Author Archive

Approximate string matching: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to managing an archive for approximate string matching. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1867/18 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

The strings occurring in data records are abstract data, with no technical character. Determining by ma­the­ma­tical calculations their frequency, simple or re­­nor­malized, and their “significance” in the above sense is thus also – at least in itself – not technical.

Using a significance value to identify false positives in potential approximate matches is not by itself a technical use given the abstract nature of approximate string matching. Hence, even if this potential use were considered to be implied by claim 1 (it is not), it would not be an implied technical use in the sense of G 1/19.

The invention

The invention relates to approximate string matching (also called fuzzy string matching or searching), i.e. finding strings that match a given pattern string within some tolerance according to a similarity metric, such as the edit distance. The strings being searched may be strings contained in records of a database. Approximate string matching may be used in database operations like join or rollup that group (“consoli­date”) records into sets based on matching keys, in order to take into account that the exact spelling of words may differ within a dataset or between data sources and that words may be misspelled, e.g. COMPNY instead of COMPANY.

Figure 1 of EP2235621

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused the European patent application on the basis that claim 1 did not fulfil the requirement of inventive step, Article 56 EPC, starting from a notorious general-purpose computer system or, alternatively, from prior art document

D1:|T. Bocek et al., Fast similarity search in large dictionaries, Technical Report No. ifi-2007.02, Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, April 2007.[XP002679634]|.

The Board assessed in­ven­tive step for claim 1 first in view of docu­ment D1, and the Board found claim 1 has the following differential features:

16.6 However, the method of D1 does not involve any pre-computation of potential approximate matches between strings occurring in the data records. In D1, the index stores the k-deletion neighborhoods (i.e. the sets of close representations) of the strings in the dictionary.

In the invention according to claim 1, the archive stores instead potential approximate matches between such strings.

These differences may be labelled difference (1).

16.7 D1 does also not disclose a calculation of frequencies of occurrence of strings, a renormalization of such frequencies and a generation of a “significance value” for at least one string based on the renormalization and its storage in the archive in association with the string, as recited in claim 1.

These differences may be labelled difference (2).

16.8 D1 does also not disclose “executing, by an execution module (112), a computation graph wherein a component of the computation graph accesses the archive to determine whether given data records should be processed based on whether strings in the given data records are a potential approximate match, and wherein the component of the computation graph consolidates the given data records having strings that are a potential approximate match”, as recited in claim 1.

These differences may be labelled difference (3).

16.9 The method of claim 1 thus differs from the method disclosed in D1 in differences (1) to (3).

First, the Board assessed whether those differences are obvious:

17. Obviousness of differences (1) and (3)

The board considers that differences (1) and (3) would have been obvious to a skilled person starting from D1 in view of common general knowledge.

17.1 D1 discloses the use of the FastSS algorithm for finding words similar to a query string.

It is known to a skilled person that approximate string matching has further uses such as in the context of approximate join operations (see D4: section 1, paragraphs 1 and 2, and section 2, paragraph 1). It would thus have been obvious to consider how the FastSS algorithm disclosed in D1 could be applied to efficiently implement an approximate join operation.

17.2 The skilled person knows that pre-computation always requires a trade-off to be made between storage require­ments and computation speed at run-time based on an identification of which calculations are expected to be frequently required at run-time.

An approximate join operation involves the merging of the data records of two datasets based on some key field. The required approximate string matching calcu­lations concern exclusively pairs of strings occurring in these records (unlike the query search application primarily considered in D1, where the query string is unknown before run-time).

Hence, it would have been obvious to the skilled person that in such an application context, the pre-processing phase may go further and include not only the gene­ra­tion of the k-deletion neighborhood of all strings occurring in the datasets but also their potential approximate matches determined on the basis of the generated k-deletion neighborhood. This results in difference (1).

17.3 An approximate join operation is an operation that “consolidates” data records having strings in key fields that are an approximate match.

In the implementation at which the skilled person would have arrived starting from D1, as explained in the pre­ceding point, the determination of whether two strings occurring in key fields of the data records are an approximate match would be made by looking up in the archive whether they are a potential approximate match and, if so, based on their edit distance.

This results in difference (3), except for the feature contained therein that the consolidation operation is realised as a “component of [a] computation graph”.

17.4 However, whether the approximate join operation is to be executed as part of graph-based computations or not is, at least in the context of claim 1, a technically arbitrary choice. No aspect of the approach to appro­xi­mate string matching used in the method of claim 1 is specifically adapted to be used in the con­text of graph-based computations, nor has this been argued by the appellant.

17.5 Hence, starting from D1, the skilled person would have arrived to differences (1) and (3) without any inven­tive activity. It may thus be left open to which extent they contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention.

Then, the Board discussed whether the features make technical contribution:

18. No technical contribution by difference (2)

The steps of calculating the frequency of occurrence of a string in the data records, renormalizing the fre­quen­cy by taking into account the potential approximate matches of the string, generating a “significance value” for the string from the renormalized frequency and storing this value in the archive in association with the string – as specified in difference (2) – make no technical contribution to the method of claim 1 (beyond their implicit, not further defined computer-implementation).

18.1 Claim 1 is silent as to what is actually measured by the “significance value” generated for a given string. This can also not be derived from claim 1 as claim 1 does not specify how the significance value is genera­ted from the renormalized frequency.

In the description, where this value is called “significance score”, it is described as representing the inverse of the renormalized frequency of the string and thus “the relative importance of a word [i.e. string] to a phrase containing the word for the purpose of phrase comparison” (see page 11, lines 15-20, and page 28, lines 21 to 27).

The strings occurring in data records are abstract data, with no technical character. Determining by ma­the­ma­tical calculations their frequency, simple or re­­nor­malized, and their “significance” in the above sense is thus also – at least in itself – not technical.

18.2 The generated significance value also does not contribute to producing a technical effect in the context of the method of claim 1.

18.2.1 It is not derivable from claim 1 that the generated significance value is actually used in the context of the claimed method.

Claim 1 specifies, in the step of generating the sig­nificance value, that that value “can be used for iden­ti­fying further potential approximate mat­ches” (em­pha­sis by the board) but claim 1 does not include any step in which it is actually used for that or any other purpose in the context of the claimed method.

The final step of the method of claim 1 specifies that a component of a computation graph “accesses the ar­chive to determine whether given data records should be processed based on whether strings in the given data records are a potential approximate match” and that it “consolidates the given data records having strings that are a potential approximate match”. This wording does not clearly require the significance value stored in the archive to be used in the consolidation opera­tion. It could well be that only the potential appro­xi­mate matches stored in the archive are used for that purpose, as only they are explicitly mentioned in relation to the consolidation operation.

18.2.2 It is also not apparent from the description how the significance value could be used for identifying fur­ther potential approximate matches, i.e. potential approximate matches not identified in the preceding step of “comparing generated close representations […] and identifying whether any of the close repre­senta­tions […] are a potential approximate match”.

The described uses of the “significance score” (as the significance value is named in the description) appear to be confined to the identification of “false posi­tives” when matching phrases or records, i.e. that a potential approximate match identified in the preceding step is not to be considered an actual approximate match. This is in particular the case in all the passa­ges cited by the appellant as basis for the feature concerning the significance value, i.e. page 8, lines 7 to 9, page 11, lines 16 to 20, page 15, lines 2 to 5, and original claim 11.

The board notes that the significance value or score is distinct from the “fuzzy match score” (see page 11, lines 11-20).

18.2.3 It follows that the step of storing the significance value in association to the corresponding string – as specified in difference (2) – does also not make any technical contribution (beyond the implicit, not further defined computer-implementation of that step).

…

Anyway, using a significance value to identify false positives in potential approximate matches is not by itself a technical use given the abstract nature of approximate string matching. Hence, even if this potential use were considered to be implied by claim 1 (it is not), it would not be an implied technical use in the sense of G 1/19.

18.2.5 As to the other alleged technical effects put forward by the appellant (see point 13 above), in particular increased computation speed, they have not been spe­cifically linked to difference (2) but to differences (1) and (3), and they cannot anyway be relied on for difference (2) as the significance value is not used in the context of the method of claim 1.

18.3 Difference (2) does thus not contribute to the techni­cal character of the method of claim 1 (beyond its implicit, not further defined and thus obvious compu­ter-implementation). Consequently, it cannot support the presence of an inventive step.

Finally, the Board refused the European patent application on the ground that the method of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC over D1 and common general knowledge.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision decision T 1867/18 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Transaction amount: non-technical

This decision concerns using NFC technology for conducting payments. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0801/20 (NFC mobile wallet processing system/PAYPAL) of June 1, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Data alone – whether technical or not – does not convey technical character to a method that processes it.

The invention

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

1.1 The invention concerns using near field communication (NFC) to make payments (page 1, third paragraph of the published application).

1.2 Looking at Figure 1, a user initiates a payment transaction by sending a transaction request from their NFC-enabled mobile device 102, such as a phone, to a transaction management system (TMS) 130. The TMS 130 then creates a pending transaction record and sends to the user’s device an NFC-formatted transaction identifier (“checkout token”). The user passes the token to a merchant system 108, e.g. by tapping their phone on an NFC reader 104 (page 45, lines 4 to 25).

The merchant system 108 then submits a merchant transaction request to the TMS 130, which includes the checkout token and some transaction details. The TMS updates the pending transaction record and sends the transaction details to the user along with a list of available payment accounts from which the user can select. Once the TMS receives the user’s selection, it completes the payment (page 45, line 22 to page 47, line 27).

1.3 An essential aspect of the claimed invention is that the merchant system transmits the transaction details to the TMS in two steps: the merchant’s identifier is sent with the transaction request, while the transaction amount is sent later. This is because the transaction amount might not have been calculated yet when the merchant’s transaction request is transmitted. The TMS also forwards the received pieces of transaction information to the user’s mobile device in separate steps (page 38, line 19 to page 39, line 19).

Fig. 1 of WO 2015/130967 A1

  • Claim 8 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The application underlying the present decision was rejected by the first instance Examining Division due to lack of inventive step (cf. decision, “Summary of Facts and Submissions”). With the aim to set this decision aside, the applicant lodged an appeal. At appeal stage, as a first step, the Board in charge determined the distinguishing features of claim 8 over the closest prior art document D1 as follows:

(i) The merchant system transmits the transaction details to the TMS in two steps: first, it sends the merchant’s identifier, and then the transaction amount. After each step, the TMS updates the pending transaction record and forwards the received information to the user.

(ii) The TMS sends a list of “available” payment accounts from which the user can select to complete the payment.

According to the appellant’s arguments, specifically the claimed “amount” according to distinguishing feature (i) would be of technical nature as it would refer to a quantity:

2.3 As regards feature (i), the appellant argued that an “amount” was technical as it represented a quantity. It was inconsistent to say that an amount was technical when it referred to a physical parameter, such as voltage, but non-technical when it referred to money. Furthermore, transmitting and receiving data to/from a device, as well as updating a data record, were all technical processes.

However, the Board in charge disagreed and considered to claimed “amount” non-technical and reasoned its finding as follows:

2.4 The Board notes that an amount is just a number and per se non-technical. Whether this number represents technical or non-technical data depends on the context. However, data alone – whether technical or not – does not convey technical character to the method that processes it. Method steps contribute to the technical character of the invention only if they contribute to the solution of a technical problem by providing a technical effect (e.g. T 154/04 – Estimating sales activity/DUNS LICENSING, point 20).

Furthermore, the appellant considered the two-step approach reflected in distinguishing feature (i) to be technical and argued as follows:

2.5 The appellant further argued that the two-step transmission and display of transaction details enabled the user to verify the merchant’s identity while waiting for the transaction amount to be determined. Receiving transaction information piece by piece was easier for the user to process, saved time and reduced latency.

Again, the Board did not follow the appellant’s arguments:

2.6 The Board does not find this argument convincing. Displaying information piece by piece or all at once is a matter of user preference. Some users may prefer to receive the merchant details in advance, others may prefer to see all relevant information together. Even if a user receives the merchant’s identity beforehand, they may still choose to wait until all transaction details arrive before reviewing them. Thus, any effect the displayed information might have depends on the user and the user’s reaction to this information. Such indirect effects cannot be considered when assessing inventive step (see e.g. T 1670/07 – Shopping with mobile device/NOKIA, point 11). Although displaying information piece by piece may make it easier to evaluate and, hence, lower the user’s cognitive burden, this is not a technical effect (see e.g. T 1741/08 – GUI layout/SAP, point 2.1.6).

With respect to distinguishing feature (ii), the appellant was of the opinion that this feature would lead to a bandwidth reduction:

2.7 As regards feature (ii), the appellant argued that by providing a list of accounts that were suitable for the transaction, the system required less bandwidth and computing resources. This was because, on the one hand, non-usable accounts were not transmitted, and, on the other hand, the system did not have to process non-viable account selections.

However, the Board noted that the payment accounts are even transmitted twice and thus doubts that this may result in improved transmission efficiency:

2.8 The Board is not convinced that the effects identified by the appellant are achieved. According to the claim, the TMS transmits payment accounts to the user’s mobile device twice: first, it transmits some unspecified payment accounts, and then, it transmits “a list of available payment accounts that can be used in the transaction”. …

Against this background, the Board concluded that both features (i) and (ii) are non-technical and thus have to be ignored for the assessment of inventive step. Hence, D1 would render obvious the claimed subject-matter of claim 8 of the Main Request.

Since claim 7 of the Auxiliary Request was also considered non-inventive, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0801/20 (NFC mobile wallet processing system/PAYPAL) of June 1, 2023

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Method for cardless payment: technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to cardless payment. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1413/07 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

The formulation of the appellant contains pointers to the solution in that it is specified that the customer should not carry any special equipment. This is to be avoided.

The invention

The invention relates to a method for assigning an alias, such as a phone number and a Personal Identification Number (“PIN”), to a credit card so as to eliminate the need for the physical presence of the card during a transaction.

 

Figure 1 of EP1200926

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused this European patent application for lack of novelty and lack of inventive step in view of the following document:

D3: WO 98/37524 A1.

The Board had a different opinion. In detail, the sixth embodiment of D3 was considered the closest subject-matter and does not disclose the following features of claim 1:

3.3 In relation to its sixth embodiment document D3 does not disclose the following features of claim 1:

(i)” the credit card number also having an associated PIN;

(ii)” linking the alias with the PIN in the database;

(iii)” entering the PIN into the device upon initiation of a transaction without receipt of the credit card number;

(vi) authenticating the transaction by retrieving the PIN in the database and comparing the retrieved PIN with the received PIN.

The Board found that the differing features indeed solve a technical problem and considered claim 1 inventive:

4.2 Objective technical problem

…

4.2.2 The features of claim 1 which are not disclosed in document D3 in relation to the sixth embodiment are those relating to a PIN, namely features (i)”, (ii)”, (iii)”, and (vi) … The use of a PIN ensures that the method is secure. Furthermore, these features allow the customer to dispense with the mobile telephone since the alias and the PIN are entered into the same device. Instead of carrying the mobile telephone, the customer merely needs to remember the alias and the PIN. This is more convenient.

4.2.3 … Furthermore, in view of the above effects of the differing features, the technical problem cannot be regarded to be merely to provide an alternative solution to a known problem. Such a formulation would not be ambitious enough.

It is therefore appropriate in the present case to reformulate the objective technical problem. The formulation of the appellant contains pointers to the solution in that it is specified that the customer should not carry any special equipment. This is to be avoided.

The objective technical problem is therefore regarded to be how to implement the method in a way which is more convenient to use but still secure.

 

4.3 Obviousness

…

4.3.3 Therefore, in the fifth embodiment the customer still has to carry his mobile telephone. In addition he has to remember the PIN. The fifth embodiment is therefore not more convenient for the customer than the sixth embodiment. The skilled person would therefore not consider the fifth embodiment when attempting to implement the method of the sixth embodiment in a way which is more convenient to use but still secure.

4.3.4 Furthermore, the fifth embodiment involves entering the PIN into the mobile device 1. Even if the skilled person were to consider incorporating the teaching of the fifth embodiment into the sixth embodiment he would therefore be led to have the PIN entered (by the customer) into the mobile device 1, e.g. as part of the confirmation message sent from the mobile device 1 to the financial server 4′. The PIN would thus not be entered into the same device as the alias, which is entered into the terminal 2 (by the salesperson). However, it follows from the wording of claim 1 (see point III., feature (iii)), which has been amended during the appeal proceedings, that the alias and the PIN are entered into the same device (to be performed by the customer). Therefore, the combination of the teachings of the fifth and sixth embodiments of D3 would not lead the skilled person to the claimed subject-matter.

4.3.5 Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step over document D3.

Consequently, the case was remitted to the department of first instance and a patent (EP 1 200 926 B1) was granted afterwards.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1413/07 of the 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

Process and device for producing a three-dimensional component: non-technical

This decision relates to opposition proceedings against a European patent in the field of 3D Printing. The patent was maintained as amended according to auxiliary request VII based on the interlocutory decision of the opposition division. However, the Board of Appeal (Board 3.2.05) eventually revoked the patent.

Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 0225/19 () of 17.10.2022:

Key takeaways

When assessing the technical character of a feature relating to cognitive content displayed to the user of a graphical user interface, the main points to be clarified are clarifications whether the user interface and the way in which the cognitive content is presented credibly support the user in the execution of a technical task through constant and guided human-machine interaction.

The invention

The invention relates to a method for producing a three-dimensional component by a laser melting process, in which the component is produced by successive solidification of individual layers of building material solidifiable by the action of radiation by melting the building material. In addition, the invention also relates to a device for carrying out this method and to the use of a visualisation device for the two-dimensional or multi-dimensional representation of component regions of components produced generatively by the action of radiation on powder-like building material with regard to their component quality.

 

Figure 2 of EP2598313

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request = auxiliary request VII of the opposition proceedings, added numbering of the features)

  • Claim 1 (original version in German)

Is it patentable?

The Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the method known from document E1.3 by features 1.4 to 1.6.

However, feature 1.5 was found non-technical and was not taken into consideration for inventive step:

13.4 According to the decisions T 336/14 and T 1802/13 mentioned by the respondent in this context, when assessing the technical character of a feature relating to cognitive content displayed to the user of a graphical user interface, the main points to be clarified are clarifications whether the user interface and the way in which the cognitive content is presented credibly support the user in the execution of a technical task through constant and guided human-machine interaction (T 336/14, reasons for decision 1.2.4; T 1802/13, reasons for decision 2.1 .5). The technical effect is deemed to have been credibly achieved if the user’s support in performing the technical task is objective, reliable and causally linked to the feature. However, the present case does not deal with user interfaces. The representation of the sensor values ​​only serves to evaluate the component quality (see feature 1.3 and paragraphs [0007], [0022], [0027] of the patent). There is no indication that the viewer of the two-dimensional or three-dimensional image uses the knowledge gained from it in a targeted and uninterrupted manner to adjust the process parameters. Therefore, the decisions mentioned cannot support the Respondents’ point of view. It cannot be seen that the viewer of the two- or three-dimensional image purposefully and continuously uses the knowledge gained from this to adapt the process parameters. Therefore, the decisions mentioned cannot support the Respondents’ point of view. It cannot be seen that the viewer of the two- or three-dimensional image purposefully and continuously uses the knowledge gained from this to adapt the process parameters. Therefore, the decisions mentioned cannot support the Respondents’ point of view.

13.5 For these reasons, no technical effect can be ascribed to the feature that the sensor values ​​are “displayed in [a] two-dimensional and/or multi-dimensional representation in relation to their detection location in the component”, so that it is not taken into account in the examination of inventive step (cf. the Comvik approach based on decision T 641/00; OJ EPO 2003, 352).

Hence, the Board found that the relevant distinguishing features are as follows:

– “[1.4] wherein the sensor values ​​recorded to evaluate the component quality [are] stored together with the coordinate values ​​locating the sensor values ​​in the component (1) and”

– “[1.6] wherein the coordinates of the sensor values ​​are assigned via scanner data”.

In the end, the Board stated that it was obvious to the person skilled in the art, based on document E1.3, to assign the coordinate values ​​of the individual scanning locations available for controlling the scanner to the sensor values ​​recorded at these locations and thus to determine the position of the sensor values ​​in the component in a two- or three-dimensional representation. The solution according to features 1.4 and 1.6 is therefore suggested starting from document E1.3, taking into account general knowledge.

Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 was found not to involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. The auxiliary requests could not remedy this negative decision. Thus, the European patent was finally revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 0225/19 () of 17.10.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.05.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Reminders on a mobile device: non-technical

This decision concerns a mobile phone application allowing event configuration and processing. Specifically, a user may specify that an image is to be displayed at a certain time and the system monitoring the time and displaying the image at the specified time. However, most of the claimed features were considered non-technical and since the technical distinguishing features were considered obvious, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1682/20 (Image reminder system/LG) of March 10, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Non-technical user requirements cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

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

1. The application relates to a mobile terminal configured to classify, manage, and display images. In particular, the mobile is configured to associate images to events, and to display the images upon detection of the associated event (paragraph 3). The event may be location, time, or application related (paragraph 5). The user can configure the event by voice input (paragraphs 61, 164, 189). For instance, the user can take an image of a specific parking spot, and this image can be displayed upon the user returning to the parking area (paragraph 49); or the user may desire that an image is displayed on a certain date (e.g. a birthday; see paragraphs 49, 167); or when an application is opened (e.g. a banking app; see paragraphs 190 – 191). The annotated images may be automatically deleted after a certain amount of time (paragraph 146).

Fig. 1 of EP 3 139 304 A1

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The first instance examining division identified several distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D1:

3. The Examining Division started its analysis from D1 and acknowledged a set of differences (see the decision, point 13.4) related to the event configuration and processing, essentially about the user specifying that an image is to be displayed at a certain time and the system monitoring the time and displaying the image at the specified time.

Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the examining division used some of them in the formulation of the objective technical problem:

3.1 It argued in essence (decision 13.5 to 13.11), with reference to the description at paragraphs 49-52, 199 and 275, that the effect of these differences over D1, namely the users’ “satisfaction” or their “being reminded of past events” occurred only in the head of the user and hence was not a technical effect. Moreover, scheduling as such was an administrative consideration. The relevant steps could thus be used as a constraint in the formulation of the objective technical problem according to the problem-solution approach.

3.2 The objective technical problem given to the skilled person was therefore how to implement, on the mobile terminal of D1, the requirements specification that encompasses the distinguishing procedural steps. The technical implementation of these steps was a matter of routine computer programming and did not involve an inventive step.

Since the implementation of the aforementioned steps was considered a routine task, the examining division rejected the application due to lack of inventive step.

In the grounds of appeal, the Appellant argued that the examining division did not properly define the technical problem and suggested the following problem formulation:

4.1 … The objective technical problem, based on the differences identified, should therefore be formulated as follows: “how to provide an efficient means for configuring inputs to a form of reminder system on a mobile terminal”.

According to the Appellant, D1 does not suggest a solution to this problem.

In its assessment, the Board in charge considered both D1 and a standard mobile device with photo capabilities and voice input as suitable starting points to arrive at the claimed subject-matter (cf. decision, item 5). Over each of the two possible starting points, the invention would provide the following addition:

6. The claimed subject matter can be summarized, as also stated by the Appellant, as providing a form of reminder system on a mobile device. This system displays images upon activation of the reminder; the user configures the reminder by using voice input.

However, the Board considered this as pure non-technical user requirements:

6.2 Reminders, in general, are meant to bring a piece of information to the users’ attention when they want it. The type of information that users want to be reminded of and the (type of) conditions triggering the reminder are therefore user requirements.

The only technical contribution was identified as follows:

6.6 The only difference features that do not follow immediately from the user requirements are those related to the (sub-)problem identified by the appellant, i.e. how to enable user input for configuring the reminder.

Then, the Board found that considering user input at a mobile device was a standard routine for the skilled person:

6.7 In the Board’s view, the skilled person would consider user input in any conventional modality available on a mobile device. This includes voice, as exemplified by D1 in paragraph 32.

Hence, the Board arrived at the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter would be rendered-obvious when starting from D1. The same would apply if one would consider a standard mobile phone as starting point (cf. decision, item 7).

Finally, the Board expressed that similar considerations would apply to the auxiliary requests.

Consequently, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1682/20 (Image reminder system/LG) of March 10, 2023 of March 10, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

System for providing information to a user: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application directed to a system for providing information to a user. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1167/19 () of 19.4.2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The distinguishing features merely allow that a cognitive decision is implemented which information is to be displayed in which manner. They do not contribute to the solution of a technical problem.

The invention

The invention relates to the display of a large amount of data using “sparklines”. Sparklines are word-sized, minimized graphical diagrams, e.g. column or bar diagrams. The displayed data is grouped initially according to a particular criterion. This criterion can be changed by changing means triggered by triggering means upon activation by the user.

Figure 1 of EP1850280

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request differs from a notorious general purpose standard computer only by

– changing means adapted for changing said criterion to at least one further criterion, and

– triggering means which are adapted to trigger said changing means upon activation by the user of the system.

The Board found these features not inventive for the reasons below:

3.5 The Board does not see how these distinguishing features (or more generally, the “specific processing steps” referred to by the appellant) would achieve the technical effect of saving power/reducing the energy consumption of the system and allocating display space with maximum efficiency referred to by the appellant (e.g. grounds of appeal, page 4, first to fifth paragraphs). The submission of the appellant that only the most relevant items of information are displayed and that the same amount of information can be displayed on only one screen where previously two screens would have been necessary (grounds of appeal, page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph) actually even supports that view of the Board since it makes clear that a cognitive decision is taken which information is relevant and therefore to be displayed, while less relevant information is simply not displayed.

Thus, the distinguishing features/the “specific processing steps” merely allow that a cognitive decision is implemented which information is to be displayed in which manner. They do therefore not contribute to the solution of a technical problem, contrary to the submissions of the appellant.

3.6 The Board notes that the claim, including all processing steps, is formulated in a very broad and abstract manner. Thus, irrespective of whether the processing steps are considered to be technical or not, most of them have been part of the notorious knowledge at the priority date of the application, contrary to the submission of the appellant (grounds of appeal, page 6, fourth paragraph).

Furthermore, the distinguishing features defined above are also formulated in a very broad and abstract manner. For instance, they do not define that the criterion can be changed to the further criterion while the first data is displayed, or if that is the case, that display is changed immediately upon a change of the criterion. Nor is there any indication in the claim about what the criterion might be.

Irrespective thereof, the manner in which data to be displayed is grouped will normally be done depending on the content of the data, i.e. the information to be displayed. In the present case, the information to be displayed is purely business related (for instance, revenues, see page 3, last paragraph of the original application).

That is, neither the content of the data displayed nor the manner in which the displayed data is grouped contributes to the solution of a technical problem.

Hence, the criteria according to which the (non-technical) first data is to be grouped as well as the number of these criteria or the wish to change between different criteria also do not contribute to the solution of a technical problem and will thus normally be given to the technically skilled person as part of the requirement specification.

Consequently, the objective technical problem may be formulated in the present case as how to implement the changing and triggering functions defined in the distinguishing features.

The Board notes that formulating the objective technical problem as being the implementation of a non-technical requirement specification corresponds to the well-known “COMVIK-approach” and the appellant’s submission relating to an ex post facto view does not apply (see point 7. of the “COMVIK“-decision T641/00).

The implementation of the changing and triggering functions, at least at the abstract level claimed of providing corresponding “means for” performing them, would have been a straightforward task for the skilled person.

Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is not inventive (Article 52(1) EPC) under Article 56 EPC 1973 in view of a notorious general purpose standard personal computer as set out above combined with common general knowledge.

The auxiliary requests were not admitted. Thus, the European patent application was finally refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1167/19 () of 19.4.2023 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

Accepting a transaction if information about it provided by a customer and a POS coincide within certain limits: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to the authentication of a wireless payment transaction at a point of sale (POS). However, since the distinguishing features were considered to refer to a business scheme, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0768/17 (Authenticating wireless payments/VODAFONE) of January 26, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Business ideas do not involve any technical considerations.

The invention

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

3.1 The invention concerns the authentication of a wireless payment transaction at a point of sale (POS) (see published application, paragraphs [6] and [7]).

3.2 Looking at Figure 3, the core idea is to receive independently information about a payment transaction from the POS’s reader device (120 – “first information about the transaction” in the claims) and a customer’s mobile communication device (110 – “second information about the transaction”) and to accept the transaction only if those information items “coincide within certain limits”, see [12] and [16]. This effectively means that the transaction is rejected if the mobile device and the POS terminal provide inconsistent information about it.

3.3 Payments are conducted using a payment identifier which the mobile communication device receives from a backend system (105). While not claimed, but disclosed in the application, the identifier may be for example an IBAN, see [5] and [38].

In order to carry out a payment at the POS, the mobile communication device wirelessly transfers the identifier, stored in a secure element (115), to the reader device ([6]) along with the first information about the transaction ([12] and [13]). The reader device forwards the received data to the backend system, which is entrusted with the transaction authentication, via a first communication channel. Additionally, the mobile device prepares the second information about the transaction and sends it to the backend system via a second wireless communication channel, see [12], [16], [25] and [28].

The backend system compares the first and second information and if they coincide within certain limits ([16]), it instructs a bank system to effect the payment ([40]).

Fig. 3 of EP 2 824 628 A1

  • Claim 1 of the fifth Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

The Board started its assessment with the fifth auxiliary request as this request is the most specific one.

At first, the Board determined the distinguishing features of claim 1 in view of the closest prior art document D1 as follows:

A) The backend interface (103) is further adapted to receive via a first communication channel a request of confirmation comprising at least the part of the identifier transferred to the reader device (120) and first information about the transaction;

B) The backend interface (103) is further adapted to receive the second information about the transaction from the mobile communication device (110) via a different second communication channel;

C) The backend processor (102) is adapted to compare the first and second information about the transaction;

D) The backend processor (102) is further adapted to authenticate the request and to prepare a confirmation to verify the identifier transferred to the reader device (120) if the comparison reveals that the first and second information coincide within certain limits;

E) The backend interface (103) is further adapted to transfer the confirmation for initiating a payment by means of a bank system, if the request is authenticated (130).

With respect to feature C), the appellant argued that this feature would be based on technical considerations. This is because it would allow to detect human mistakes, fraudulent data manipulation and transmission disturbances (cf. decision, Section XV, 1st para.).

Hence, the technical problem could allegedly be formulated as follows:

The technical problem was to enable data exchange between the relevant devices such that the manipulation of electronically processed transaction data could be detected.

Verifying transactions by comparing the first and second information was quite similar to using checksums which was technical. The condition that the first and second information coincided within certain limits, rather than being identical, reflected the fact that the technical system in the real world incurred some error which should be allowed for.

To substantiate his position, the appellant argued that verifying transactions by comparing the first and second information was quite similar to using checksums which was technical (cf. decision, Section XV, 3rd para.).

However, according to the Board, the distinguishing features would only refer to a business method and, consequently, considered them as being non-technical:

4.4 As set out above, the distinguishing features implement the idea that the transaction is accepted if the information about it provided by the customer and the POS coincide within certain limits. Like the contested decision and contrary to the appellant’s view (see decision, pages 5 to 6 and section XV above), the Board judges that this is a business idea which does not involve any technical considerations. Entrusting the backend instance with authenticating transactions is a further business decision.

Moreover, the Board could not see that the alleged technical effect (see above) is actually achieved by the distinguishing features over the whole scope as claimed:

4.6 Contrary to the appellant’s view, the Board cannot see that, at the level at which they are defined, the distinguishing features enable detecting transmission disturbances between the user mobile device and the reader device.

…

4.7 Furthermore, in view of the lack of detail concerning the content of the compared information and the vagueness of the comparison criterion, the Board doubts that the alleged effect of detecting a human mistake or fraudulent manipulation of transaction data is achieved over the whole scope of the claim.

Even if one would assume that the claimed method would allow the detection of human mistake and manipulation, these effects would stem from a business idea and could thus not contribute to inventive step:

However, even assuming that in some cases a human mistake and manipulation could be detected, these effects would result from the aforementioned business idea and not from its technical implementation and, therefore, would not count towards an inventive step.

Against this background, in line with the COMVIK principles, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary requests lacks inventive step. Since claim 1 of the first to fourth auxiliary requests are broader than claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request, they would lack an inventive step for the above reasons, too.

Consequently, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0768/17 (Authenticating wireless payments/VODAFONE) of January 26, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Monitoring health of gas turbine engines: non-technical

This decision relates to an opposition against European patent No. 1 630 633. The opposition division found that the patent in an amended form met the requirements of the EPC. Both the opponent and the proprietor filed an appeal. Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 2546/18 () of 21.12.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.06:

Key takeaways

The mere output of the device health assessment cannot be considered to represent or achieve a technical effect, in particular as such output may also lead to a recommendation which may or may not be taken into account by a technician.

Mental acts and mathematical methods as such are not considered to be of a technical nature.

The invention

The invention relates to an apparatus and a method for monitoring the health of devices such as gas turbine engines.

Figure 1 of EP1630633

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The Board did not agree with the findings of the opposition division and revoked the patent based on the following reasons:

1. The subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC) for the following reasons.

2. The method defined in claim 1 comprises a mixture of steps of a technical nature (such as “receiving a plurality of sensory outputs”) and steps of data analysis which are merely based on mathematical methods and are therefore considered of non-technical nature (such as the features relating to data stream analysis). The Board therefore applies the COMVIK-approach (T 641/00, OJ EPO 2003, 352), also referred to in G 1/19 (OJ EPO 2021, A77).

3. It is common ground between the parties that the method for assessing health of a device disclosed in D2 can be considered to represent the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim 1.

4. The appellant acknowledged that the method of D2 resulted in the extraction and outputting of only a single device health feature, which device health feature can be identified with the “condition signature” according to D2, rather than of “a plurality of device health features“. This distinguishing feature is referenced as feature (i) in the following.

5. The parties disagreed on the question of whether the final feature defined in claim 1, referred to in the following also as feature (ii), was disclosed in D2. This feature defines more precisely the step of receiving said plurality of sensory outputs to comprise three additional steps of

commencing to receive said plurality of sensory outputs at a beginning of a window duration;

sampling said plurality of sensory outputs to produce a sampled data stream; and

outputting said synchronized data stream comprising said sampled data stream at an end of said window duration.

…

6. As was already stated in the Board’s preliminary opinion, the distinguishing features do not contribute to a (single or several) technical effect(s) necessarily achieved over the whole scope of the claim (see also G 1/19 and T 641/00, ibid.).

6.1 The claimed method certainly involves technical considerations, for example in receiving sensory output or in deriving from the sensory data a plurality of device health features, by establishing a link between measured or captured properties and technical condition of the device.

6.2 The purpose of the method according to claim 1 is the output of a device health assessment, or as it is formulated at the end of paragraph 17 of the patent in suit, “[t]he output of this process is an engine health assessment or a series of assessments with varying degrees of probability (or levels of belief)”. The claim does not exclude that the output might be just a simple numerical value, e.g. “3”, which might be looked up in a table by a technician to correspond to a particular condition of the device, e.g. “oil leakage detected” or “bird stroke impact” or even “all components in normal condition”. Paragraph 20 and granted claim 3 specify that health assessment may lead to produce a recommended maintenance action.

6.3 It is not apparent from the patent, and it has also not been argued by the respondent, that the extracted and output health assessment is necessarily used to control the operation of the device undergoing health assessment. The mere output of the device health assessment cannot be considered to represent or achieve a technical effect, in particular as such output may also lead to a recommendation which may or may not be taken into account by a technician.

6.4 Both distinguishing features (i) and (ii) pertain only to the treatment of the previously obtained/sampled data, so as to derive further data characterising the state of the device (“health features” or a “health assessment”).

6.4.1 Feature (i) just results in more device conditions being available to be taken into account in the health assessment. Although potentially based on technical considerations, the extraction of a plurality of device health features is essentially based on mental acts (establishing mathematical models linking sensory data to a physical condition, see also granted claim 8) and/or mathematical methods (use of neural networks etc., see granted claim 9), which may then lead to a corresponding implementation on a normal computer (see also paragraphs 16, 19 and 20 of the patent). Mental acts and mathematical methods as such are not considered to be of a technical nature. Although features based on such aspects might in principle still contribute to a technical effect, this is not the case here, since the claimed method does not achieve a technical effect (see point 6.3 above). The mere implementation on multi-purpose computer(s) does not achieve anything going beyond the normal operation of such computer(s).

6.4.2 Similarly, the operations performed on the sensory output data according to feature (ii) – i.e. data synchronisation by sampling in a (pre-defined) window duration and extraction and output of a plurality of health features – also do not provide a technical effect which goes beyond the normal operation of the computer(s) employed for the execution of the claimed method. They also only rely on the insight that a certain momentary physical condition of the device is characterised by taking into account different measurements at that very moment and consequently that data of different sensory streams need to be synchronised, which is then implemented accordingly on a multi-purpose computer (paragraph 14 of the patent in suit). These considerations clearly imply also technical knowledge. The same is however also the case in D2, and the difference – assuming that there is indeed a different synchronisation method defined in feature (ii) of claim 1 compared to that implemented according to pages 15/16 in D2 – could only be seen in that particular way defined by feature (ii) of synchronising or aligning data. However it is not apparent in the present case that this involves any further technical consideration which would necessarily achieve a technical effect going beyond the normal operation of the computer(s) on which the operations are performed.

6.4.3 Moreover, and as also argued by the appellant, it is also not apparent from the patent that these distinguishing method steps would provide for any technical effect compared to the method known of D2.

6.5 In the absence of any technical effect achieved by features (i) and (ii), the features cannot be considered to contribute to the solution of a technical problem. The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore cannot be considered to involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

…

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 2546/18 () of 21.12.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Providing a digital asset to two user devices: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application that deals with online stores and online shopping. Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 2745/18 (Providing a digital asset to two user devices/APPLE) of 24.11.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The mere fact that the distinguishing features relate to the second device is not a synergetic effect.

The invention

The invention relates to improved acquisition and delivery of digital assets. Claim 1 of the main request concerns an online store system providing a purchased digital asset to multiple user devices. While not claimed, the asset might include a song, movie or textual content.

Figure 1 of EP2673742

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Looking at Figure 1, the system comprises a server 102, hosting the online store, and multiple user devices to which the digital assets are downloaded, such as a portable electronic device 106 and a desktop computer 110. These user devices are associated with the user’s account at the online store.

When the user accesses the online store and purchases an asset using one of those devices (“an acquisition device” in claim 1), the asset is provided to this device and to a second electronic device based “on a previous indication by the second electronic device to the online store” (cf. third claimed feature). While not claimed, but disclosed in the application, the indication might for instance specify that the second electronic device should receive only certain media types.

The server delivers the asset to the second device and the acquisition device in different formats, based on the devices. The description does not provide any examples of formats used and does not explain how and based on what criteria it is determined which format should be used for each of the devices.

Is it patentable?

According to the decision, D1 is considered closest prior art. It was held that claim 1 differed from D1 in that:

a) The formats in which the asset is delivered to the acquisition device and to the second device are different and determined based on the devices, whereas D1 does not mention using formats at all.

b) The indication to the online store server for automatically receiving acquired digital assets is provided by the second electronic device.

c) The asset is provided to the acquisition device and to the second user device, whereas in D1 the asset is provided to either the acquisition device or to one or more second user devices.

no synergistic technical effect

2.1.4 The Board disagrees with the appellant that the distinguishing features interact synergistically. The appellant’s arguments in this respect are not convincing.

Firstly, the mere fact that the distinguishing features relate, or as the appellant put it are linked, to the second device is not a synergetic effect.

Secondly, synchronising devices with respect to a digital asset cannot constitute a synergistic technical effect, because it is not derivable based on a comparison between the claimed invention and D1. The system of D1 already provides the same asset to more than one registered user device, albeit not to the acquisition device and a further device (cf. decision, page 10, second paragraph). Accordingly, the actual effect of feature (c) lies in the alternative choice of the receiving devices. The Board cannot see that features (a) and (b) interact synergistically with this choice.

feature (a)

2.2 Concerning feature (a), the Board judges that, at the level of generality at which it is specified, this feature does not contribute to any (further) technical effect. As set out above, the description says that the “digital asset” includes textual content (cf. [27], line 6) and, when used with respect to texts, formatting covers using different fonts or text styles. This, however, relates to presentation of information and lacks technical character. The claimed formulation “based on the device” does not necessarily imply that any technical criteria are applied for selecting formats.

2.3 Incidentally, the Board judges that feature (a) is obvious even if it is narrowly interpreted as meaning that songs are provided to the claimed devices in different audio formats selected based on those devices’ rendering capabilities. The Board considers that the skilled person faced with the problem of ensuring that the devices can optimally render and store received audio assets would have readily considered using different audio formats, such as WAV and MP3. …

feature (b)

2.5 The Board judges that, starting from this embodiment it is obvious to specify the asset types to be accepted by the second device, such as the desktop computer, on the device itself. Interpreted in line with the appellant’s argument as meaning that the indication from the second device is based on the capabilities of this device (which is not claimed), the feature is even more obvious. The easiest way of indicating the second device’s capabilities to the server is to upload this device’s settings to the server.

feature (c)

2.6 Turning to feature (c), the Board judges that providing the asset to the acquisition device and a second device, follows from a business requirement.

In an ancillary line of reasoning the contested decision referred to decision T 2423/10 which concerned an online store, essentially identical to the claimed one, which provided a purchased asset to one device chosen from multiple suitable devices. T 2423/10 stated at point 6 of the reasons that “the range of devices suitable for receiving the “digital asset” is broad, but there are commercial reasons for limiting delivery to one device. The seller might, for example, want to charge the customer a fee for each device to which the “digital asset” is sent”.

The Board takes the view that this finding applies equally to the claimed choice of receiving devices. More particularly, the Board considers that, like the choice discussed in T 2423/10, the claimed choice is also based on business considerations, presumably on the applied fee scheme, and lacks technical character. Hence, applying the COMVIK approach, the business requirement to deliver the asset to the acquisition device and the second device is given to the technically skilled person within the framework of the technical problem.

2.7 Contrary to the appellant’s view, the technically skilled person is constrained by this requirement specification and would implement it, even if this runs against D1’s teaching.

2.8 The Board judges that adapting the system of D1 to provide the asset to the claimed choice of receiving devices does not pose any technical difficulty. As stated in the contested decision (see point 2.1.1, penultimate paragraph), D1 discloses all the necessary means for providing an asset to any subset of available devices (see paragraphs [21] and [40]).

Consequently, the Board finds that claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Further, the Board judges that none of the auxiliary requests add anything inventive. Accordingly, none of the requests fulfils the requirements of the EPC.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2745/18 (Providing a digital asset to two user devices/APPLE) of 24.11.2022.

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 overall suspicion level for a transaction: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to a video-based method and system for detecting whether goods or items have been properly scanned at point-of-sale or cashier terminals. However, since the distinguishing feature was considered to refer to a subjective perception, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2156/17 (Detecting suspicious activity using video analysis / NCR Corporation) of June 10, 2022 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.01.

Key takeaways

Terms that merely concern a subjective perception (like a “suspicion level”) can typically not contribute to the technical character.

The invention

The invention underlying the present decision may be summarized as follows:

Conventional cashier or point-of-sale (POS) systems that provide for purchase of items using a scanner or other automated identification of items via code suffer from a variety of deficiencies. In particular, operation of such systems can be compromised either knowingly or unknowingly by an operator in a manner that allows a customer to receive possession of one or more items without paying for them. In particular, such systems are susceptible to “pass-throughs”, also know as “sweethearting” in which an operator purposefully or accidentally fails to scan an item as that item moves through the transaction area. In such cases, the POS system never detects the unscanned item and the item is thus never totaled into the purchase price. In such cases, the customer effectively receives the item for free. Retail chains lose millions of dollars a year to operator error or fraudulent activity of this nature. In a non-fraudulent example, an operator may unknowingly pass an item through the scanning area during a transaction and place the item into the item output area such as a downstream conveyor belt, but no scan of the item took place. Perhaps the operator was not paying attention and did not notice (or did not care) that the scanner failed to beep during scanning of an item (cf. WO 2006/105376 A2, p. 2, l. 9-25).

The system according to the invention uses video data analysis techniques as will be explained to detect activity such as sweethearting or pass-throughs. In particular, the system detects incidents of theft or loss of inventory at the cash register, POS or other transaction terminal when an operator such as a customer or store employee passes one or more items around the scanner (or RFID reader) without being scanned, or when the operator scans or manually enters an incorrect code into the transaction terminal for an item. The system can also detect items which may be mislabeled with an incorrect bar code to be misread by the scanner or entered as the wrong item by the operator (cf. WO 2006/105376 A2, p. 3, l. 30-37).

 

Fig. 1 of WO 2006/105376 A2

  • Claim 1 of the first Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

First of all, the Board in charge rejected the Main Request because of a lack of inventive step (cf. Reasons for the Decision, items 1-30). Then the Board turned to the first Auxiliary Request and determined the distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D6 as follows:

33. The claimed method is further distinguished from the method of D6 in that the process is automatic, in that it incorporates a step of comparing the set of transaction events with the transaction data in order to identify a discrepancy in the respective number of items, and in the further step of identifying an overall “suspicion level” for the transaction.

However, according to the Board, specifically the comparison step to identify a discrepancy to generate a suspicion level would lack technical character:

34. Contrary to the appellant’s view, the step of comparing the set of detection events with the set of transaction data to identify a discrepancy is not technical. Independently of the nature of the events, it must be stressed that the comparison carried out simply compares data. All in all, the claimed step of comparing said data amounts to a mere comparison of lists by computer means.

35. The origin of the data are without bearing on the claimed step of comparing. The technicality of the transaction, as it manifests itself in the movement of items in a sequence of video frames, is lost when it comes to the step of comparing the data. The Board further rejects the view that the count that results from the comparison is technical in the context of the invention. The mere fact that the identification of a discrepancy is used to generate a “suspicion level” is also not sufficient to confer technical character to said method. The notion of “suspicion” is essentially subjective and as such not technical. The same applies to any parameters that may be derived therefrom.

Against this background, the Board concluded that the only feature of technical nature that distinguishes the claimed method from the teaching of D6 resides in the automation of the claimed process (cf. decision, item 36). However, since this would simply reflect a trend in technology, this feature would not be sufficient for an inventive step.

Since all other requests would either be inadmissible or would lack inventive step, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2156/17 (Detecting suspicious activity using video analysis / NCR Corporation) of June 10, 2022.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field