 is not limited to a symmetric functioning of the system in the sense that for all entities and all modules an update of an entity triggers change notifications as argued by the appellant.

In any event, this question is irrelevant for the outcome of the inventive step assessment since no technical effect is achieved over the whole scope of the claim in view of the consistency problem discussed above even when considering the distinguishing features alleged by the appellant and the alleged symmetric change propagation. Which changes should be notified to which modules is merely a non-technical user requirement as no technical effect is achieved over the whole scope of the claim (since no consistent updating of entity data is achieved as discussed above).

In the context of the case at hand, the board also doubts that any technical effect relating to the use of a push instead of a pull communication scheme can be derived from the wording of claim 1. As stated above, document D1 already discloses that the server 40 requests to send or receive information to or from a specific third party application device 60, i.e. bi-directional communication between computers 40 and 60.

Since the change notifications in claim 1 do not achieve any technical effect regarding the consistent updating of entity data over the whole scope of the claim, the notifications do not achieve any technical effect over the communication between devices already disclosed in document D1.

  • Outcome

The TBA considered that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is obvious when starting from document D1. None of the auxiliary requests were allowed. The appeal is dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision of T 0409/24 dated April 9, 2025, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Document region protection: technical but obvious

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to protecting regions within an electronic document. The Examining Division (ED) refused the application for lack of inventive step. The applicant appealed the decision but was not successfully. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1145/10 dated February 26, 2016, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

Whether the control of access is by password or on the basis of the identity of the user is a consequence of a non-technical requirement with regard to the type of document protection desired by the document owner.

Whether the status information in the form of a message is to be distinguished from visual indication is not relevant; such a difference constitutes a minor detail and relates in any case to the non-technical question of how to present the information.

The invention

The invention is directed to a method for protecting regions within an electronic document in a word-processing application. The word-processing application provides an administrative mode and an enforcement mode. In the administrative mode, a protection scheme may be defined for the entire document, for instance making the entire document read-only. Additionally, the user may select a region within the electronic document and identify users authorised to freely edit the region. In the enforcement mode, when a request to edit a region of the electronic document is received, the word-processing program of the invention determines whether the user making the request is authorised to edit the region. If the user is not authorised, the request is denied.

​

EP1513075A2

 

Fig. 10 of EP1513075

Here is how the invention was defined by independent claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The TBA agreed with the ED that the claims define a mix of technical and non-technical features. In particular, the invention of claim 1 implements an administrative method comprising

  • (a) defining the protection scheme for an entire document, where the protection is one of: read-only, only insertion of comments, editing only of form fields, or allowing tracked changes,
  • (b) defining regions within a document and identifying for each region one or more users authorised to freely edit the region,
  • (c) enforcing the protection scheme and authorisation settings of (a) and (b).

The following technical features are included in claim 1:

  • (d) dynamically displaying a message to the user depending on the location of the insertion point, wherein, if the insertion point is located within a region that may be freely edited by the user, the message indicates that the user may freely edit within the region, whereas, if the insertion point is within a region of the electronic document that the user is not authorised to freely edit, the message indicates that the user is not permitted to edit in the region.

The TBA accessed the inventive step of claim 1 in detail as follows:

  • Closest prior art – D2

6. Document D2 discloses a GUI-based word-processing application extended with some collaboration functionality for the editing or reviewing of a document by multiple users. It supports the insertion of comments to a document, and tracking of changes by multiple identified users (see title, pages 129 to 131, 135). Document D2 is hence an adequate starting point for discussing inventive step.

7. The system of document D2 supports both read-only and password-based protection of documents (page 129, second paragraph). It also allows the creation of forms and “protecting the form so that users can interact only with the fields, not change the form itself”, optionally in combination with password protection (page 216, third paragraph).

From the above, it follows that the system of document D2 supports protection schemes similar to those mentioned in the claim, namely rendering the document read-only, allowing comments to be inserted, allowing only editing of form fields, or allowing tracked edits. Only one of the protection schemes mentioned in the claim (see (a) above), i.e. allowing only comments to be inserted, is not disclosed in document D2.

In the opinion of the Board, the support for access control to parts of the document (e.g. a form field) means that the system of D2 also authorises or denies user operations on a document or on a region of a document in accordance with the protection scheme and authorisation settings for the document, similarly to feature (c) (see point 3 above). It also means that the method of document D2 includes a step of receiving the selection of a region with access permission within the electronic document.

Two modes of operation, corresponding to the administrative and enforcement modes specified in the claim, are also implicit in the system of document D2, which allows the definition and enforcement of access permissions.

  • Distinguishing features of claim 1

8. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request therefore differs from the method for protecting regions within a document by the system of document D2 in that

(a’) the selected and applied protection scheme may also be that of allowing only comments to be inserted according to (a) above,

(b’) for a selected region the identities of the users authorised to freely edit the region (see step (b) above) are received and, in the enforcement mode, requests to edit regions made by non-authorised users are denied,

and in that a dynamically displayed message indicates whether the user may freely edit the current region, as recited in (d) above.

9. Steps (a) and (b) relate to non-technical administrative constraints reflecting the types of policies required by an authority, or an owner or administrator of a document, with respect to certain operations to be allowed or denied for particular users of the document, for instance co-authors, collaborators or clients. Establishing such policy types does not involve any technical considerations.

  • Technical problem

The problem underlying the subject-matter of the distinguishing features (a’) and (b’) is therefore the implementation of the non-technical administrative steps (a) and (b) on a method performed by the system of document D2.

  • Solution not inventive

Steps (a’) and (b’) follow directly from the administrative scheme. As explained above, feature (a’) is actually a minor modification of features of document D2. Taking into account that the system of D2 knows the user name, and supports user-based functions (see e.g. first paragraph of page 135) and control of access to parts of the document (page 216), it would be obvious for the skilled person to add the distinguishing features (a’) and (b’) to a method performed by the word-processing system of D2, in order to arrive at a method carrying out administrative steps (a) and (b).

In its reply to the Board’s communication, the appellant argued that, even if defining regions within a document and identifying authorised users for a region were merely an administrative activity, enforcing the protection schemes of the invention in the system of document D2 would be done by protecting regions by passwords. The Board, however, finds that whether the control of access is by password or on the basis of the identity of the user is a consequence of a non-technical requirement with regard to the type of document protection desired by the document owner. Since the system of document D2 supports both user-based functions and password-based access control, it would be obvious to support control of access based on the user names to meet user requirements. Furthermore, the claim does not specify further technical implementation details of the control of access based on the user’s identity.

10. In the grounds of appeal the former appellant argued that features (d) rendered the subject-matter of claim 1 inventive over the cited prior art. By displaying the message indicating whether the user was permitted to freely edit the region in which the insertion point was currently located in the enforcement mode, the system let the user instantly recognise his status with regard to the protection applied to the respective region. As a consequence, the user did not waste time and effort by trying in vain to edit a region, possibly assuming that the computer was malfunctioning when his changes were not reflected by the electronic document as seen on screen. None of the cited prior-art documents suggested a related feature. As in T 643/00 of 16 October 2003, these features had the technical effect of improving efficiency of the user’s task when working with possibly complex and extensive data.

The subject-matter discussed in T 643/00, which related to a user interface for searching and retrieving images, is very different from that of the present application, as pointed out by the Examining Division. The two cases can be considered to have in common the improvement of user interaction. Feature (d) can be seen as solving the problem of improving user interaction during editing of a document with protected regions.

11. Improving user interaction by means of status information was standard practice before the date of priority of the present application. As the Board explained at the oral proceedings, it was common in well-known word-processors to show editing, styling or formatting modes for the current region of the document. The Board cited the example of the Microsoft word-processor of document D2, which displayed such status information in the horizontal ruler on top of the edited document and in the toolbars shown in the figures of pages 131, 137 and 139. The horizontal ruler showed the indentation of the current paragraph or line, whereas the toolbars displayed the text alignment of the current paragraph (e.g. left, right, centred or justified), or settings relating to font, character formatting (e.g. bold, italic), text style, or other options.

In its letter of reply to the Board’s communication, the appellant argued that it was difficult to imagine how, with the password-based protection scheme of document D2, it would be straightforward to dynamically display a message indicating whether or not the user could freely edit the region, since the document did not know whether or not the user knew the password and was allowed to edit the region or not. The Board does not find this argument persuasive, because the system of document D2 is at any time aware of whether the user has already entered the password or not, and whether the current region (for example, an input field in a form) is read-only or editable.

Taking the above into account, the Board is of the opinion that it would be an obvious option for the skilled person to improve the user interface of a system with protected regions by adding further status information similar to that known from the prior art. In the context of editing documents with protected regions, it would be an immediate option to add, to a word-processing system with the functionality of document D2, status information regarding whether the user is allowed to edit the current region. Whether the status information in the form of a message, as specified in the claim, is to be distinguished from the type of visual indication mentioned above is not relevant; such a difference constitutes a minor detail and relates in any case to the non-technical question of how to present the information.

In the Board’s opinion, the problem solved by feature (d), related to editing the document in the enforcement mode, is independent of that solved by features (a’) and (b’) above, directed to the protection and authorisation scheme. No synergistic effect is recognised from combining feature (d) with features (a’) and (b’).

  • Outcome

The TBA considered that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request not inventive. None of the auxiliary requests was helpful. Hence, the patent application was finally refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision of T 1145/10 dated February 26, 2016, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Generating, accessing, and displaying lineage metadata: technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to data structures and methods for generating, accessing, and displaying lineage metadata, e.g. lineage of an element of data stored in a data storage system. The Examining Division (ED) refused the application for lack of inventive step. The applicant successfully appealed the decision. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 2353/22 dated October 10, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

A “data element” and a “transformation” are not further specified in the claim and can thus not be seen as technical entities except for the fact that they are stored in computer memory.

The fact that the ultimate goal of the claimed method is not technical is not sufficient to conclude that the whole implementation is not technical. 

The skilled person searches a technical solution based on their ordinary technical skills, common general knowledge and knowledge of the prior art. Each claim feature, or each aspect of a claim feature, is either a contribution of the non-technical expert, e.g. an expert on graph models, in which case it can appear in the formulation of the technical problem to be solved, or a contribution of the technical expert, in which case it is part of the technical solution.

In the assessment of technical contribution and inventive step, the claim should not be analysed as a collection of disconnected terms but as a whole.

The data structure specified in the claim serves the technical purpose of providing access to the data stored in memory and thus makes a technical contribution.

The invention

The invention concerns a method, a system and a device for supporting the storage of, access to and display of lineage metadata about data stored in a storage system. The lineage metadata of a data object provides information about the sources from which the data object was derived. For instance, how the data object was generated, from which source it was imported, how it has been used by applications, how it relates to other datasets or how its modification will affect tables. ​

Fig. 3 of EP3549036

Here is how the invention was defined by independent claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The ED found that the independent claims of the main request lacked an inventive step:

5.1 In the decision under appeal, the examining division decided that the method of claim 1 defined “an abstract graph model of data lineage describing a network of nodes and edges, in the form of a customized query processing formulation” which was “void of any further technical considerations”. The only features of claim 1 which were technical were the features “storing”, “random access”, “computer”, and “for causing a display of the computer system”. The application did not describe “any technical interaction between the apparent non-technical features and the technical features”, besides the use of a computer to perform the method.

The examining division was of the opinion that no technical effect serving a technical purpose could be derived from the claim wording. The description disclosed non-technical purposes of the metadata, e.g. finding out the meaning of business terms, the relationship between those terms and the data to which the terms referred. These were non-technical aspects of an administrative task. In the context of general-purpose computers, pointers referencing memory locations inevitably had to be used. They were thus regarded as an integral part of the general purpose computer.

The TBA partially confirmed the ED’s findings:

5.3 The board agrees with the decision under appeal that the lineage data itself should not be considered “a technical state of the underlying hardware”, as argued by the appellant, or as “data about a technical process” or “conditions prevailing in an apparatus or system” within the meaning of decisions T 1670/07, T 115/85 and T 756/06 cited by the appellant. A “data element” and a “transformation” are not further specified in the claim and can thus not be seen as technical entities (see also T 1670/07, Reasons 12; T 756/06, Reasons 13), except for the fact that they are stored in computer memory. The display of lineage information thus corresponds to presentation of information as such under Article 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC and does not make a technical contribution.

The TBA then pointed out some deficiencies in the ED’s decision:

5.4 However, the fact that the ultimate goal of the claimed method is not technical is not sufficient to conclude that the whole implementation is not technical (T 619/02, Reasons 2.1). The board agrees with the appellant that the reasoning of the decision under appeal is not convincing.

5.4.1 In the decision under appeal, the examining division identified the computer programmer as the skilled person (point 11.2.24) and described the “expert in graph models” as a non-technical expert who defines the set of requirement specifications (point 11.2.26). The examining division argued that the abstract graph model was given “to the skilled person who will use a computer to implement it without the use of any ‘further technical considerations’, let alone technical considerations of the internal functioning of the computer” (point 11.2.18). However, in the board’s opinion, in the conventional problem-solution approach as further developed by decision T 641/00 (COMVIK approach), the skilled person solves the objective technical problem by technical means based on technical considerations. If that is not the case, either the skilled person is inaccurately defined or the non-technical features were not added to the formulation of the technical problem to be solved. According to the COMVIK approach, the skilled person is a fictional person skilled in a technical field, who has the task of technically implementing the non-technical requirements passed on to them as part of the technical problem to be solved. The skilled person searches a technical solution based on their ordinary technical skills, common general knowledge and knowledge of the prior art. Each claim feature, or each aspect of a claim feature, is either a contribution of the non-technical expert, e.g. an expert on graph models, in which case it can appear in the formulation of the technical problem to be solved, or a contribution of the technical expert, in which case it is part of the technical solution (see also decision T 2626/18, Reasons 4.13).

5.4.2 The same comment applies to the examining division’s argument that “When automating the method on the computer system comprising a query processing method the computer programmer does not have to overcome any technical problem, commonplace programming skills and computer knowledge will suffice.” (point 11.2.27).

In addition, this statement confuses commonplace features and/or obvious solutions with non-technical subject-matter by expressing that the programmer, who was identified as the technically skilled person, does not have to overcome any technical problem because only commonplace programming skills and computer knowledge are necessary.

It is true that since computer programming involves technical and non-technical aspects, it is difficult to distinguish between the “programmer as such” who, as long as they only develop abstract algorithms, are not a skilled person within the meaning of the case law, and the “technical programmer” (see also T 697/17, reasons 5.2.4). But in the decision under appeal, the programmer was identified as the skilled person who receives the objective technical problem.

5.4.3 The decision under appeal did not take into account all the claim features making a technical contribution.

Citing decision G 1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the examining division argued correctly that “merely” performing a method, the result of which did not cause any “technical effect(s) on a physical entity in the real world”, did not suffice to contribute to the technical character of the invention, and that “the mere calculation of the behaviour of a (technical) system as it exists on the computer, and the numerical output of such calculation, should not be equated with a technical effect” (see point 11.2.16). The board notes however, that according to decision G 1/19, “technical effects” or “technical interactions” do not occur only through the generation of “technical output”. Technical contributions can result, for example, from “adaptations to the computer or its operation, which result in technical effects (e.g. better use of storage capacity or bandwidth)” and “technical effects can occur within the computer-implemented process (e.g. by specific adaptations of the computer or of data transfer or storage mechanisms)” (see pages 39 and 40, points c, 85 and 86).

Under point 14.2.1 of the decision under appeal, the examining division argued that “pointers referencing memory locations inevitably have to be used, therefore, they are regarded as an integral part of the general purpose computer that is always implicitly comprised within the general-purpose computer and its usage. Therefore, the reasoning of the applicant that the data structure with the pointer as claimed is a specific implementation is not convincing.”

The board does not agree with this argument. In the assessment of technical contribution and inventive step, the claim should not be analysed as a collection of disconnected terms but as a whole (see e.g. T 731/17, Reasons 6.2 to 6.4; T 1272/20, Reasons 3.1). Even though a pointer to data in computer memory is commonplace, its purposive use in a method for retrieving data from computer memory makes a technical contribution (see e.g. T 1351/04, Reasons 7.2 to 7.4; T 697/17, Reasons 5.2.5; T 3176/19, Reasons 10.3) and cannot be ignored in the inventive-step assessment.

The data structure specified in the claim serves the technical purpose of providing access to the data stored in memory, as claimed for example in features (c3), (e) and (f) and thus makes a technical contribution.

In its preliminary opinion, the TBA introduced prior-art documents D2 to D9 into the appeal proceedings and document D2 was considered as the best starting point for assessing inventive step and closest prior art.

  • Outcome

The TBA considered that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request involves an inventive step.

The case is remitted to the ED with the order to grant a patent.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision of T 2353/22 dated October 10, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Development and deployment of analytical models: technical effect not decided

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to development and deployment of analytical models. The Examining Division (ED) refused the application for lack of inventive step. The applicant successfully appealed against the decision of the ED. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1249/22 dated January 13, 2025, of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Underlining words in the text of a claim to identify what is considered “technical” is normally not sufficient to clearly identify the technical and non-technical features of the claimed subject-matter.

The invention

The application relates to the development – including the training – of an analytical model (e.g. a machine learning model) and the deployment of the trained analytical model on a “compute engine” so as to process live incoming data. The application indicates as aim to allow domain experts, as well as data scientists and data engineers, to carry out these tasks quickly and easily. To meet this aim, the application discloses in particular a GUI to manage and deploy different analytical models across different run time environments that creates a layer of abstraction between the user managing the models and the target run time environments.

Fig. 8 of EP3182283

Here is how the invention was defined by independent claim 5:

  • Claim 5 (main request)

The claims of the auxiliary request are not relevant for the present decision.

Is it patentable?

The ED found that the independent claims of the main request lacked an inventive step in view of common general knowledge evidenced by D5 (Grid computing: Making the global infrastructure a reality, Wiley, 2003, ISBN: 978-0-470-85319-1).

The TBA disagreed with the ED. Firstly, the TBA clarified that the approach adopted by the ED for accessing the inventive step was acceptable:

10. The board notes that the examining division did not select a particular piece of prior art as starting point for the assessment of inventive step (as suggested in the Guidelines, G-VII, 5.4, fourth paragraph, point (ii)).

The board does not find fault in this aspect of the examining division’s argumentation.

In the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method (provided the “non-technical method” does not contribute to the technical character of the invention), the board considers it to be a valid approach to

– identify, on the one hand, the non-technical method underlying the invention, and, on the other hand, the features of its technical implementation,

– define as “technical problem” to provide a technical implementation of that non-technical method, provided to the (technically) skilled person as a “non-technical requirement specification” which is part of the technical problem,

– assess whether the skilled person would have solved this technical problem by providing the claimed technical implementation (if so, the claim is not inventive).

Such an approach has been applied in several board of appeal decisions, for instance in T 1027/06 Rewards programs/MARITZ.

11. In this approach, the choice of the IT infrastructure on which the non-technical method is to be implemented is considered to be part of the technical solution and the assessment of inventive step includes assessing whether it would have been obvious to the skilled person to select this IT infrastructure to implement the non-technical method. This is in contrast to starting from that IT infrastructure as “closest prior art” and formulating the (objective) technical problem as to provide an implementation of the non-technical method on that IT infrastructure.

In cases where the IT infrastructure used in the invention is a computer system that is commonly used to implement methods of the same kind as the non-technical method (e.g. a generic computer for most applications or a generic client-server architecture for e-business applications), there will be no difference in result between both approaches. There could however be a difference where the choice of a specific IT infrastructure might not have been a straightforward one for the given non-technical method (as noted in T 1325/17 Location-based dating/LOCATOR, reasons 10.2).

However, the TBA found that the ED wrongly assessed the non-technical features:

12.2 First, this is mainly due to the fact that the examining division identifies “technical features” of the claimed subject-matter merely by underlining parts of the text of claim 5 and implies that the remainder of the claim are its “non-technical features” (decision, points 14.2 and 14.3).

…

In simple cases, it may be possible to somehow “reconstruct” from the two bags of words what the respective sets of (meaningful) technical and non-technical features and thus the non-technical requirements are, but this is not the case here.

Underlining words in the text of a claim to identify what is considered “technical” is normally not sufficient to clearly identify the technical and non-technical features of the claimed subject-matter.

…

12.6 Hence, the board cannot derive from the decision, what precisely the examining division considered to be the non-technical features of the method of claim 5 and thus the “non-technical requirements” referred to in point 14.7 of the decision.

The board is therefore not in a position to review whether the technical problem including the “non-technical requirements” has been correctly defined.

Moreover, the TBA recognized that the ED did not adopt the COMVIK approach:

13.1 The examining division specifies the technical features “A” to “D” stripped of all the alleged non-technical aspects (e.g. decision, point 14.6: “storing (file) data in a database, using storage location specifiers”, without indicating that the storage location specifiers are inter alia for the trained analytical model) and appears then to only assess their obviousness in isolation of the rest of the claim (decision, point 14.6: “When considering only the technical features of claim 5, […]”).

This is however not sufficient to show that the skilled person, confronted with the technical problem including the non-technical requirements, would have arrived at the claimed technical implementation of the non-technical method.

In this exercise, it is normally not possible to perform a meaningful obviousness analysis by completely disregarding the non-technical aspects of the claim, as they are normally the raison d’être for the claimed combination of technical features relating to their implementation. This is taken account of by including these non-technical aspects in the technical problem as non-technical requirements (in accordance with T 641/00 Two identities/COMVIK, headnote II). This, in turn, ensures that an inventive step will not be found because the non-technical aspects are non-obvious, as required by the principle expressed in T 641/00, headnote I, that only features contributing to the technical character of a claimed invention may support the presence of an inventive step.

In T 688/05 Ticket auctioning system/TICKETMASTER, headnote and reasons 4.5, similar considerations were expressed by saying that features making no technical contribution “may well form the only logical link between technical features resulting from their implementation” and that “they must therefore be taken into consideration for the examination as to inventive step while at the same time not being permitted to contribute to it.” This is, for instance, what is done in T 1027/06 (cited above), reasons 10.

13.2 In some cases, it is possible to treat groups of technical features separately from each other, but this requires a proper definition of the respective partial technical problems solved by them and an explanation of why this approach is justified in the case at hand.

It may also be possible to argue that a skilled person confronted with the general technical problem of providing a technical implementation of a given non-technical method, after having selected a particular IT infrastructure in a first step towards a solution, would necessarily have been confronted with several separate sub-problems arising when having to implement the non-technical method on that IT infrastructure (see e.g. T 1158/02 Vehicle web access/ICO SERVICES, reasons 3.9, for similar considerations).

But none of this has been argued by the examining division.

  • Outcome

The TBA considered the decision of the ED not to be sufficiently “reasoned” within the meaning of Rule 111(2) EPC, which amounts to a substantial procedural violation with the meaning of Rule 103(1)(a) EPC and a fundamental deficiency within that of Article 11 RPBA.

The case is remitted to the ED for further prosecution.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision of T 1249/22  dated January 13, 2025, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field