Author Archive

Storing and retrieving biomedical information: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a system for storing and retrieving biomedical information. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1199/20 (Medical information service/ACTX) dated July 11, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Information modelling (using a data structure) is an intellectual activity and cannot contribute to the technical character of the invention unless it serves a technical purpose.

De facto changes in the memory usage or the processing speed are not suitable criteria for distinguishing between technical and non-technical features.

The invention

The claimed system stores biomedical information in a three-level hierarchical data structure. A node at each level is linked to one or more nodes at the adjacent level(s). Each clinical-action node stores medical information and one or more (Boolean) expressions specifying combinations of genomic variants for which the medical information is relevant. When queried for information about a patient, the system retrieves the medical information of those clinical-action nodes whose expressions match the patient’s genomic variants. The retrieved information may relate e.g. to the effectiveness or adverse effects of a medicament.

Fig. 15 of EP2962270

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 (which was relevant for assessing the inventive step):

  • Claim 1 (auxiliary request 3)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused the European patent application for inter alia lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) over the notoriously known prior art of a distributed information system.

The outcome was not changed after the appeal. The Board of Appeal made the following reasonings regarding auxiliary request 3:

2.3 The Board agrees that a generally known distributed information system can be taken as a starting point for assessing inventive step. Such a system comprises (virtual) data facilities for storing information and (virtual) servers for receiving user queries, retrieving and returning relevant information.

Claim 1 essentially differs by the data structure, specifying the types of stored data and their relationships.

The Board agrees with the examining division that the data structure is not technical. It describes the organisation of biological data at an abstract logical level, which is in the realm of information modelling (as noted in point 2.2 of the decision under appeal). Information modelling is an intellectual activity and cannot contribute to the technical character of the invention unless it serves a technical purpose (see e.g. T 49/99 – Information modelling/INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS, point 7). As elaborated in more detail below, the Board does not consider that the claimed data structure serves such a purpose.

First: the claimed “medical information” is broad and can contain non-technical information

2.5 Firstly, they argued that retrieving medical information relevant to a patient’s genomic variants was a technical purpose since this information objectively described a human being. The appellant cited section G-II, 3.3 of the Guidelines for Examination, according to which the processing of biological data might serve a technical purpose, such as providing a medical diagnosis or estimating a genotype.

The Board agrees that in certain cases the provision of a medical diagnosis or a genotype estimate might be regarded as a technical purpose. However, the system of claim 1 retrieves “medical information”. This broad term encompasses administrative or financial details related to health care, such as information about suitable insurance policies or the cost of medical treatments. Therefore, the Board considers that retrieving such general information does not constitute a technical purpose for the claimed data structure.

The Board furthermore notes that claim 1 only defines the data structure, i.e. the types of stored data and their relations, but not the actual content of the stored information, i.e. which medical information, expressions and variants are stored and linked. The retrieved information, however, can only be as good as the stored information. Since the latter is not part of the claim, it is impossible to say anything about the relevance or objectivity of the retrieved medical information. Technical advantages or achievements that depend on the undisclosed content of stored information cannot form the basis for assessing inventive step (see e.g. T 1153/02 – Diagnostic system/FIRST OPINION, point 3.6).

2.6 In this context, the appellant asserted that the system of claim 1 did not merely retrieve pre-stored patient data but could infer new information about patients from their genomic data and the generic information stored in the data structure.

The Board notes, however, that the novelty of retrieved information does not make this information relevant. As claim 1 does not specify the stored content, it permits linking any variants to any medical information, potentially allowing the storage and retrieval of biologically meaningless or factually erroneous information.

Second: the data stored in the claimed data structure are not functional

2.7 Secondly, the appellant argued that the data structure was characterised by functional data indexing stored information by genetic variants. It defined a particular way of storing, retrieving, and processing data which affected the system’s storage space and processing speed. The appellant referred to earlier decisions, in particular T 1351/04 (File search method/FUJITSU) and T 1159/15 (Model determination system/Accenture), in which the boards of appeal had recognised such data structures as technical.

In the Board’s view, however, the data stored in the claimed data structure are not functional as they do not comprise or otherwise reflect any technical aspects of the system. Rather, the data structure defines a conceptual model of biological information that takes into account the inherent hierarchical properties of the modelled information.

2.8 Furthermore, the Board finds that decisions T 1351/04 and T 1159/15 are not relevant to the present case:

In T 1351/04, it was held that a data structure defining a search index was technical since the information it comprised was intended to control the computer by directing it to a certain memory location (see points 7.2 and 9). The information stored in the data structure of claim 1, however, is not intended to provide such a functionality. The system does not use the patient’s variants to access and retrieve clinical-action nodes. Instead, it retrieves clinical-action nodes based on clinical actions specified in the query and only uses the patient’s variants to assess the relevance of the retrieved information.

In T 1159/15, the invention related to a hierarchical data structure storing cognitive data as well as instructions for aggregating these data from a lower to a higher level. The deciding Board held that the instructions were functional data as they defined how the system responded to a query independently of the cognitive data (point 5). The data structure in claim 1, however, does not comprise any system instructions that are independent of the stored biological information.

The Board in case T 1159/15 further held that the data structure was technical because it defined a particular way of storing, retrieving and processing data which affected the storage space and the speed of processing (point 5.1). The present Board, however, notes that any data structure or algorithm (whether technical or not) when implemented on a computer would affect the computer’s storage space and speed of processing. Therefore, in the Board’s view, de facto changes in the memory usage or the processing speed are not suitable criteria for distinguishing between technical and non-technical features (see e.g. T 1227/05 – Circuit simulation/Infineon, point 3.2.5 and T 1954/08 – Marketing simulation/SAP, point 6.2).

Summary: the claimed data structure is an abstract model of biological information

2.9 In summary, the Board judges that the data structure in claim 1 is an abstract model of biological information. It does not contribute to the technical character of the invention because it neither serves a technical purpose nor involves any technical considerations about the internal functioning of the system. The Board thus agrees with the examining division that the data structure is non-technical and forms part of the requirements specification given to the skilled person for implementation. The Board considers that the claimed implementation amounts to straightforward automation of these requirements that would have been obvious to the skilled person.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 lacks an inventive step. All the other requests could not overcome this objection. Hence, the European patent application was finally rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1199/20 (Medical information service/ACTX) dated July 11, 2024, of 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

Displaying inventory instructions on electronic price labels: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to electronic price label and electronic price label system. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1637/20 (Displaying inventory instructions on electronic price labels/MariElla) dated May 7, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The inventory task itself, i.e. manually counting products on a shelf, lacks a technical aspect. Thus, a visual prompt to execute such a task cannot be deemed technical either, unlike assisting a person in performing a technical task.

The invention

The invention concerns electronic price labels that indicate to store personnel which products require inventory. An electronic price label system transmits an instruction (“inventory indication command”) to an electronic price label which, for example, inverts the display colors or activates an LED. In this way store personnel are informed that the products associated with the price label require inventorying. Once the inventory check is completed, the electronic price label receives an instruction (“inventory indication stop command”) to revert to its normal colors or switch off the LED, signalling that the products have been inventoried.

Figure 1 of EP3327649

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

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 of the main request was not inventive over D1 (WO 2015/136146 A1). In their view, the distinguishing features related to a non-technical inventory management scheme, which did not contribute to inventive step, and well-known implementation options such as electronic price labels with LEDs – it was inter alia referred to D2 (EP 0 837 439 A2).

The Board of Appeal arrived at the same conclusion:

6. D1 discloses an electronic price label system comprising electronic price labels and a base station, for providing and displaying product related information, e.g. a price, promotion or discount (see page 7, lines 6 to 10, page 12, lines 10 to 14 and Figure 3).

The Board agrees with the appellant that D1 does not disclose the use of the electronic price label system for displaying inventory information or its connection to an inventory management system with a product database. Furthermore, D1 does not disclose the manner in which the inventory information is displayed, i.e. by “turn[ing] indication light source on and/or us[ing] inverted colours on the display”.

7. The Board, however, judges that these distinguishing features are essentially non-technical requirements which, in line with the Comvik approach (see T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), are given to the technically skilled person to implement.

Typically, inventory management is the responsibility of a store manager. For example, the manager instructs staff to conduct routine inventory checks, such as counting the daily inventory of milk cartons and updating the inventory database accordingly. These instructions might be communicated verbally or in writing, such as through a note affixed to the shelf containing the products.

The store manager is familiar with conventional electronic price labels and their use for providing and displaying product-related information, such as pricing, promotions or discounts (see D1, page 7, lines 6 to 10). The use of electronic labels as opposed to paper labels offers the advantage, also known to the manager, that manual work and errors are reduced.

Therefore, the Board judges that the store manager would come up with the idea of using this well-known advantage also in the area of inventory management, in particular to indicate to store personnel the need for stocktaking for certain products.

8. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the desire to use electronic price labels for informing store personnel about inventory tasks can be included in the problem formulation. In other words, the store manager would ask the technical expert in electronic (shelf) labels to supplement the price information with an indication that the products associated with the electronic price label must be inventoried.

9. Faced with this task, given the electronic price label system of D1, the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed solution without involving an inventive step.

He would use the central computer for transmitting data/control instructions, specifically inventory indications, to be displayed on electronic price labels (see D1, page 12, lines 10 to 14 and Figure 3). Notably, the claim does not specify the trigger for sending these instructions – this could be done manually by the store manager. Additionally, the skilled person would recognise the necessity for the central computer to be connected to the system required to provide the necessary inventory data, for example an inventory management system with a product database.

Moreover, the Board judges that the way in which inventory instructions are visually displayed, whether through inverting display colors or activating LEDs, depends on subjective preferences, such as what store staff or managers find visually appealing. Implementing such visual displays would have been obvious to the skilled person – see also D1, page 7, lines 20 to 23 or D2, column 3, lines 35 to 49.

10. The inventory task itself, i.e. manually counting products on a shelf, lacks a technical aspect. Thus, a visual prompt to execute such a task cannot be deemed technical either, unlike assisting a person in performing a technical task. In particular, the Board cannot see how this would facilitate conducting inventory checks with reliability from a technical standpoint, as the determination to conduct the checks and the accuracy of the counting rests entirely with the store personnel. Moreover, executing the inventory task while the store remains open is unrelated to the manner in which the inventory instructions are communicated to store personnel.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. The auxiliary request could not overcome this objection. Hence, the European patent application was finally rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1637/20 (Displaying inventory instructions on electronic price labels/MariElla) dated May 7, 2024, of 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

Managing content subscriptions: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent relating to a media guidance application for managing accounts for subscription services. Granted in 2019, the patent subsequently faced opposition. The opposition proceedings concluded in 2021, with the patent being upheld in its granted form. However, the opponent filed an appeal and prevailed, resulting in the revocation of the patent. Here are some practical takeaways from the decision T 2202/21 of February 27, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Key takeaways

“Management of credentials” is  an administrative task, analogous to maintaining an inventory of automobile spare parts.

The mere use of a (trusted) third party to manage the subscription credentials does not provide as such any additional security.

The invention

The invention relates to managing accounts for subscription services by a media guidance application. For example, by monitoring user activity and managing user accounts on behalf of a user, the media guidance application may recommend subscription services and/or terms of a subscription service tailored to the individual needs of the user.

Figure 2 of EP3369233

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 8 (the only independent method claim) of the patent in its originally granted form:

  • Claim 8 (granted) with feature subdivisions

Is it patentable?

D2 (US 8 843 736 B2) was the most relevant prior art document in the opposition proceedings and the subsequent appeal proceedings. The Opposition Division (OD) found that claim 8 involves an inventive step over D2. However, the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03 (TBA) had another opinion.

The OD and the TBA had the same assessment regarding which features are distinguishing features, but they had different opinions regarding the inventive step.

Distinguishing features

The following features were found as the distinguishing features:

  • (a) A successful comparison of the first authentication key against a plurality of acceptable authentication keys precedes the storage of the “first user account” at the content provider server [features M8.3 and M8.4].
  • (b) The content aggregator server – rather than the user equipment device (“CE device 12”) – issues the request for the service including the second authentication key [feature M8.6].

Technical effects and objective technical problem

The TBA disagreed with the OD regarding the formulation of the technical task:

1.1.7 The opposition division’s formulation of the objective technical problem (“management of credentials for a plurality of subscription services”, cf. Reasons 21 of the decision under appeal) was not based on any particular technical effects associated with the distinguishing features previously identified. This preliminary step is however necessary in the framework of the problem-solution approach to properly assess whether or not the skilled person would have considered the introduction of these features into the system of D2. Furthermore, although credentials may have a well-recognised technical purpose per se, the board is not convinced that the “management of credentials” should necessarily be considered as a technical task rather than an administrative one, analogous to, for instance, maintaining an inventory of automobile spare parts.

…

1.1.9 As to features M8.3 and M8.4, the board considers that they could provide a reliable verification of the first authentication key on which the generated first subscription is based. But only inasmuch as the “plurality of acceptable authentication keys” were securely obtained and handled by the content provider server – an aspect not required at all by claim 8. Feature M8.6, on the other hand, cannot be credibly associated with any technical aspect. In particular, the advantage derived from feature M8.6, i.e. having a (trusted) third party send the request for the service instead of the user device, is explicitly driven by administrative aspects rather than technical ones in the opposed patent (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0178] and [0241]). The underlying administrative (business-related) constraint could in fact be that a first subscription service enters into an agreement with a second subscription service to offer subscriptions on the first subscription service at a discounted price, thus necessitating a delegation of processing tasks from the user device to a (trusted) third party (such as a “content aggregator server”).

Hence, applying the well-established COMVIK approach (cf. T 641/00 as confirmed, for example, by G 1/19), the objective technical problem could be framed as “how to securely implement the above administrative concept in the system of D2, while maintaining control over the respective user accounts” (see also the opposed patent, e.g. column 53, lines 45-50 or column 68, lines 41-46).

Could-would approach

The TBA found that the distinguishing features do not involve an inventive step:

1.1.11 Nonetheless, the board considers that validating user accounts at a first subscription service (cf. e.g. D2, Fig. 1: “CONTENT SERVER 1”) based on credentials of new users obtained from a second subscription service (cf. D2, Fig. 1: “MANAGEMENT SERVER”) – as per feature M8.6 – rather than from a user device (cf. D2, Fig. 1: “CE device 12”) would have constituted a straightforward endeavour for the skilled person entrusted with the task of implementing the administrative concept of “subscription credential aggregation”. In this respect, the board stresses that – irrespective of its administrative convenience – the mere use of a (trusted) third party to manage the subscription credentials does not provide as such any additional security. Rather, such technical contribution should be derivable from the specific implementation of the communication between the concerned entities and the third party. Yet, this aspect is not present in claim 8, either.

1.1.12 As to features M8.3 and M8.4, in the system of D2, the authenticity of a credential is guaranteed, by way of example, with a keyed hash value (cf. D2, column 5, lines 58 and 59). Even accepting arguendo that the use of a pre-defined list of valid user credentials at the “content provider server” credibly contributed to the overall security (cf. point 1.1.9 above), the skilled person would have considered this possibility as a well-known alternative to the keyed hash.

Finally, the TBA concluded that claim 8 as granted lacks an inventive step.

The auxiliary requests were not admitted because the TBA considered that they were late filed (i.e., they should have been filed within the time limit of filing the grounds of appeal, as stipulated by Article 12(3) and 12(4), third sentence, RPBA: a complete case must be included in the statement of grounds of appeal).

In the end, the patent was revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2202/21 of February 27, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Indicating the presence of a substance in an article: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a system and a method for indicating the presence of a substance in an article. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 3104/19 of April 11, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

Obvious automation of an administrative method does not solve a technical problem by technical means.

The invention

The invention relates to a system and a method for indicating the presence of a substance in an article. The system of the invention calculates the total amount of a selected substance in an article using information related to the compositions of the components and materials of the article. The aim is to identify if the selected substance is present in the article in a quantity (amount) that may exceed legally set thresholds, such as a substance which may be considered dangerous for the public according to certain regulations if it is present in the article in a certain quantity.

Figure 2a of EP2754108

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

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The Board concluded that no technical problem is solved by the claimed system because claim 1 concerns an obvious automation of an administrative method.

Below are the detailed reasons:

3.1 Starting point for the skilled person’s considerations is the conventional administrative procedure whereby information about the presence of certain substance(s) in the components of an article has to be requested and obtained from the corresponding component manufacturers/suppliers …

3.2 Instead of that procedure, the claimed system retrieves the relevant information from various record units, (e.g. databases), where information about the material and substance compositions of the component(s) of the article is stored.

…

3.2.3 Once the relevant information is retrieved, the system calculates the total amount of the substance in question. …

3.2.4 In the board’s view, the claimed system can be seen as a general purpose computer system with network capabilities, which retrieves data, executes a mathematical calculation based on these data and shows the result. In other words, the claimed system is considered to be general purpose computer (system) with network capabilities, which is able to perform the basic operations of storage, retrieval and processing of data, as well as receiving input from and providing output to a user. It is common ground that such a computer was notoriously known to the skilled person at the priority date of the application.

…

3.3.2 There is no measurement (e.g. weighing) or any analysis (chemical, spectral, etc.) which takes place in order to determine the substance(s) contained in the component of the article. The indicated total amount of the selected substance corresponds rather to the expected, theoretical amount, since it is based on information related to the theoretical compositions of the components and the materials included in the article and not on any actual measurements.

3.3.3 Hence, even if indicating the total amount of a substance or determining the material composition of an article were considered technical problems, they are not solved using technical means by the claimed system.

…

3.4.2 … In any case, the indicated total amount of the selected substance corresponds merely to an expected, theoretical rather than a detected or measured amount.

….

3.5.2 … Instead of providing declarations about the amount of a substance in a component/material directly to the user, the suppliers/manufacturers of the various components provide the relevant information to record units, from where it can be retrieved (by the claimed system) any time the amount of a substance has to be calculated.

In the board’s view therefore, if there are any gains in efficiency, they are the result of modifying the administrative procedure of obtaining the total amount of a candidate substance in an article and not by solving a technical problem by technical means. According to established case law and practice, this amounts to a circumvention of a technical problem rather than to a solution of the technical problem through technical means, assuming that improving efficiency or reducing costs were regarded as technical problems.

…

3.7 Hence, no technical problem is solved by the claimed system. No technical effect is apparent beyond those expected when an administrative procedure is implemented using a computer system.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. The appellant filed an auxiliary request but it was rejected due to late filing. Hence, the European patent application was finally rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 3104/19 of April 11, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Predicting a specific malfunction of a specific mechanical or electrical component based on specific parameters: technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a method for prediction of a malfunction of a unit (e.g., an industrial asset). Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0182/20 (Malfunction prediction/HITACHI ENERGY) of October 24, 2023, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Measuring specific parameters is inherently technical.

The choice of parameters for predicting a specified malfunctions reflects technical considerations about the functioning of the claimed mechanical or electrical components.

The invention

The invention concerns predicting future malfunctions of mechanical or electrical components based on the current values of one or more parameters. Essentially, the invention is calculating the probability of a malfunction M based on the current state of parameter(s) according to some mathematical functions.

Figure 1 of EP3183699

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1 of the sole request:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division held that in claim 1 the technical features were notorious, and the non-technical features did not provide a technical effect. No prior art was cited – neither in the search report nor in the decision under appeal. In detail, the division held that calculating the probability of a malfunction in a mechanical or electrical component constituted a non-technical modelling and forecasting process, which was an abstract intellectual activity. The calculated probability was deemed a piece of information, which lacked a technical effect in itself as any effect depend on human decision-making.

In the appeal proceedings, the applicant amended the claims (the above sole request) and could convince the Board to remit the case back to the examining division. In detail:

Firstly, the Board confirmed that claim 1 comprises a number of technical features:

3.4 Beyond the server-based processing, the method in claim 1 comprises a number of technical features. Firstly, the method involves measuring specific parameters (e.g. temperature and lubricant condition in the bearings of a gas turbine), which is inherently technical (G 1/19, points 85, 99). Furthermore, these measurements are used to predict specific malfunctions in particular components (e.g. a bearing defect in a gas turbine or an insulation defect in a transformer). The Board considers that the choice of parameters for predicting the specified malfunctions reflects technical considerations about the functioning of the claimed mechanical or electrical components (i.e. gas turbine, transformer, and diesel engine).

Then, the Board made a detail discussion whether the mathematical calculations are technical or non-technical. The Board found that claim 1 corresponds to the second situation of two main situations identified in G 1/19 in which numerical calculations contribute to the technical character of the invention:

3.6 G 1/19 identifies two main situations in which numerical calculations contribute to the technical character of the invention.

First, when the calculated numerical data provide a technical effect, which is at least implied in the claim. This is the case when their potential use is limited to technical purposes (G 1/19, points 124 and 128).

Second, when the calculated numerical data represent an indirect measurement of the physical state or property of a specific physical entity (G 1/19, point 99; see also T 3226/19 – Opportunity estimation/LANDMARK GRAPHICS, points 2.5 to 2.7). In this case, technicality is independent of the data’s use.

The Board sees the conditional probability obtained by the method of claim 1 as an indirect measurement of the physical state (i.e., a particular failure) of a specific physical entity based on the following observations:

3.9 Firstly, the claimed method involves taking a measurement of a specific physical entity at a first point in time and estimating the state of this physical entity (i.e., its probability of failure) at another point in time. This is similar to the example in G 1/19, point 99, where the measurement of a specific physical entity at a specific location is obtained from measurements of another physical entity and/or measurements at another location.

3.10 Secondly, the estimate of the component’s future state is based on a mathematical framework that credibly reflects reality. The Board considers this to be an essential factor in deciding whether the calculated numerical data can be seen as an indirect measurement. Arbitrary or speculative models and algorithms that are not grounded in reality are not capable of predicting the physical state or property of a real physical entity. Such abstract calculations cannot be regarded as (indirect) measurements.

In claim 1, however, the probability is calculated from the transition matrix T, the conditional probability distribution P(M|a), and the current measurement of the parameter a. The mathematical framework in the claim is rooted in stochastic modelling and simulation, specifically Markov chains, which are recognised for credibly capturing and predicting the transition dynamics of systems based on empirical data.

The fact that the result is a probability does not detract from its ability to provide a technically meaningful estimate of the component’s state. Making accurate predictions in the real world, given all its uncertainties, is rarely possible.

3.11 Lastly, there is a credible causal link between the measured parameters and the predicted malfunctions. For instance, a bearing defect in a gas turbine is likely to generate more heat, degrade lubricant, and cause vibrations in the shaft and/or casing. Therefore, temperature, lubricant condition, and shaft or casing vibrations are suitable parameters for predicting a bearing defect.

3.12 In summary, the Board is satisfied that the calculated probability provides a credible estimate of the future physical state of a specific physical entity and, therefore, can be seen as an indirect measurement.

Finally, the Board concluded that all features in the claim contribute to the technical character of the invention and must be examined for obviousness. The Board remitted the case to the examining division for further prosecution including a search (Article 111(1) EPC).

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 0182/20 (Malfunction prediction/HITACHI ENERGY) of October 24, 2023, of 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

Method of reserving compartments: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method of reserving compartments. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1203/20 of January 25, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

An administrative scheme of managing compartments will be provided to the skilled person as non-technical constraints for implementation.

Automating steps of a manual process has always been considered a pervasive aim in any technical system.

The invention

The invention relates to reserving compartments in a post system. The post system comprises compartments (lockers) which can be reserved by users. The system maintains a database with records including the status of each compartment (“reserved” – “available”) and when it receives a request for a reservation it looks for available compartments on the basis of their status as stored in the database.

Reservations are made for a certain period of time, i.e. they have a start and an end time. The system monitors the time and when the end time of a reservation passes, it changes automatically the status from “reserved” to “available” unless it detects that there is a package in the compartment.

Figure 1 of EP2927884

Here is how the invention was defined by independent claim 10 of the main request:

  • Claim 10 (system claim) of the main request

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacks an inventive step. The applicant appealed but was unable to change the outcome of the case. The following references are cited in the decision:

D1: US 2002/0080030 A1

D4: US 2003/0222760 A1

Main request

Regarding the main request, the Board considered D1 as a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step, wherein the following features were considered as distinguishing features of claim 10:

  • (i) the post system is adapted to identify at least one record within the reservation table of the database associated with a reserved compartment having a reservation time that is past a current time, and to update the record of the reservation table corresponding to the identified compartment to available;
  • (ii) wherein the identifying at least one record further includes comparing the reservation time with the current time and data from a recognition means, the recognition means provided at the one or more compartments and adapted to recognise if a package is deposited in a compartment, wherein the record corresponding to the reserved compartment is updated to available if the recognition means do not detect that a package has been deposited in the reserved compartment within the reservation time; and
  • (iii) the post system is adapted to update the reservation table by storing data indicating a reserved status associated with the at least one available compartment to be reserved and a reservation time to establish a compartment reservation.

However, the Board considered that the distinguishing features are not technical and thus found that the subject-matter of claim 10 of the main request does not involve an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC):

2.5.1 As stated previously, the board considers that the difference between the claimed system and the system of D1 lies in the way they are managed. The identified distinguishing features represent thus an implementation of an administrative scheme for managing the compartments.

According to established case law and practice, the board considers that the administrative scheme of managing the compartments will be provided to the skilled person as non-technical constraints for implementation. Any technical problem present would relate merely to how these non-technical constraints are (to be) implemented.

As stated previously, the system of D1 comprises all the necessary technical means for implementing the administrative (business) scheme underlying the claimed system. The board’s view is therefore that such an implementation would be obvious to the skilled person using common general knowledge.

First auxiliary request

The system of claim 8 of the first auxiliary request (based on claim 10 of the main request) comprises additional features enabling it to receive an indication of the location of the shop system and searching for available compartments within a specific range around that location. Moreover, claim 8 defines that the system uses the IP address of the shop system to identify its location automatically.

The main difference of the claimed system from the system of D1 is that in the latter the location is input by the user, who makes the reservation request (paragraph [158]), while in the claimed system the user’s location (“shop location”) is identified automatically by the system on the basis of the IP address of the shop’s terminal.

However, the Board considered that the difference refers to a mere automation of a manual process and thus does not involve an inventive step:

3.5 The board does not find these arguments persuasive. Leaving open the question of whether minimising the user interaction with the system represents a technical problem, the board notes that automating steps of a manual process has always been considered a pervasive aim in any technical system.

3.5.1 The board thus considers that the skilled person would inherently seek to automate any step in the compartment reservation procedure described in D1. One of the few user inputs in the reservation procedure is the input of the desired location. It would thus be obvious for the skilled person to try and automate this step of the procedure, i.e. to provide for an automatic identification of the user’s location.

Since none of other requests were considered allowable, the Board dismissed the appeal and the European patent application was ultimately rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1203/20 of January 25, 2024 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Identifying an application type of unknown data: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for identifying an application type of unknown data that may be encountered during a data recovery process. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1245/20 (Identifying an application type of unknown data/MAGNET FORENSICS) of March 3, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

Features relating to a mental act only relate to non-technical activities and thus cannot produce a technical effect.

Mere programming (software engineering) is not technical.

Mere presentation of information is not technical.

(based on G 1/19) A technical effect shall be derivable over the whole scope of the claim.

The invention

The application relates to methods of identifying an application type of unknown data that may be encountered during a data recovery process. Claim 1 defines a computer-implemented data analysis method (200) of displaying data with an unknown application type recovered from one or more addresses marked as unallocated on a storage device. The recovering step is done by step (A) of claim 1, whereas the displaying step is performed at step (F) of claim 1 (unfold the accordion below for further details).

Figure 1 of EP3049970

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request, feature labelling (A) to (F) added by the board)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacks an inventive step over a general purpose computer system or the disclosure of documents D1 or D5 and thus refused the application.

The applicant appealed but was unable to change the outcome of the case. The Board in charge assessed each step of claim 1 and found none of the steps in claim 1 can provide an inventive step.

Step (B) was considered by the Board as relating to mental act (non-technical activity), which does not contribute to a technical effect:

7.3.1 In step (B) of claim 1, it is stipulated that the “database information” of the recovered data comprises “at least one table with at least one column”. Column identifiers of the unknown database of the recovered data are analysed “to determine that the recovered data corresponds to database information”. The board notes that claim 1 does not define how the column identifiers are recognised or found if the database from which the recovered data originates is “unknown”.

…

7.3.3 Thus, after having found, in a manner undefined in claim 1, column identifiers (“col_1”, “col_2”, “col_3”, .., “col_N”) of an unknown database DBj, these column identifiers are analysed, and it is determined whether they correspond to database information.

Thus, some column identifiers correspond to some database information, and this correspondence appears to be pre-defined, this being similar to the associations, in the catalogue of the prior art disclosed in the application, of applications to respective data formats illustrated in point 6.1.1. Analysing the column identifiers by reading them and looking at a pre-defined correspondence between the column identifiers and an associated database to determine the associated database cannot be considered to involve an inventive step. It is, rather, based on an analysis of data formats by a software engineer or programmer, which is in essence a mental act and thus a non-technical activity not contributing to a technical effect.

Steps (C), (D) and (E) were considered by the Board as relating to mere programming (software engineering), which does not contribute to a technical effect:

7.4.11 Steps C and D alone cannot provide an inventive step since they consist in looking whether a keyword in a table of associations or catalogue is present in the column identifier to implicitly look up in the table of associations or catalogue the data field associated with this keyword and to implicitly look up in another table of associations or catalogue the application associated with this data field. These steps essentially just relate to mere programming based on non-technical considerations of software engineering and do not contribute to a technical effect over the prior art disclosed in the application.

…

7.5.4 Step (E) alone cannot provide an inventive step since storing the mapping determined in step (C) and (D) is obvious and would be performed by the skilled person without exercising an inventive step and depending on the circumstances. Moreover, the mapping itself relates just to software engineering and the analysis of data formats in applications, this being non-technical.

Step F was considered by the Board as relating to mere presentation of information, which does not contribute to a technical effect:

7.6 Step (F)

There is a displaying step (F) in a preview section (having reference sign 560) of a user interface (having reference sign 500) of a data record (of the database information) having a data field DFy. The data record is displayed in a column of the user interface “based on the stored mapping of the stored data field of the data record to the stored column”.

The board considers that step (F) concerns a mere presentation of information which is non-technical and cannot render claim 1 inventive.

Moreover, the Board also cited G 1/19 and stated that a technical effect shall be derivable over the whole scope of the claim:

13. One question that arises is whether the method of claim 1 has the potential to cause technical effects. But the mapping and display of the data record in a respective column of the user interface resulting from the claimed method is not specifically adapted for any technical use (see G 1/19, point 94). Since the board does not see any technical effect from the implementation of the claimed method in a computer system derivable over the whole scope of the claim, the claimed subject-matter does not achieve a technical effect over the prior art acknowledged in the application.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1245/20 (Identifying an application type of unknown data/MAGNET FORENSICS) of March 3, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 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

Grouping of multiple objects: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for displaying a view. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1803/21 (Grouping of multiple objects/HUAWEI) of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Key takeaways

The mere fact of grouping objects in accordance with user-defined sorting attributes – in particular the size of occupied storage space – and associating them with respective group identifiers cannot credibly assist the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process.

Features merely dictated by (subjective) user preferences cannot contribute to a credible technical effect.

The invention

The invention underlying the present decision provides a method for displaying a view on a terminal device.

Figure 5 of EP3282679

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacks an inventive step over D1 (US 2012/0290984 A1) and thus refused the application.

The applicant appealed but was unable to change the outcome of the case. The Board in charge dismissed the appeal with the following reasonings:

1.1.2 The board agrees with the appellant and the examining division that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D1 in features c.), e.) and g.), i.e. grouping is done if the quantity of multiple objects is greater than or equal to a preset threshold – otherwise the method ends – and the multiple sorted objects are grouped according to values of sizes of storage space occupied by the multiple objects if the sorting attribute is the value type, corresponding to a size of occupied storage space.

1.1.3 The appellant submitted that those features had the technical effect of optimising the use of screen space. In particular, feature c.) served this effect by limiting a grouping to cases where a grouping was actually necessary; features e.) and g.) worked towards this effect by grouping the storage space required by the individual entries. All of these features worked towards the joint effect of optimising the use of screen space.

1.1.4 The appellant further commented on the reasons provided in the appealed decision as follows:

(a) In Reasons 12.1.3.1 of the appealed decision, the examining division did not provide any proof or even argumentation for the allegation that the skilled person would realise that, for a very small number of items, it is not beneficial to group them but instead that grouping was a way to provide some order when there are too many objects.

(b) In Reasons 12.1.3.2, the examining division further argued that features e.) and g.) would correspond to a design variation. Especially, the examining division argued that it was well known to use different sorting criteria and mentioned the “Windows Explorer” as a proof for this. First of all, the examining division did not provide a specific example of the “Windows Explorer” predating the priority date of the present application. Also, a specific piece of software could not be considered as proof of the general knowledge of the skilled person. Moreover, the argumentation of the examining division was inherently flawed since the examining division did not show a grouping according to the size of occupied storage space. Such a grouping is completely uncommon and was not found in any version of the “Windows Explorer” according to the knowledge of the applicant.

1.1.5 In response to the board’s preliminary opinion, the appellant added that, by checking whether the number of objects was greater than or equal to the preset threshold, a reduction in the processing burden imposed on the terminal device was achieved. The grouping was only done if the number of objects was greater than or equal to the preset threshold, but otherwise the method was ended. Therefore, a subsequent processing – in the sense of a subsequent grouping – was only done if the number of objects was greater than or equal to the preset threshold. If the number of objects was less than the preset threshold, no further method steps were executed. The grouping method steps were only executed if it was really worth executing those method steps, reducing the processing burden imposed onto the terminal device since, if the number of objects was less than the preset threshold, nothing was done.

1.1.6 These arguments are not convincing. With respect to the purported technical effect of distinguishing features c.), e.) and g.), the board is not persuaded that the grouping of multiple sorted objects according to a user-defined sorting attribute indeed leads to an “optimisation of the screen space” given that:

(a) according to feature i.), the view generated comprises all the group identifiers forming the multiple group identifiers and the multiple objects, and

(b) no indication is given about the graphical representation of objects and group identifiers (e.g. icon size, font size, etc.).

Even if it did, the mere fact of grouping objects in accordance with user-defined sorting attributes – in particular the size of occupied storage space – and associating them with respective group identifiers cannot credibly assist the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (cf. e.g. T 336/14, Reasons 1.2.5). Rather, the distinguishing features merely relate to the obvious implementation of a certain type of presentation of information which is merely dictated by (subjective) user preferences. According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, such features cannot contribute to a credible technical effect (see e.g. T 1802/13, Reasons 2.1.5).

Finally, the arguments concerning the alleged reduction of the processing burden do not sway the board. In essence, the appellant compares the claimed situation with one where grouping would be done irrespective of the quantity of objects. However, as explained above, the selection of the minimum quantity of the multiple objects – as per feature c.) – is not associated with any quantifiable objective technical assessment but with a (subjective) user preference.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1803/21 (Grouping of multiple objects/HUAWEI) of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Generating maps of local activation times: not technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for mapping local activation times from a plurality of electrophysiology data points. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0855/22 (Mapping sub-conventions/ST. JUDE MEDICAL) of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

An “increased graphical granularity” does not relate to a technical effect but to a non-technical cognitive effect.

It is not enough merely to assert that the “presentation of information” assists the user in doing something.

 

The invention

The invention relates generally to cardiac therapeutic procedures, such as cardiac ablation. In particular, the invention relates to a method for generating maps of local activation times. According to the application, electrocardiographic mapping is a part of numerous cardiac and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. As the complexity of such procedures increases, however, the electrophysiology maps utilized must increase in quality, in density, and in the rapidity and ease with which they can be generated.

Figure 1 of EP3580763

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacked an inventive step over D1 (US 2015/228254 A1).

The Board confirmed the finding by the examining division:

1.2 Claim 1 of the main request differs from D1 essentially in that different mapping sub-conventions are used for different sub-maps of an LAT map corresponding to sub-ranges of LAT data. The appellant argued that this allowed an “improved visualization of arrythmias by increasing granularity when graphically representing the LAT sub-maps”.

1.3 However, contrary to Reasons 11.3 of the contested decision, the board is not convinced that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the main request solve any objective technical problem. Instead, they merely involve “presentation of information” as such. An “increased graphical granularity” does not relate to a technical effect but to a non-technical cognitive effect.

1.4 The appellant argued that there was a technical effect in the case at hand since it assisted a physician to treat arrythmia but did not explain this any further. However, “presentation of information” can rarely contribute to the technical character of the invention if [unless] it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and guided human-machine interaction process. For this purpose, it is not enough – as in the present case – merely to assert that the “presentation of information” assists the user in doing something. The board can only speculate as to whether the appellant meant that the presentation of information in the case at hand might be useful for a physician to distinguish different patterns of arrythmia. However, this is not a technical task but an intellectual task eventually performed by the physician. The board does not regard such kind of an assistance as a technical effect. Thus, the above distinguishing features cannot support the presence of inventive step.

1.5 Therefore, in accordance with the conclusions of the contested decision, claim 1 of the main request does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

None of the auxiliary requests was found to overcome the above objection. Finally, the Board dismissed the appeal and the European patent application was refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 0855/22 (Mapping sub-conventions/ST. JUDE MEDICAL) of 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

Extracting flight data: not technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for compilation of price data concerning scheduled transport. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1468/20 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The specification of transport data relates to business data content and is not technical.

In the claim, the filtering boils down to disregarding prices that were not offered to a sufficient number of different users. This is a purely business idea.

 

The invention

The invention concerns an Internet service aggregating transport price data, e.g. flight prices, collected from users’ searches of prices on transport providers’ websites.

Claim 1 of the main request specifies a method which searches and extracts flight data from various airline web pages that users view and provide this data to a central data receiving (second) server 22 for storage in a database 26. This database is searchable through the Internet via a further server 28.

The web page containing the price data served by the airline’s website also contains a script. The users’ browsers (clients) 20 execute the script which searches the web page and extracts the price data.

In order to ensure the reliability of received flight prices, the data receiving server monitors IP addresses of the clients and only considers a flight price as trusted and suitable for distribution, after it has received this price from clients at a sufficient number of different IP addresses.

 

Figure 1 of EP2849130

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacked an inventive step over D3.

The Board also considered D3 as the closest prior art and considered that claim 1 differs from D3 as follows:

  • Feature (b), end: By a further Internet server which selects and serves the aggregated data from the database to browser clients.
  • Features (c) and (d): In that the data receiving server monitors IP addresses from which the data was received and only considers a particular price to be trusted, and thereby suitable for distribution, once it has received the same price from Internet browser clients at a number of different IP addresses.
  • Feature (a), end: In that the one or more received executable instructions cause the Internet browsing client to search at least a portion of the received web page data to extract the scheduled transport price data for transmission to the data receiving server.

The Board denied the inventive step of claim 1 based on the following reasoning:

2.5 Like the examining division, the Board judges that the specification of transport data relates to business data content and is not technical (see decision, point 12.5.1) and that the feature of the further Internet server is an obvious option (point 12.5.3). The Board adds to the examining division’s analysis of the latter feature that middleware servers sitting between a database and Internet browser clients were common knowledge at the priority date, as shown by background document D9 for example.

2.6 As for determining trust based on the number of different IP addresses, it was common ground that it produced the effect of returning only trusted prices to Internet browser clients. However, the claimed method (feature (d)) does not actually use the information about the prices’ trustworthiness while storing data in the database and it is doubtful whether the asserted effect is indeed provided.

2.7 Nevertheless, the Board agrees with the examining division that even assuming that only trusted prices are stored in the compiled price data database, this feature is obvious.

The appellant argued that any kind of data filtering was a technical process. However, in the claim, the filtering boils down to disregarding prices that were not offered to a sufficient number of different users. The Board concurs with the examining division (decision, point 12.5.5) that this is a purely business idea.

It is common ground (cf. decision, point 12.7.5) that using IP addresses to distinguish user devices is an implementation choice. However, this would have been obvious, once, in line with the COMVIK principle (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), the aforementioned business idea has been given to the skilled person for implementation. The obviousness of the solution becomes even more apparent considering that in D3 the central server already receives clients’ IP addresses together with the extracted product information (paragraph [80], last sentence).

2.8 At the oral proceedings the main point of contention was the obviousness of using the script to search the received web page to extract the price data.

Firstly, the appellant argued that the skilled person was a computer programmer for cataloging and reporting Internet site activity data. However, the Board considers this to be an arbitrarily restrictive technical qualification to the particular application of D3 that does not exist in practice. In the Board’s view, the skilled person is simply a web programmer.

Secondly, the appellant considered that using the script to search the web page solved the problem of reducing the amount of transmitted data between the merchant and the browser. The Board agrees that this is certainly one effect of the invention. However, the Board sees the invention in a more general sense as being about the decision where to obtain information about products’ prices. In D3, it is done by the merchant, whereas in the invention it is the browser. Thus, the difference in a more general sense represents an alternative choice for where to perform the processing.

In this general context the amount of transmitted data is one of many trade-offs. Others would be: processing power required at the merchant/browser and programming complexity at the merchant/browser. Furthermore, the choice could be driven by non-technical considerations, such as whether the merchant or the customer wants to control the information obtained.

Thus, the Board essentially agrees with the examining division that searching and extracting information about the web page in the browser is more properly to be considered as an alternative to providing this information at the merchant. In such cases, the skilled person would consider any well known alternative in the technical field unless the closest prior art, or some other fact, teaches away from it.

As mentioned above, the skilled person is a web programmer. A web programmer knows that the solution of searching and extracting data from web pages is a well-known technique, commonly known in the art as web scraping. In fact, as stated by the examining division (decision, point 14.4), D3 at paragraph [75] actually teaches obtaining the product price information using web scraping as an alternative to obtaining this information from the embedded script, albeit at another server.

Furthermore, the Board judges that, contrary to the appellant’s view, the use of JavaScript as present in the browser in D3 to scrape pages poses no technical difficulty.

Thus, the Board agrees with the examining division’s conclusion at point 14.4 of the decision that the skilled person would have considered using a scraping functionality in the embedded script as an obvious possibility.

2.9 Hence, claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

All the auxiliary requests were found to lack an inventive step. Finally, the Board dismissed the appeal and the European patent application was refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1468/20 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