Author Archive

Determining personalized content to be inserted into a phishing document template: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for the automated creation of personalized phishing documents, intended for corporate security awareness training, that uses two separate databases and a hierarchical matching process to select tailored content for a target person. The central features at issue were the hierarchically organized property database with associated relevance values and the multi-step selection process (features M3 to M13) for determining suitable personalized content to be inserted into a phishing document template. The Board considered these features to be non-technical, characterizing them as a “business method” for selecting cognitive content aimed at psychologically deceiving the document recipient.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1908/23 (Personalisiertes Phishing-Dokument/IT-SEAL) of 17 September 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

A hierarchical database structure and relevance-value-based matching process used to select personalized cognitive content for phishing simulation documents constitutes a non-technical “business method” under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). The mere use of technically undefined database structures and parameter comparisons does not establish a technical contribution sufficient for inventive step when the underlying purpose is selecting psychologically effective content for a human recipient.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to a method for the automated creation of phishing documents that are personalized to a specific target person, primarily for use in corporate security awareness training. Personal data of the target person is stored in a personal database, while anonymous and categorizable personal properties of any number of persons are stored in a separate, hierarchically organized property database. Each property in the property database is assigned a relevance value. The method performs an automated comparison to check whether any of the target person’s properties (called “correspondence properties”) are hierarchically subordinate to a phishing-document-specific default property. If so, the subordinate correspondence property becomes a “creation property.” In a subsequent creation step, the system checks whether the relevance value of the creation property matches a predefined target relevance value. If it matches, the creation property is used directly as a “preparation property” for the phishing document. If it does not match, a hierarchically superior property whose relevance value does match is selected instead, ensuring that a personalized term is always available. The phishing document is then generated based on a template document using the selected preparation property. For example, if a person is associated with “TU Darmstadt” but the template requires a more general term, the system would traverse the hierarchy upward and select “University” instead.

  • Main Request - Claim 1 of the patent as granted (translation)

Is it patentable?

The Opposition Division’s position

The Opposition Division revoked the patent for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC. Starting from D1 (US 2015/0288717 A1), which already disclosed a method for the automated creation of phishing documents directed at specific persons, the Opposition Division found that the distinguishing features M3 to M13 merely represented a modification of the underlying “business method” of D1’s system. In particular, the hierarchically organized property database, the relevance values, and the multi-step property selection and matching process were considered to define a non-technical content-selection strategy rather than a technical improvement. Since the remaining technical implementation was deemed obvious, the patent was revoked.

The Appellant’s arguments

The patent proprietor (Appellant) argued that the distinguishing features should not be dismissed as merely non-technical. In particular, the Appellant contended that:

  1. Feature M2 (the personal database) must not be considered in isolation from feature M3 (the hierarchically organized property database), because the use of two databases with different structures was driven by technical considerations. Personal data such as names and affiliations cannot be hierarchically organized, necessitating a separate personal database, whereas the property database benefits from hierarchical organization for efficient automated matching.
  2. From a purely non-technical perspective, there would be no advantage in using two databases; the two-database architecture therefore reflects a technical design choice aimed at enabling “simple and efficient determination of creation properties.”
  3. The hierarchical tree structure (e.g., “professional affiliation – University – TU Darmstadt”) ensures that a solution for adapting the template document is always found, even without a highly relevant direct match. If, for example, “TU Darmstadt” does not match with sufficient relevance, the system traverses the hierarchy upward to select “University” instead, guaranteeing that personalized content is always available.

The Board’s analysis

The Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the revocation. Its reasoning was as follows:

  1. D1 already discloses a method for the automated creation of personalized phishing documents (feature M1). D1’s paragraph [0070] mentions that the internet provides an easy way to collect information about target persons and that data collection can be automated. A “personal database” is neither mentioned nor strictly necessary in D1, but the Board considered this immaterial given the overall assessment.
  2. Even assuming that all of features M2 through M13 are distinguishing features over D1, the Board found that claim 1 follows a prescribed “business method” concerned with selecting the cognitive, i.e., non-technical, content for a personalized phishing document. The purpose is to psychologically deceive the recipient into trusting the document, thereby training personnel against real phishing attacks. Whether a recipient perceives the term “University” as more trustworthy than “TU Darmstadt” is a matter of human cognition, not technology.
  3. The Board held that abstract, technically undefined units such as a “personal database,” a “hierarchically organized property database,” “relevance values,” and various types of “properties” (correspondence, creation, preparation) cannot credibly lead to “simple and efficient” data determination or “high-quality” phishing documents based on their cognitive content. The claim does not specify what technical effect the hierarchical organization has on the method steps or how the hierarchy is technically structured (e.g., no tree structure is actually claimed).
  4. Applying the COMVIK approach (T 641/00, headnote II), the Board concluded that the objective technical problem is merely to implement the above-defined business method in a technically efficient manner.
  5. Starting from this objective problem, it would be a routine measure for the skilled person in digital security technology to use some form of property matching with relevance values stored in a (separate, hierarchical) property database. Hierarchical databases as such were common general knowledge at the relevant date, which the Appellant did not dispute. Likewise, comparing a computed relevance value against a target value and selecting either the matched property or a hierarchically superior one is a straightforward implementation choice.
  6. The Board further noted that the alternative problem formulation proposed by the Appellant during the oral proceedings, namely ensuring that at least one personal property is always available for template customization, would have given the skilled person even more reason to arrive at the claimed solution.

Conclusion

The Board confirmed the Opposition Division’s revocation of the patent. The features distinguishing the claimed method from D1 were found to define a non-technical “business method” for selecting personalized cognitive content for phishing training documents. Under the COMVIK approach, these non-technical aspects were excluded from the inventive step assessment. The remaining technical implementation, including the use of hierarchical databases and relevance-value comparisons, was considered a routine measure within the skill of the ordinary practitioner. Consequently, the claimed invention lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC, and the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1908/23 (Personalisiertes Phishing-Dokument/IT-SEAL) of 17 September 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

Avoiding unauthorized display of sensitive personal data (such as a user’s facial image) during a payment authentication process: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method and system for managing secure electronic payments using biometric authentication (fingerprints), a PIN code, and a stored facial image of the user, allowing transactions without physical money, cards, or mobile devices. The critical feature at issue was the display of a stored facial image of the user to the seller for identity verification, including the sequencing of this display only after biometric authentication and, for transactions exceeding 30 euros, also after PIN verification, which the appellant argued was a safety measure preventing unauthorized third parties from viewing sensitive personal data. The Board of Appeal considered this data protection requirement to be non-technical under the established Comvik approach and found all requests to lack inventive step over a combination of prior art documents D1 and D3.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1613/22 (Secure payment/GRE-LAB) of 12 December 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

A requirement to avoid the unauthorized display of sensitive personal data (such as a user’s facial image) during a payment authentication process is a non-technical requirement under the Comvik approach and can be treated as a “given” provided to the skilled person for implementation. Defining a specific monetary threshold (e.g. 30 euros) for triggering additional security checks is likewise non-technical and cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention concerns the management of secure electronic transactions. The system comprises at least one payment device (“terminal”) connected to a server storing user-specific information, including biometric data, a PIN, account data and a picture of a user’s face, all provided during a registration phase. When users want to make a payment, they provide their biometric data (for example, fingerprints) to the payment device. For transactions exceeding a predefined threshold, a PIN is also required. The data are compared with those stored on the server. If the check results are positive, the picture of the user’s face is retrieved from the server and displayed to the seller as a further identity check before authorizing the transaction. In this way, it is possible to perform authentication during a transaction without requiring users to carry cards, cash or mobile devices. The method thus enables fully dematerialized payments with multi-factor authentication combining biometric verification, a knowledge factor (PIN), and visual identity confirmation by the seller.

  • Claim 1 of the Fourth Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application on the grounds of a lack of inventive step of claim 1 of all requests in view of D1 (US 2015/046328 A1). The Examining Division identified the characterizing features of claim 1, namely the acquisition and storage of a picture of the user’s face and the display of that picture before authorizing a transaction, as the distinguishing features over D1. It argued that systems providing a seller (e.g. a POS clerk) with a registered image of a customer in the context of a payment transaction in order to verify the customer’s identity were already known, and cited D5 (US 2006/069922 A1) as an example thereof. In addition, the Examining Division raised objections of added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC) against all auxiliary requests and a lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) against auxiliary requests 2 to 8 then on file.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that neither D1 nor D3 discloses displaying the stored image of the user’s face after the user’s identity has been verified by means of biometric data and after the PIN has been checked. This argument was raised during the examination proceedings in the letter of 15 November 2021 and maintained on appeal. The appellant specifically argued that the feature of displaying the image only after successful authentication constituted a safety measure, ensuring that images of a registered user were not seen by third parties who may have illegally obtained a transaction number. The appellant thus contended that the sequencing of authentication steps, including the conditional display of the facial image based on the transaction amount, represented a meaningful security improvement over the prior art that should be recognized as contributing to inventive step. In a letter dated 12 June 2025, the appellant withdrew its request for oral proceedings.

The Board’s analysis

Main request

The Board agreed with the parties that the distinguishing features over D1 were the acquisition and storage of a picture of the user’s face and the display of that picture before authorizing the transaction. However, the Board departed from the Examining Division’s reasoning based on D5, noting that D5 stores the picture on the user device rather than on a central server, and therefore even a combination of D1 and D5 would not arrive at the claimed subject-matter. Instead, the Board relied on D3 (US 7523067 B1), which discloses a central server storing user-related authentication information including a picture of a user’s face and displaying said picture to a shop assistant for authentication. Since both D1 and D3 concern user authentication in the context of transactions and both disclose combining several authentication methods, the Board found it obvious to add the facial recognition process of D3 to D1 as a further safety measure.

First, second, and third auxiliary requests

The Board found that the amendments in the first and second auxiliary requests (specifying the central unit/server is remote from the payment device and replacing “central unit” with “server”) did not further limit the claimed subject-matter beyond what was already implicit in the main request. The third auxiliary request’s additional feature of the method being carried out “in a dematerialized mode without using physical money, such as banknotes/coins, or credit cards or telephone” was found to be anticipated by D1, which even explicitly mentions avoiding the use of cash or cards.

Fourth, fifth, and sixth auxiliary requests

These requests added the qualification that the image is displayed after authentication and, if the payment exceeds 30 euros, also after the PIN verification. The Board’s analysis proceeded as follows:

  1. D3 already discloses carrying out additional authentication checks for particularly expensive transactions. The definition of the exact monetary threshold (30 euros) is non-technical and cannot contribute to inventive step.
  2. The Board acknowledged the appellant’s argument that neither D1 nor D3 discloses displaying the stored image after biometric and PIN verification. In D3, the image appears to be displayed at the beginning of the authentication procedure.
  3. However, the Board noted that the image is shown to the shop assistant, not to the party requesting the transaction, making it unclear whether it would even be visible to an unauthorized third party.
  4. Critically, the Board considered the requirement of avoiding the unauthorized display of sensitive personal data (the user image) to be a non-technical requirement. Pursuant to the established Comvik approach, this can be treated as a “given,” i.e. a requirement provided to the skilled person for implementation.
  5. It would then be obvious to the skilled person to implement this requirement by executing the picture-based identification only after verifying the user’s biometric credentials, especially considering that D1 already discloses displaying a user’s name after fingerprint verification.

Conclusion

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that claim 1 of all requests (main request and first through sixth auxiliary requests) lacked inventive step over a combination of D1 and D3 (Article 56 EPC). The core distinguishing features of the main request, namely the storage and display of a facial image for identity verification, were found obvious in light of D3’s disclosure of the same concept in a transaction authentication context. For the fourth through sixth auxiliary requests, the additional feature of sequencing the image display after biometric and PIN verification was found to implement a non-technical requirement (data protection/privacy) under the Comvik approach, which the skilled person would have implemented in an obvious manner. The specific monetary threshold of 30 euros was likewise deemed non-technical. The application was therefore refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1613/22 (Secure payment/GRE-LAB) of 12 December 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

Post-transaction reselection of a payment method: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method and system for reversing a payment method selection after a transaction has already been processed using a consolidated payment device associated with multiple payment methods. The key feature at issue was the post-transaction reselection of a payment method, including finalizing a transaction with a first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for that first payment method while authorizing the same transaction with a second payment method. The Board of Appeal considered this feature to be a financial, i.e., non-technical matter that does not contribute to inventive step.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) of 19 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Changing the payment method after a transaction has been finalized by refunding the first payment method and charging a second one is a financial arrangement, not a technical contribution. Defining such a non-technical requirement without specifying any technical implementation means beyond a standard computer system is insufficient to establish inventive step.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to changing the payment method using a consolidated payment device (CPD), such as a card or mobile phone, which allows payment with multiple payment methods. A consolidated payment device is associated with a plurality of payment methods and enables using any of them for transactions at a point of sale or online. In practice, a holder of such a device may need to reverse their payment method selection after a transaction has already been processed, for example due to a mistake or due to latency inherent to the payment method selection process of consolidated payment devices. The invention addresses this by allowing the holder to effectively “go back in time.” A remote server receives a transaction request from the CPD indicating a first payment method. Upon authorization, including verification of sufficient funds, the transaction is finalized using the first payment method. If the holder later decides to use a different payment method, the server receives a reselection request indicating a second payment method. The server then authorizes the transaction with the second payment method and initiates a cancel and refund process for the first payment method. The entire process is designed to be transparent to the merchant or payment recipient, meaning neither the merchant nor the recipient needs to take any action or is even aware that a payment method change has occurred.

  • Main request - Claim 1

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The examining division refused the application in a “decision according to the state of the file,” referring to its communication dated 15 November 2021. In that communication, objections were raised under Articles 123(2), 54, and 56 EPC. Regarding Article 123(2) EPC, the examining division objected to the use of the term “reselection request” in the second “authorizing” feature, where the original application used “transaction request.” Regarding novelty (Article 54 EPC), the examining division considered claim 1 to lack novelty over D1 (US 2011/191149), which disclosed a system allowing a customer to change the payment method after a transaction at the POS. Regarding inventive step (Article 56 EPC), the examining division took the view that first finalizing the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount was a financial, i.e., non-technical matter which did not contribute to inventive step under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). The examining division further noted that the claim did not specify any technical implementation means going beyond the use of a computer.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that claim 1 included several technical features necessary for carrying out the underlying business activity. In particular, the appellant contended that the data carrier had to be configured to:

  1. Receive, process and authorize a transaction request in respect of a first payment method.
  2. Finalize and debit payment from an authorized first payment method.
  3. Receive and process a reselection request denoting a second payment method for the transaction amount.
  4. Check and authorize the reselection transaction using a second payment method.
  5. Cancel and refund/reimburse the original transaction amount to the first (original) payment method.

The appellant argued that the invention allowed the user of a consolidated payment device to “go back in time” and vary the payment method used for a particular registered transaction to a different payment method, and to have the transaction amount refunded to the original payment method. In the appellant’s view, this constituted a technical effect that contributed to inventive step.

The Board’s analysis

Main request

  1. The Board first addressed the Article 123(2) EPC objection. The amendment replacing “reselection request” with “transaction request” in the second “authorizing” feature overcame the examining division’s objection. The Board found no added matter.
  2. On novelty, the Board disagreed with the examining division and agreed with the appellant that D1 did not disclose finalizing the transaction request for the first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for that payment method. In D1, the payment to the retailer is provided by the financial institution without debiting the customer’s account until the time has elapsed for the customer to choose a payment method. This is not the same as the cancel and refund in claim 1.
  3. On inventive step, however, the Board shared the examining division’s view. First finalizing the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount is a financial, i.e., non-technical matter which does not contribute to inventive step under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This non-technical rule is given as part of the framework of the technical problem as a requirement to implement.
  4. The Board found that the means for sending, receiving, and processing transaction requests, including the reselection request, were already disclosed in D1. D1 indeed allows the user to “go back in time” by changing the payment method after the transaction has taken place at the POS. The difference over D1 is merely in how this is solved financially: instead of giving the customer a credit until the final payment method is indicated (as in D1), the claimed invention debits the customer’s account and later refunds the amount.
  5. The Board acknowledged that the implementation might require technical modifications to the payment system, but these were not specified in the claim. The mere definition of means that achieve this was considered self-evident.

First auxiliary request

  1. The first auxiliary request added explicit references to deducting funds corresponding to the transaction amount from both the first and second payment method, and that the reselection request is associated with the transaction request.
  2. The examining division had objected under Article 123(2) EPC because the originally filed application did not explicitly disclose “deducting funds.” The Board disagreed and found that deducting funds is implicit in the disclosure, since a refund on the first payment method implies that the amount was first charged, and paying via the second method involves charging it.
  3. However, the Board held that the first auxiliary request did not add any technical features contributing to inventive step. The appellant did not argue any further technical effects or advantages. The same reasoning as for the main request applied, and claim 1 of the first auxiliary request also lacked inventive step.

Conclusion

The Board dismissed the appeal. While the Board found that the claims met the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC and were novel over the cited prior art D1 (US 2011/191149), the distinguishing feature over D1, namely finalizing a transaction with a first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund to switch to a second payment method, was considered a purely financial arrangement. Under the COMVIK approach, this non-technical feature could not contribute to inventive step. Since the claims did not specify any technical implementation details beyond the use of a standard computer system, it would have been obvious for the skilled person to implement this financial requirement on the computer system known from D1. The application was therefore refused for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC for both the main request and the first auxiliary request.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) of 19 November 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

Selective presentation of content of varying complexity: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for selecting online content to present to users based on their content consumption behavior on a social media platform. The key feature at issue was the selective presentation of content of varying complexity depending on the user’s content consumption rate, i.e., adapting whether simpler or more complex content is shown based on how fast the user skims through content. The Board of Appeal considered this feature to be non-technical, representing a concept that could be conceived by a non-technical person, but remitted the case for further examination of a feature relating to ephemeral content handling.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1207/22 (Adapting the complexity of content based on the content consumption rate/SNAP) of 13 February 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Adapting the complexity of content presented to a user based on their content consumption rate constitutes a non-technical aim under the Comvik approach, even if the consumption rate is objectively measured. However, distinguishing between ephemeral and static content for the purpose of calculating the consumption rate may involve non-obvious technical implementation considerations, warranting further examination and search.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to a method for selecting the type of additional content to be presented to a user online, for instance on a social media platform. The system measures a rate at which a user consumes content by tracking user inputs requesting content and the elapsed time between these inputs. Based on this consumption rate, the system distinguishes between “high velocity” users who rapidly skim through content and users who engage more carefully. Two categories of content are defined: low-complexity content (e.g., simple images requiring only a brief glance) and high-complexity content (e.g., multi-word text messages or longer audio/video content). When a high content consumption rate is detected, the system presents content of lower complexity, as the user is unlikely to engage deeply with complex information. Conversely, users exhibiting a lower consumption rate are presented with more complex content that requires a greater amount of time to process. The application also describes handling ephemeral content, i.e., content available only for a limited time, differently from static content when calculating the consumption rate. Content of both types may be pre-cached locally on the device for rapid retrieval once the system determines which type to present.

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) over a notoriously known general-purpose networked computer system such as an Internet-enabled smartphone. Applying the Comvik approach (T 641/00), the Examining Division considered that the presentation of content to a user based on the user’s content consumption rate constituted an administrative or business scheme, or alternatively a mental act, which did not involve any technical considerations or produce a technical effect. The division reasoned that the underlying mental concept of adapting the complexity of presented content to the recipient’s capabilities was already known in non-technical contexts such as teaching or sales, and therefore did not contribute to inventive step. The technical contribution of the claimed method was seen as lying solely in the implementation of this non-technical scheme through conventional information technology. Such implementation was regarded as a straightforward automation of an abstract concept, which did not render the scheme itself technical. The Examining Division found no technical interaction between the non-technical scheme and its computer implementation capable of producing a further technical effect that could support an inventive step.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the content consumption rate was an objectively measured technical metric rather than a subjective assessment of a user’s mental abilities, and that its determination and use were therefore of a technical nature. In support of its position, the Appellant advanced several alleged technical effects:

  1. The invention provided a more efficient mechanism for searching and retrieving content, as the content presented was tailored to the user’s interactions with the computer system without requiring active user input. Referring to T 643/00 (Searching image data/CANON), the Appellant argued that assisting a user in performing a search task constitutes a technical effect.
  2. Referring to T 1351/04 (File search method/FUJITSU) and T 2539/12 (Searching a hierarchically structured database/SOFTWARE AG), the Appellant argued that the creation and searching of a database based on a novel metric constituted a technical improvement in how a computer system searches for information. Organising data according to content complexity amounted to a new database structure, which had been recognised as technical in T 3176/19 (Data handling system/Broadridge Financial Solutions).
  3. The claimed invention produced an additional “bonus effect” of reducing the amount of data transmitted, since only relevant content was presented to the user.
  4. Document D1 (a blog post about YouTube’s watch time ranking factor) should be used as the closest prior art, and the skilled person starting from D1 would not have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 without inventive skill.

The Board’s analysis

Main Request

The Board was not persuaded by any of the Appellant’s arguments and concurred with the Examining Division’s refusal:

  1. Starting point for inventive step: The Board confirmed that the notoriously known networked computer system was a reasonable starting point. It is not necessary to begin from the closest prior art in the sense of the document having the greatest number of features in common with the claimed invention; any reasonable starting point is sufficient.
  2. Objective measurement does not equal technical character: Whether a metric is calculated on an objective basis is not a decisive criterion for assessing its technical character. Many objective calculations serve no technical purpose, such as financial balance sheets or mortgage repayment schedules. The proper criterion remains whether a feature produces a technical effect or is at least based on technical considerations (T 641/00, T 2314/16).
  3. No search function: Presenting content to a user based on a consumption rate does not constitute a search. A search involves the purposeful retrieval of specific information in response to a query, whereas providing content based on observed behaviour amounts to a recommendation. Recommendation systems have consistently been regarded as non-technical (T 306/10, T 1869/08).
  4. No novel database structure: The claim does not define any specific database structure. Categorising data according to complexity amounts merely to assigning a label or attribute. The choice of a suitable data structure for this purpose would be routine for the skilled person.
  5. No bonus effect: There is no causal link between the relevance of content and the volume of data transmitted. In any event, a bonus effect cannot by itself support inventive step.
  6. Non-technical character confirmed: The Board found that adapting the complexity of content according to the user’s content consumption rate represents an idea that could be conceived by the notional business person (T 1463/11) or a non-technical person. The implementation, including measuring user inputs and elapsed time to determine the consumption rate, was considered almost self-evident and obvious.

First Auxiliary Request

The first auxiliary request specified that the first type of content includes content with a number of words above a threshold, and the second type includes content with fewer words. The Board found these features did not add anything of a technical nature, and the same reasoning as for the main request applied.

Third Auxiliary Request

The third auxiliary request (The Appellant had withdrawn the second auxiliary request) added that the media content includes ephemeral content (available only until an availability time threshold) and static content, and that the content consumption rate is calculated differently for each type. The Board found that the distinction between ephemeral and static content and their different treatment in calculating the consumption rate could not be regarded as obvious in the absence of prior art. Since the Examining Division had treated this as a non-technical requirement, it was unclear whether this feature had been searched. The Board remitted the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution, including a search on the basis of the third auxiliary request.

Conclusion

The Board set aside the decision under appeal and remitted the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution. While the main request and the first auxiliary request were refused for lack of inventive step because adapting content complexity based on consumption rate was deemed a non-technical concept with an obvious technical implementation, the third auxiliary request raised an open question. The feature distinguishing between ephemeral and static content for the purpose of calculating the consumption rate could not be dismissed as obvious without prior art, and it was uncertain whether a search had been conducted for this feature. The case was therefore remitted for a search and further examination of the third auxiliary request.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1207/22 (Adapting the complexity of content based on the content consumption rate/SNAP) of 13 February 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

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