Author Archive

Redistribution of purchased event tickets: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application that deals with redistribution of tickets for an event. Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 2852/19 of 26.1.2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

According to the “COMVIK approach” (see T 641/00), non-technical features within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) EPC, i.e. features relating to administrative or commercial procedures not having a technical effect, cannot contribute to the inventive step.

The invention

The invention relates to optimised occupancy of an event. The aim is to avoid seats remaining empty if visitors cannot reach the event location in time. The invention proposes to automatically determine whether visitors to an event are in a defined area at a certain distance from the venue. GPS data from visitors’ cell phones is used for this purpose. If ticket buyers are not in said area shortly before the start of the event, an alert is sent to them and their ticket is resold in case of cancellation.

Figure 3 of EP3077976

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

According to the decision, D1 (= US 2010/015993 A1) is considered closest prior art.

The Board decided the following:

4.4 Difference

D1 therefore does not explicitly disclose:

(a) dynamically adapting the distance/area with time;

(b) requesting a visitor to cancel a seat reservation;

(c) offer the seat for resale.

4.5 Effect

4.5.1 The effect

(i) of features (a) and (b) is optimising the seat occupancy;

(ii) of features (b) and (c) is to increase the profit by reselling seats shortly prior to the event in case a visitor has cancelled its venue.

4.5.2 The effect (i) is technical. The effect (ii) is non-technical. According to the “COMVIK approach” (see T 641/00), non-technical features within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) EPC, i.e. features relating to administrative or commercial procedures not having a technical effect, cannot contribute to the inventive step. These features may therefore be included in the problem definition (see, inter alia, G 1/19 [reasons pt. 31], T 641/00, G 3/08, “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office”, 10**(th) edition, 2022, Sections I.D.9.2.1 to I.D. 9.2.6). According to T 641/00, the objective to be achieved in a non-technical field may appear legitimate in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem, i.e. the objective technical problem amounts to a statement of requirements that any implementation must meet.

4.5.3 Furthermore, according to the COMVIK approach, it is not decisive whether a system or process is technical or not. Rather, it is relevant whether the system or process contributes to the solution of a technical problem. The purpose of the system disclosed in D1 is the same as in the present invention, i.e. to achieve effects (i) and (ii) ([0023]). D1’s system as well as the present invention have – with respect to a manual system (cf. section VI(b) ff, above) – the technical effect of

1.) reducing network traffic since visitors do not have

to be called/emailed individually;

2.) optimising the seat occupancy.

4.5.4 This is achieved in both systems through GPS tracking and arrival time estimation, as well as the possibility to cancel seats via mobile device after a reminder sent to the visitor. Consequently, the implementation of the distinguishing features (a) to (c) into D1’s system would not have any additional technical effect and would not solve a technical problem.

4.5.5 The system according to the invention has only the difference that the radius of the area is dynamically adjusted. However, this corresponds to the disclosure of D1, i.e. the continuous monitoring of the position and the continuous calculation of the time of arrival. Therefore, the arguments under a) to e) of the appellant do not apply, since the technical effects discussed there are already achieved in the system of D1. Consequently, decision T 0279/05 is not applicable to the present case.

4.6 Problem

Therefore, the problem may be formulated as “optimising the seat occupancy and implementing features (J) and (K), i. e. prompting the user to indicate whether they plan to attend the event and offer the seat for sale“.

4.7 Obviousness

ad (a)

4.7.1 D1 calculates for a visitor continuously, i.e. at each point of the approach route, the remaining distance and route as well as the remaining time until reaching the venue. In addition, D1 specifies at least two different area thresholds (5-mile radius, 2-mile radius). It is obvious that these thresholds correspond to the time intervals when a visitor will be able to make his reservation in time at two different time thresholds, e.g., at 7:30 PM and 7:45 PM if the reservation is made for 8:00 PM. Therefore, it is obvious in view of the disclosure of D1 that the size of the area is reduced (e.g. from a 5-mile radius at 7:30 PM to a 2-mile radius at 7:45 PM) as an event start time approaches.

ad (b)

4.7.2 Feature (b) relates to an economical model, i.e. reselling a ticket by encouraging a visitor to cancel its reservation if it cannot meet the appointment time. The system of D1 reveals that a visitor is reminded of its reservation (“remind a user of a reservation”). D1 further discloses the option to “cancel a reservation if the user cannot meet the appointment time” by mobile phone. It would be obvious that the reminder contains a link or a request to cancel the reservation if the appointment time cannot be met.

ad (c)

4.7.3 Feature (c) is per se obvious, because it relates to a business method, i.e. reselling a ticket (reservation) in the case a visitor cannot arrive in time. In addition, D1 teaches “maximizing capacity and hence revenue”. D1 further teaches to rearrange a seating schedule and to offer the seat to other users ([0093]). If the restaurant charges a reservation fee for the deck, then this rearrangement corresponds to a resale of the seat reservation (if the system in D1 is not applied to a restaurant reservation but to a theater or concert reservation, the rearrangement would also correspond to a resale of the reservation ticket). It is therefore obvious to resell a reservation (event ticket) when the system in D1 detects that a reservation cannot be taken.

4.8 Features (F), (I), (J) and (K) are therefore obvious in view of the disclosure and teachings of D1.

5. Summary

The subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step over document D1 in combination with the common general knowledge of the skilled person and is therefore not inventive within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

Consequently, the present European patent application has been finally refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2852/19 of 26.1.2023 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

Labelling a package with cross-referenced information and using this information for retrieval: technical

This decision concerns an application relating to tracking of packaged products, such as milk. However, despite the technical contribution of one of the distinguishing features, the EPO refused grant since the claimed subject-matter would be rendered obvious by the cited prior art. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2771/18 (Content tracking/TETRA LAVAL) of January 11, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

While the meanwhile abandoned “contribution approach” led to the conclusion that the entirety of a claimed subject-matter is excluded from patentability under Article 52(3) EPC, the currently applicable COMVIK approach determines the technical contribution of individual features (by taking into account the complete claim), which may the be considered or not for the assessment of inventive step. Hence, the COMVIK approach can only lead to rejections under Art. 56 EPC.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns the tracking of packaged products, such as milk (published application, first paragraph).

1.2 The claimed method comprises steps of obtaining various pieces of information about a product, such as information about the raw material and the packaging, storing this information in an electronic database together with corresponding time stamps, “cross referring” the information, and labelling a packaged product with the cross-referenced information. Finally, based on the labelling information, stored information about the product is retrieved and used to recall the packaged product (page 5, line 3 to page 6, line 34).

This information about the origin and processing of a product enables, for example, packages containing milk from a contaminated farm to be identified and discarded (e.g. page 9, lines 3 to 10).

Fig. 3 of WO 2011/010958 A1

  • System Claim 1 of Main Request

Is it patentable?

During the appeal stage, the Appellant argued that the first instance examining division would have incorrectly the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This is because the examining division would have indicated which features of claim 1 of the main request were non-technical before identifying the closest prior art. This process would be known as the “contribution approach” which, however, has been abandoned:

2.2 The appellant argued that the examining division did not correctly apply the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This approach required identifying the closest prior art and the distinguishing features over this prior art before assessing the technical and inventive step contribution of these features. In contrast, the examining division indicated which features of claim 1 were non-technical before identifying the closest prior art. In the appellant’s opinion, the approach taken by the examining division was similar to the abandoned “contribution approach” (e.g. the Case Law Book, 10th edition, I.D.9.2.1).

However, the Board in charge did not agree to the Appellant’s arguments:

2.3 The Board cannot see how the examining division failed to follow the COMVIK approach. At point 3.1 of the decision, the division identified a computer and an electronic database as the only technical features of claim 1. The rest of the claim was said to define a business/administrative method. This led the examining division to choose a general-purpose networked data processing system as the closest prior art (point 3.2). The Board considers that it is legitimate to select the closest prior art based on the technical features of the claim (e.g. T 0172/03 – Order management/RICOH, points 11 to 18). This approach is also outlined in the Guidelines for Examination, section G-VII, 5.4.

After choosing the closest prior art, the examining division identified the distinguishing features as the steps of the business scheme listed previously under point 3.1 (see point 3.3). The division then formulated the objective technical problem as how to implement this business scheme in the known computer system (point 3.4). Finally, the division argued that the solution in claim 1 was obvious and concluded that the claim lacked an inventive step (point 3.5).

As a result, the Board arrived at the conclusion that the examining division correctly applied the COMVIK approach since the examining division determined that the distinguishing features did not contribute to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter. This would be something different than denying the technical character of an invention as a whole, as done in the past according to the “contribution approach”:

2.4 Hence, the examining division followed a generally established approach for assessing the inventive step of inventions comprising mixtures of technical and non-technical features. The division acknowledged that claim 1 comprised technical means and, therefore, had technical character as a whole. The division, however, concluded that the claim lacked an inventive step since the distinguishing features did not contribute to this technical character. This is different from the “contribution approach” mentioned by the appellant, where the lack of technical contribution over the prior art leads to the conclusion that the entirety of the claimed subject-matter is excluded from patentability under Article 52(3) EPC.

Since the Appellant was of the opinion that prior art document D2 would form a more promising starting point to arrive at the claimed subject-matter, the Board in charge, for the sake of completeness, exercised the COMVIK approach based on D2 as closest prior art document and identified the following distinguishing features:

2.8 … Hence, D2 stores and retrieves information in the same way as the claimed invention … D2, however, does not disclose labelling a package with cross-referenced information and using this information for the retrieval ….

The Board considered this feature technical and thus formulated the objective technical problem to be solved as follows:

2.9 The Board agrees with the appellant that labelling a package is technical, as it relates to a physical activity. A label comprising cross-referenced information enables retrieving information about the packaged content. Hence, the problem solved can be formulated as how to obtain information about packaged content from the database of D2.

However, the combination with prior art document D1 would render obvious the claimed subject-matter:

2.10 It is standard practice to label a package with information about its content (see e.g. D1, [0008]). In view of this, and when faced with the problem above, the skilled person would have chosen to label the package with a piece of information that can be used to retrieve further information about the packaged content. As the content’s identifier of D2 (i.e. the WorkID, [0044]) fulfils this requirement ([0053] to [0056]), it would have been an obvious choice. Since the further information (e.g. information about processing and transport events) is cross-referenced to the WorkID, the skilled person would have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 in an obvious way.

To counter the assessment of the Board, the Appellant argued that the invention would provide further technical effects:

2.12 According to the appellant, the cross-referencing ensured that “the entire process meets the necessary standards with respect to the sequence of the process and is performed within the required time period”. The process thus ensured that a package “meets the requirements of safety prior to labelling”.

2.13 The appellant also argued that the invention helped avoid counterfeit products since a fake label could be easily identified when querying the database with the information on the label.

2.14 Finally, the appellant argued that the method allowed for retrospective and accurate recall of contaminated packages.

Concerning the argument according to item 2.12, the Board doubted that this effect is technical. Moreover, this feature would be known from D2.

With respect to the argument of item 2.13, the Board argued that this consideration would extend beyond the scope of the claim and the application as a whole.

Finally, with respect to item 2.14, the Board found that the feature in question would only relate to a non-technical activity.

As a result, the Board dismissed the appeal since the claimed subject-matter would lack inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2771/18 (Content tracking/TETRA LAVAL) of January 11, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Managing a bid tracking database: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application concerning a method, system and apparatus for managing a bid tracking database. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 3005/18 (Bid tracking database/BLACKBERRY) of 28.10.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Simultaneously providing auction-related information in parallel to different servers does not have technical character, as it may be derived from merely administrative considerations.

The use of redundancy in data transmission and storage is an obvious way of ensuring data integrity, and that achieving synchronisation by simultaneously transmitting the same information to both servers is self-evident.

 

The invention

The invention concerns a method of managing a bid tracking database in an online bidding system including three servers (Figure 1, 116, 112 and 108, hereafter “first server”, “second server” and “third server”, respectively). The third server hosts auctions of a plurality of items. Users send bids for the various items to the second and third servers over wireless links using their mobile devices. The first server periodically requests bid records from the second server and corresponding auction records from the third server. The bid records include a time-stamp, a bid price and an item identifier for the received bids, while the auction records include a winning price, and end time-stamp and an item identifier for each concluded auction. The first server adds a received bid record to a bid tracking database if its bid price matches or exceeds the winning price for the corresponding auction, and its time-stamp corresponds to the auction’s end time-stamp.

Figure 1 of EP2325796

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

According to the decision from the examining division, the subject matter of that request was an obvious implementation, on notorious technical means, of non-technical steps for managing an auction, that is, an inherently business-related activity.

The Board finds it expedient to start with the analysis of the ninth auxiliary request, which is the most specific. The Board arrives at the same conclusions in respect of claim 1 of the ninth auxiliary request. In the Board’s view, the only technical features are the three network-connected computers, the user terminals as well as the establishment of wireless links between the servers and the terminals. These were indisputably known at the application’s filing date. The remaining features define a non-technical scheme for exchanging, processing and storing bid-related information. They are not based on technical considerations and therefore, in accordance with the well-established “Comvik” approach, cannot support an inventive step.

6. The appellant argued that the invention provided increased resilience and flexibility, since bid records and auction records were stored on servers different from the first server. The data to be stored was selected so that, in the case of a malfunction of one of the servers, essential data could be regenerated from the information available from the other two. The appellant also argued that the simultaneous transmission of the bid records to the second and third server increased the robustness of the system (particularly in the case of poor wireless connections) and its reliability by avoiding synchronisation errors.

6.1 The Board finds these arguments unconvincing. The definition of the pieces of information which are “essential” to an auction as well as the cognitive content of the information provided to each server are part of the underlying non-technical requirements. Moreover, as observed by the examining division, the application as a whole does not mention increasing resilience, ensuring robustness or preserving data integrity. Therefore, in the Board’s view also the feature of simultaneously providing auction-related information in parallel to different servers does not have technical character, as it may be derived from merely administrative considerations. For example, different entities may be in charge of verifying the correctness of the auction results.

6.2 Transmitting data simultaneously over different channels and storing the data on different servers may indeed increase resilience and robustness by providing redundancy. However, for the reasons discussed above these are considered “bonus effects” following from the implementation of an essentially non-technical scheme.

6.3 The Board further observes that the use of redundancy in data transmission and storage is an obvious way of ensuring data integrity, and that achieving synchronisation by simultaneously transmitting the same information to both servers is self-evident. Hence, even if these features were considered to be technical, they would not render claim 1 inventive.

7. The appellant further argued that requesting bid records at periodic intervals reduced network traffic and the servers’ processing load, and provided the advantage that the polling interval could be chosen so as to minimise the bandwidth requirements. Generating a list of item identifiers without duplicates further reduced network traffic requirements. Therefore, these features had a technical character.

7.1 The Board notes that the application does not deal with the problems of reducing bandwidth occupancy or managing computational resources. Therefore, in the context of the invention, requesting bid records and the respective auction records on a periodic basis (for example, once a week, see paragraph [0025]) is considered non-technical. Moreover, this feature does not necessarily reduce the overall network traffic or the system load, because data requests are transmitted to the second server even if no new bid records are available. The Board further observes that it is not apparent, neither from the application, nor from the appellant’s arguments, which polling interval would minimise the bandwidth requirements (short of an infinite interval, that is, sending no requests at all).

7.2 The steps of generating a duplicate-free list of item identifiers and requesting the auction records corresponding to the items on the list implement the non-technical requirement of retrieving the auction records corresponding to the bids received in a given period. Any improvements in terms of reduced bandwidth requirements or reduced server load are not due to technical considerations, but are inherent in the efficiency of the implementing algorithm, which is not considered a technical effect (see for example T 1784/06, Reasons, point 3.1.2; T 42/10, Reasons, point 2.11; T 2418/12, Reasons, points 3.2 to 3.5). Therefore, these steps cannot support an inventive step.

8. It was further argued that providing the terminal identifiers only to the third server anonymised the bid, and that the system provided scalability, because auctions with a small number of bids could be hosted by the first server, while bigger auctions could be hosted by the third server. During oral proceedings the appellant also argued that omitting the terminal identifiers reduced the bandwidth requirements.

The Board finds also these arguments unconvincing, for the following reasons:

8.1 Anonymising the bids is not a technical problem, and the decision as to which server should receive the mobile identifiers is a non-technical one.

8.2 Claim 1 does not mention at all the possibility of hosting the auctions on different servers based on the number of bids. The alleged increase in scalability is therefore entirely speculative.

8.3 Reducing bandwidth occupancy by omitting part of the information to be transmitted (that is, the identifiers of the mobile devices) merely circumvents the problem, rather than solving it by technical means.

9. In the absence of any technical contribution going beyond the straightforward implementation of a non-technical scheme, the Board judges that claim 1 of the ninth auxiliary request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Since none of the auxiliary requests could overcome the objection of lack of inventive step, the application was finally refused.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 3005/18 (Bid tracking database/BLACKBERRY) of 28.10.2022 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

Insurance-risk prediction: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to insurance-risk prediction. However, the EPO refused the application as an obvious implementation of a non-technical scheme. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) of September 28, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

A comparison with the prior art, for example with what humans did before an invention, is not a suitable basis for establishing technical character of subject-matter excluded from patentability.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1 The invention concerns insurance-risk prediction and provides a model analysing potential losses of a company to be insured in order to determine the price of the company’s insurance policy (originally filed application, page 2, line 6 to page 4, line 15).

The model analyses a hypothetical scenario, in which an event causes a loss to the company (page 18, line 1 to page 19, line 9). While not explicitly disclosed, but argued by the appellant during oral proceedings, such an event could be, for example, an accident on the company’s premises. Looking at the Table on page 35 of the original application, the model contains interconnected components called liability risk drivers or LRD members. For example, there is a liability risk driver predicting possible property damage and human injuries resulting from human error (page 44). Another liability risk driver predicts the amount awarded by courts to injured persons as a result of mass litigation (page 35, line 19, to page 36, line 25). The model combines the output of the liability risk drivers and calculates the expected loss cost (page 51, line 26 to page 52, line 8). As shown in the third column of the aforementioned Table, the liability risk drivers employed by the main embodiment analyse business and legal factors only.

3. The claimed invention

The claimed invention additionally assigns to the liability risk drivers physical parameters acquired by measuring devices. The application is not specific as to what sort of physical parameters are used; it discloses merely that the measuring devices “can comprise…all kind of sensors and data capturing or data filtering devices” (page 14, lines 9 to 11). The application does not disclose any embodiment in which particular sensor measurements are processed.

Furthermore, the claimed invention comprises a loss resolving unit that resolves an unspecific loss occurring at a so-called loss unit.

The claims do not provide any technical details of the computer implementation. The application merely states that the claimed units can be implemented in software (page 15, lines 20 to 22).

 

Fig. 1 of EP 2 461 286 A1

  • System Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request I

Is it patentable?

In accordance with the first instance examining division, the Board considered that an appropriate starting point to arrive at the claimed invention (according to Auxiliary Request I) is a computer system connected to sensors (rather than just a computer). Then, the Board defined the distinguishing features as follows:

4.5 The claim differs from this starting point by the control unit controller, its sub-units, the loss units and the loss resolving unit.

Afterwards, the Board commented on the main point in dispute, i.e. whether the distinguishing features contribute to the solution of a technical problem, as follows:

4.6 The main point of dispute in this appeal is whether these distinguishing features define a technical solution, as argued by the appellant (see section XI., above), or non-technical matter that could be envisaged by the business person and thus be part of the requirement specification given to the technically skilled person, as considered by the examining division.

4.7 Based on the above understanding of the claimed invention, the Board concludes that the distinguishing features relate per se to an abstract insurance model for predicting future losses and resolving losses that have already occurred. The Board agrees with the examining division that this model constitutes a business method excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

Against this finding, the Appellant argued that the claimed model could be automatically executed on a computer, thereby replacing human experts in performing the risk analysis. While the Board accepts that the claimed invention predicts losses in a different way from a human expert, the Board also found that this difference cannot establish technical character:

4.9 The Board also accepts that the claimed model predicts future losses in a different way from a human expert.

However, it is established case law that a comparison with the prior art, for example with what humans did before the invention, is not a suitable basis for establishing technical character of subject-matter excluded from patentability or for distinguishing between technical and non-technical features (see T 1358/09, Reasons, point 5.4).

As a result, the Board in charge disregarded the above-mentioned distinguishing features in accordance with the COMVIK approach and thus found that the claimed subject-matter lacks inventive step. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2626/18 (Insurance risk prediction/SWISS RE) of September 28, 2022.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Facilitating exchange of information between parties in business launch centers: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application concerning a method and a system for facilitating exchange of information between parties in business launch centers. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0528/07 (Portal system/ACCENTURE) of 27.4.2010 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The Board does not share the appellant’s opinion that TRIPS would require a modification of the Comvik approach.

The TRIPS member states are free to adopt different standards for each patentability requirement, such as inventive step.

The Comvik approach is one facet of the standard applied by the EPO.

Features do not interact merely because they have a common goal.

 

The invention

The invention in accordance with claim 1 is a computer system for providing a business-to-business relationship portal. Its purpose is to facilitate the exchange of information between parties for example in business launch centres. It presents business opportunity information to permissioned users. In case of a business launch centre an “opportunity” is eg “any e-business that is being evaluated by one of the launch centers”. “Business opportunity information” is eg company background information or financial information, and “permissioning” refers to users’ rights to view and/or modify information. The channels, which may appear as boxes on the user’s screen, contain links to portal applications and may include summaries of aggregated data from the applications.

Figure 2 of EP1438689

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division had rejected the patent application on the grounds that the main request was a mixture of technical and non-technical features and that the invention merely seemed to display desired information, or a corresponding link.

During the appeal proceedings, the applicant objected that the Comvik approach was not appropriate on the basis of Article 27 (1) TRIPS.

The Board did not agree:

2.2 The Board is aware that the Comvik approach often leads to the conclusion that an invention involving non-technical aspects merely solves a trivial technical problem. But this is not an inevitable outcome. As soon as an invention solves a technical problem in a non-obvious way patent protection is in principle available even if the claim in addition contains non-technical features (cf T 769/92 “Sohei”, OJ EPO 1995,525). A frequent case is however that technical features, such as the client-server system in the present case, are known as such but are used for a non-technical purpose. According to the Comvik approach, a claim feature is regarded either as being a mere expression of a non-technical “framework” or as constituting a technical feature that contributes to an inventive step. The appellant seems to argue that such a grouping of features should not be performed, or at least that the “framework” should to some degree also contribute to the inventive step.

2.3 The Board does not share the appellant’s opinion that TRIPS would require a modification of the Comvik approach. Article 27(1) TRIPS stipulates that, subject to the provisions of its paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. At the revision conference in the year 2000, Article 52(1) EPC was amended to include the expression “in all fields of technology” to bring it explicitly into line with the TRIPS agreement. TRIPS does not give a definition of the term “technology” but leaves it to the member states and their jurisdiction to define and apply this concept (cf J. Straus, “Bedeutung des TRIPS für das Patentrecht”, GRUR Int. 1996, No. 3, 179, points 35 and 36). The Board accepts that in the present case the claimed subject-matter is technical, ie an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC, and therefore open to patent protection. However, under Article 27(1) TRIPS a patent shall only be granted if it is new and involves an inventive step. Again, TRIPS does not stipulate how these requirements are to be applied. Article 27(1) TRIPS reflects on the one hand a minimum consensus and on the other hand the member states’ unreadiness uniformly to define the patentability requirements (cf J. Straus, loc. cit. point 47). The TRIPS member states are free to adopt different standards for each patentability requirement, such as inventive step (cf Nuno Pires de Carvalho, “The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights”, 2nd edn., The Hague, 2005, 191). The Comvik approach is one facet of the standard applied by the EPO.

Further, the Board reached the following decision on claim 1:

5.4 The remaining features in claim 1 owe, in the Board’s view, their existence to the underlying business model. In particular, the information contents enumerated in features e), f), g) and h) are meaningful only to the human mind:

e)… information related to new business opportunities;

f)… an opportunities application that displays business opportunities;

g)… a catalog application that displays catalog content related to the business opportunities;

h)… communication items related to the business opportunities.

5.5 Finally, feature i) is based on an administrative hierarchy:

i) said server being programmed so as to enable an administration set of permissionned users to set user permissionning related to said business opportunities.

5.6 The Board can therefore not see that claim 1 contains any feature making a non-obvious technical contribution to the prior art.

5.7 The appellant has argued that the overall combination of the features has a synergistic effect because they cooperate to solve the technical problem of facilitating the exchange of information and supporting rapid information sharing (cf the letter dated 21 January 2010, page 3).

The Board is not convinced that there is an (unexpected) synergistic effect since features do not interact merely because they have a common goal. But even if there was such an effect it could only exist on a business level. On a technical level nothing in the claim is surprising: the use of a client-server system facilitates the exchange of information and support information sharing (that is what it is for); and the kind of information displayed or transmitted (opportunities, catalogues) has nothing to do with the rapidity with which signals travel from user to user. Furthermore, if the invention has the effect of reducing the traffic load on the net – as has been argued – this is due to user restrictions rather than, say, a protocol determining how the computers transmit data packets over the communication channel. In other words, the load is reduced by non-technical rather than technical means (also referred to in the jurisprudence of the Boards as a “circumvention” of the technical problem).

5.8 It follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).

Since none of the auxiliary requests could overcome the objection of lack of inventive step, the application was finally refused.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0528/07 (Portal system/ACCENTURE) of 27.4.2010 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

Avoiding redundant displaying of notifications: technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to an arrangement of multiple electronic devices receiving content of internet services. By using a synchronisation server, it is avoided that corresponding notifications are displayed redundantly on the electronic devices. The Board in charge considered the usage of a synchronisation server programmed to track received and viewed notifications based on information received from the user devices technical. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2712/18 (Synchronisation server/APPLE) dated November 14, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Technical implementation choices regarding administrative schemes that may not be envisaged by the business person are in the sphere of the technically skilled person.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns an arrangement in which a user sets up multiple electronic devices (“plurality of associated devices” in the claims), for example a mobile phone and a desktop computer, to receive content (“notifications”) from Internet services ([3] and [18]). Looking at Figure 2, in such an arrangement notifications are provided to local applications 205A-205D by servers 104A-104D (“a first server” and “a second server” in the claims of the third auxiliary request). For example, an email server 104C provides emails to a local email application 205C and a weather server 104D provides weather updates and forecasts to a local weather application 205D ([20]).

The problem with this arrangement is that multiple electronic devices contain overlapping notifications and the user has to sift through notifications which they possibly already viewed on another device ([3] and [33]). The invention seeks to avoid the redundant display of notifications which have already been viewed on one of the user’s devices ([13]).

1.2 Looking at Figure 3, the invention provides a synchronisation server 108 tracking which notifications are received and which user devices they are displayed on ([33]). To this end, the user devices inform the synchronisation server about each received notification ([31] and [32]).

The synchronisation server also receives from a user device an indication that the user selected and viewed a particular notification on it ([41]). Upon receiving such an indication, the synchronisation server sends an indication that the notification has been viewed to each user device on which it is present ([41] to [43]). Upon receipt of this indication, the user devices may remove the viewed notification from a user interface displaying it ([43]).

Fig. 2 of EP 2 669 854 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the third auxiliary request:

  • Claim 1 (third auxiliary request)

Is it technical?

The first instance examining division considered that the technical aspects of claim 1 of the main request (which generally corresponds to claim 1 of the third auxiliary request that has only submitted during the appeal proceedings with some further limitations) would not go beyond a general purpose networked computer system performing its commonly known functions. Specifically, the task of managing notifications was an administrative one and the steps of receiving and sending notifications and indications did not per se have technical character. In addition, the examining division pointed out that avoiding presenting duplicate notifications to a user was merely an administrative problem (see appeal decision, items 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).

Against this assessment, the applicant argued as follows:

4.2.4 The appellant argued that exchanging messages between the synchronisation server and the user devices was part of the technical solution and the features defining this functionality should be considered for inventive step.

At the appeal stage, the Board in charge generally agreed to the applicant’s arguments:

4.2.7 It is established case law that the business person giving the non-technical requirements to the skilled person does not have technical appreciation of how business concepts are implemented on a computer system (see T 1082/13, Reasons, point 4.8). However, the provision of the synchronisation server and the decision on what electronic messages to communicate in order to remove viewed notifications from the user devices require such understanding of computer technology and involve technical considerations on how this technology can be used to implement the above administrative requirement. These steps have the character of a communication protocol. It follows that these features could not be envisaged by the business person and are technical implementation choices which are in the sphere of the technically skilled person.

Hence, the Board found that claim 1 of the main request comprises several other technical features which applies a fortiori to the narrower independent claim 1 of the third auxiliary request:

4.2.8 Accordingly, the Board judges that the following features of claims 1 and 7 of the third auxiliary request are part of the technical implementation and, therefore, subject to the assessment of inventive step:

– providing a user device programmed to:

– run two applications and to receive notifications

for these applications from two different servers

– inform the synchronisation server which

notifications have been received and which among

them have been viewed

– remove a notification from a user interface on

which it is displayed in response to the

indication, from the synchronisation server, that

the notification has been viewed

– providing the synchronisation server programmed to

track received and viewed notifications based on the

information received from the user devices and to

provide to the user devices the indication that a

notification has been viewed on one of them.

According to the Board, the technically skilled person would not have arrived at the claimed subject-matter when starting from a general purpose networked computer system. Specifically, the features specifying the use of the synchronisation server and the exchanged messages clearly go beyond the routine knowledge of the skilled person (see item 4.2.9 of the appeal decision).

Since the examining division failed to assess the claimed subject-matter with regard to the pertinent prior art, the Board remitted the case back for further examination. Thus, the decision under appeal was set aside.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2712/18 (Synchronisation server/APPLE) of November 14, 2022

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Authorising access to goods and/or services based on an access voucher: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application concerning a method and a system for authorising access to goods and/or services based on an access voucher. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0800/20 (Restricted voucher redemption/MICROTRONIC) of 10.10.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Restricting the redemption of a voucher to a particular machine is not a technical problem, and providing an identifier, such as a name or a number, for identifying the machine is an administrative matter.

The invention

The invention concerns a method for obtaining goods from a vending machine using a prepaid voucher and seeks to ensure that the vending machine accepts only vouchers directed to it and restricted to goods which it serves. Claim 1 of the main request concerns a method carried out by the vending machine (“point of sale” in the claim) upon reading such a restricted voucher.

As shown in Figure 2, the voucher comprises the identifiers of goods for which it can be redeemed (31) and the identifier of a vending machine to which it is directed (32). While not claimed, the identifiers might be, for example, encoded in a scannable QR code.

The vending machine stores the list of identifiers of served products (21) and its own identifier (22) in databases 201 and 202. Upon reading the voucher, the vending machine extracts the identifiers 31 and 32 and compares them with the stored identifiers 21 and 22. If the corresponding identifiers match, the product can be dispensed (“the access to goods…being authorised”).

 

Figure 2 of EP2912615

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused claim 1 for a lack of inventive step over D1 (Article 56 EPC).

The Board confirmed the decision of the examining division:

2.5 Accordingly, using the numbering of the features in point 3.2 of the decision under appeal, the Board considers that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D1 in that:

i) The voucher and the vending machine comprise the identifier of the vending machine.

ii) The vending machine authorises the access to goods if the identifier of the vending machine read from the voucher matches the corresponding identifier stored in the vending machine.

2.6 Applying the COMVIK approach (T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), it is common ground that the distinguishing features implement a non-technical administrative requirement whose specification is given to the skilled person within the framework of the technical problem to be solved. The point of dispute is the scope of this requirement specification.

…

2.8 In the Board’s view, restricting the redemption of a voucher to a particular machine is not a technical problem, and providing an identifier, such as a name or a number, for identifying the machine is an administrative matter. Thus, it follows that the non-technical requirement specification dictates that the voucher should be associated with a vending machine identifier, and this identifier should be compared with the identifier of a vending machine to which the voucher is presented.

…

2.10 In their ancillary line of reasoning, the examining division argued that, even assuming that the decision to provide the vending machine identifier in the voucher had technical character, it was still an obvious design option. The same held for providing the identifier in the vending machine (decision, point 5).

The Board agrees and judges that starting from the embodiment of D1 in which the voucher has all the relevant redemption features and given the problem of implementing the requirement specification defined in point 2.8, it would have been obvious to provide the vending machine’s identifier in the vending machine and on the voucher and to adapt the vending machine to compare these identifiers when the voucher is read.

In the end, the Board judges that claim 1 (main request) lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Since none of the auxiliary requests could overcome this objection, the application was finally refused.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0800/20 (Restricted voucher redemption/MICROTRONIC) of 10.10.2022 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

Monitoring airport data and automation of cover payments in case of airport closures: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a system that deals with airport closures and related flight plan changes due to natural disaster events. More specifically, based on given business rules, an automatic payment of financial compensation is paid to the airlines affected by the airport closures. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the the relevant features would only refer to a non-technical business scheme. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0524/19 () dated September 16, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Policies drawn up by the notional business person are typically non-technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1.1 The volcanic activity in Iceland in 2010 and the subsequent closure of airspace led to an estimated loss of 1.7 billion dollars for the airline industry. Between 15 and 21 April 2010 almost the entire European airspace was closed resulting in cancellation of all flights in, to and from Europe. The invention relates to dealing with such airport closures and related flight plan changes due to natural disaster events.

2.2 When aircraft are grounded for more than ten days, airline companies may no longer be able to pay the operating resources (kerosene, salaries, maintenance etc.) due to lack of revenues. It is an aim of the invention to reduce the risk that airline companies go bankrupt due to lack of cash for operation during or after natural disaster events. The airlines seek risk transfer by means of insurance technology to cover such unforeseeable events and to ensure operation of the aircraft fleets. The related technology should be able to cover risk events such as 1) strikes, riots etc.; 2) war, hijacking, terror; 3) pandemic-based risks; 4) extreme weather situations; 5) instabilities in Air Traffic Control (ATC); 6) volcanic ash. However, the covers are technically difficult to design because no standards e.g. for critical ash concentrations exist. It is an object of the invention to provide an automated system preventing imminent grounding of aircraft fleets due to missing financial resources after risk events and to provide a systematic and automated management of risk exposure.

2.3 The invention proposes determining, based on given business rules, the automatic payment of financial compensation to the affected business units, i.e. airlines and their fleets. This object is solved by monitoring relevant airport data, defining critical thresholds, and automation of cover payments in case of airport closures.

Fig. 1 of WO 2014/009415 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request (filed as Annex A):

  • Claim 1 (main request - labelling added by the Board)

Is it technical?

The Board in charge considered D1 to form the closest prior art for the subject-matter of claim 1 and identified the following distinguishing features, wherein technical ones are presented in italic:

2.6.1 The main differences are therefore (…):

(a) payment-receiving modules;

(b) automated transfer of risk exposure associated to the aircraft fleets is provided (= automated premium payment);

(c) means for receiving flight plan data stored in a selectable trigger-table;

(d) airport closures are matched with natural disaster event data comprised in a predefined searchable table of natural disaster events;

(e) wherein each risk is related to parameters of a table element, defining the natural disaster events,

(f) setting flags in the table of corresponding risk together with storing related natural disaster event data and/or measuring parameters indicating at least time of occurrence and/or affected region of the natural disaster event;

(g) for a match a trigger-flag is set to the assigned risk exposed aircraft fleets of the airport indicator and a parametric transfer of payments is assigned to the trigger-flag;

(h) the payments are automatically scaled based on the likelihood of said risk exposure, the number of pooled risk exposed aircraft fleets is self-adapted;

(i) the payouts are activated only if said transmission comprises a definable minimum number of airport identifications assigned to airport closings thus creating an implicit geographic spread of the closed airports of the flight plan;

(j) a failure deployment device (6) of the system (1) triggers the payout.

Then, the Board identified the effects of said features as follows (technical ones in italic):

2.7 Technical effects

2.7.1 The following (technical/non-technical) effects can be identified:

(a) payment-receiving modules: these means are implicit for any automated payment system; no specific technical effect is related thereto.

(b) automated transfer of risk exposure: these features are purely related to a business method;

(c) means for receiving flight plan data: these means are implicit when dealing with flight plan tables;

(d) a selectable trigger-table for flight plan data: storing flight plan data (in a table) implies that assignments of aircraft to specific airports can be extracted from the table;

(e) airport closures are matched: from the closed airports it can be inferred that a natural disaster has occurred;

(f) natural disaster event table: a time-dependent mapping of the occurrence of a natural disaster can be established;

(g) table with predefined risk: a risk evaluation based on the impact of a natural disaster related to a specific airport/fleet can be performed;

(h) automated and scaled payments: risk evaluation for calculating insurance cover and insurance reimbursement is related to a business method;

(i) geographic spread: mapping of airport closures in combination with the previous features allows matching of airport closures to a specific natural disaster;

(j) failure deployment device of the system: D1 discloses a failure deployment device. Linking the failure deployment device to the automatic payout realises electronically triggered payments.

Specifically with respect to feature (T), the Appellant was of the opinion that this features provides a technical effect:

2.7.2 The Appellant argued that feature (T), namely that an automatic payout can only take place if a minimum number of airport closings created “an implicit geographic spread of the closed airports of the flight plan”, had the technical effect that a certain natural disaster can be inferred from easily ascertainable data (which airport is closed when and where?) without a great deal of computing and detection effort. This did not directly result from the insurance conditions and could not be specified by the notional business person. Consequently, this feature was purely technical.

2.7.3 Since the primary technical effect of feature (T) was that a natural disaster could be detected, it could not be argued that the technical effect was “diminished” by the fact that in the final effect it served exclusively to pay out an insurance premium. In general, the primary technical effect of a non-technical feature could not be diminished by the fact that in the final effect it serves exclusively a non-technical or business purpose. This would be tantamount to imputing technical knowledge to the notional business person. If non-technical features had both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect had to be taken into account when assessing inventive step (see related case T 698/19, catchword).

However, the Board in charge found that feature (T) would only refer to a pure business constraint which is not technical:

2.7.4 However, the Board is of the opinion that, while a trigger feature such as a “minimum number of airport identifications assigned to airport closings” might, in certain contexts, be seen as technical, feature (T) must be assessed as a whole and in the context of the claimed invention. The above trigger condition serves exclusively as a condition that “said assignment of the parametric transfer of payments is automatedly (sic) activated”, hence to implement the insurance policy and initiate the payment.

2.7.5 Feature (T) as a whole does not allow a natural disaster to be “detected” in any technical sense, it is merely an arbitrary rule based on a statistical inference from known data on airport closures. Certainly the notional business person has no knowledge of computer programming or detector design, but this is not what is claimed. The insurance business is based on probability and statistics, and the insurance business person must surely have some knowledge of their own business. Such a person would understand that if only one airport were closed, there is a high probability that it may be due to a local problem, whereas if ten airports in western Europe were closed, it is much more probable that a natural emergency is the cause. If the aim is to insure only against natural emergencies, then looking at previous statistical records would provide a suitable minimum number of airport closures to use in the policy. The Board does not see any technology at work here, it is just a choice by the notional business person drawing up the policy. For example, if, in a given region, the minimum number of airport closures required to trigger a payout is set to four, then if only three airports are closed, there is no payout, even if the closures are actually due to a natural disaster. So it is not a matter of “recognising” a natural disaster in the technical sense, but only a rule for a payout, which therefore has a purely economic effect.

Then, the Board summarized the effects of the distinguishing features as follows:

2.7.7 …

(i) minimum number of airport closures triggers the automated payment; the character of the features concerned is non-technical, the purpose is non-technical (transfer of financial risks)

(ii) identifying type and risk factor of a natural disaster based on flight plan data, airport closures and a natural disaster event table with associated risks; the character of the features concerned is technical, the purpose is both technical (risk evaluation) and non-technical (transfer of financial risks).

(iii) automatisation of payments; the character of the payment means used is technical, the character of the implemented method (features (Q) to (S2), (U), (V)) is non-technical.

Afterwards, the Board found that the notional business person would define the business framework described in the application as follows::

2.8.1 The Board is of the opinion that the notional business person, who does not have any technical knowledge or technical skills, defines in the insurance policy the following business framework conditions for the system:

(a) It must be defined which specific geophysical events (volcano ash, riots, hurricanes, strikes etc.) are covered (or not).

(b) It must further be defined in the insurance conditions which airports/specific regions, which specific time interval and which specific types of event are to be taken into account, e.g. only Eurasian and American airport closures may be taken into account for a minimum of seven consecutive days of closure, financial damage due to strike within the airline company and closures for less than seven days may not be taken into account etc.

(c) Another implicit condition is that only groundings of scheduled aircraft (i.e. according to a flight plan) are considered.

(d) The correlation between the risk factor and the premium payed out must further be defined in the policy.

(e) The scaling factor for the scaled payments must be defined.

(f) As discussed above a further condition may be that payouts are triggered only when a minimum number of aircraft of a fleet is concerned. A clause may be provided that reimbursement is only provided when “clustering” of airport closures occurs, i.e. the payments are only activated if there are massive airport closures and a natural event is classified as a natural disaster (e.g. four airports in a given region).

To solve this problem, the notional business person would simply instruct a computer specialist to program a computer system accordingly:

2.8.2 … In the present case the notional business person (e.g. insurance company in cooperation with the airline companies concerned) instructs a computer specialist with the implementation of an automated system. Their task is to adapt the software in the central computer.

The Board then concluded that the problem to be solved could be formulated as follows, including the wording of the features that it considered non-technical:

2.8.4 The technical problem to be solved therefore can be defined as providing a systematic and automated management of financial and technical risk exposure associated to cancellation of scheduled flights due to airport closures caused by natural disasters, including implementing the claimed non-technical features (Q) to (V).

On the effects (i)-(iii) identified above, the Board commented as follows:

ad (i)

…

2.9.3 The failure of several airports in Germany due to lack of gas, in France due to strike, in Ukraine due to war and in Italy due to earthquake was discussed. These cases may not all be covered by the insurance policy, but it needs a quantitative parameter to determine a “disaster”, and this quantitative parameter is defined in the insurance policy and given by the notional business person to the technically skilled person for implementation. The insurance conditions require monitoring airport closures within defined regions (“geographic spread”), and it would be straightforward for the technically skilled person to arrive at an appropriate means for implementing this in an automatic manner.

ad (ii)

2.9.4 It is (at least implicitly) a non-technical constraint that the amount to be paid out should be dependent on the number of aircraft actually impacted by the airport closures. Therefore, in order to deal with the technical and financial consequences of airport closures, the Board is of the opinion that it is obvious to the skilled person to consider the concerned airports and flight plan routes to and from the closed airports according to a selectable flight plan table (if only scheduled flight are covered by the insurance policy). In view of the objective technical problem to be solved, it is a normal option to monitor which flight plan connection (and therefore which fleets and airlines) are concerned by the closure of specific airports and air-spaces. Furthermore, the emergency system of D3 teaches ([0084]) to take flight plan data into account. The skilled person would therefore adapt the software architecture of D1 and correlate the airport closure events with the flight plan data. Flight plan data is in general available in form of a selectable trigger-table in order to retrieve the data.

2.9.5 It is a normal option to provide a time-dependent mapping of airport closures in relation to the aircraft being concerned and setting a trigger-flag to the assigned risk exposed aircraft fleets of the airport indicator.

2.9.6 Clustering, i.e. a minimum number of aircraft closures in a mapped region, is considered a pre-requisite for payment and a non-technical constraint. Also paying out according to the number of aircraft concerned is a non-technical constraint (see the related case T 288/19). The technically skilled person merely has to solve the (technical) problem of the technical implementation, i.e. the implementation of the business constraints, into the software system. The skilled person would therefore extract the flight plan data accordingly and map the (temporal or geographical) evolution. It is a normal option to monitor which flight plan connections (and therefore which airlines and aircraft) are concerned by the closure of specific airports and to provide a time-dependent mapping of the data (feature (P)).

ad(iii)

2.9.7 Features (Q) to (V), relate to automatically triggering payouts of insurance covers, and directly result from the problem to be solved. Furthermore, the parameterization of the risk evaluation and reimbursement model is ultimately influenced by business requirements (see also reasons 2.13 of T 1798/13).

2.9.8 In T 848/15 (reasons 3.2) it was held that insurance risk management related exclusively to economic considerations in the framework of purely economic models defined by an economist and therefore was not inventive within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (cf. also T 698/19, reasons 3.8.2 ff). Accordingly, non-technical features purely relating to an insurance model (e.g. non-technical part of features (b), (h) to (j) in the present case, see point 2.7.1 above) are obvious for the same reasoning.

…

Against this background, the Board found that claim 1 lacks inventive step and thus dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0524/19 () of September 16, 2022

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Integrated product configuration: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application concerning a method for integrated product configuration and production planning. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1835/18 (Integrated product configuration/SIEMENS) of 7.9.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

For technicality to be acknowledged, it is not sufficient to argue the potential presence of technical considerations. These must be derivable, in a credible manner, from the claimed subject-matter and, furthermore, there must be a disclosure with sufficient technical details in the application as filed.

The invention

The invention concerns product configuration and production planning. When ordering a complex product, such as cars, customers can usually choose between different configurations, which may translate into complex sets of production requirements and tasks for the producers. In existing approaches, the tasks relating to product and product configuration are conducted in isolation. This may cause duplication, inconsistency, inaccuracy of information flow as well as unverifiable results, because the different tools have their own representation of the knowledge required for their part of the task.

These problems are addressed by the invention by describing the tasks in an abstract language, so as to provide a common input for the different technologies and corresponding tools at use, which are then integrated. The integration includes the automatic translation of the abstract representation of the tasks into a problem-specific representation which can be efficiently handled by a suitable solver, such as binary decision diagrams, satisfiability solvers, rule engines, constraint-based systems. Finally, each task is processed according to the chosen solver.

 

Figure 1 of EP2996076

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused claim 1 of the sole request for a lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The division took the view that the subject-matter of claim 1 was an obvious implementation, on a conventional networked information system, of a set of non-technical steps for carrying out product configuration and planning.

The Board confirmed the decision of the examining division:

7. The Board agrees with the examining division that the steps of claim 1, apart from their computer-based implementation, do not have a technical character, but rather represent a set of non-technical requirements. The level of abstraction of the claim – and indeed of the whole application – is such that there is no connection with any well-defined technical system or specific technical constraints. The “solver technologies” in the second method step are abstract problem-solving algorithms (see in particular the description, page 4, lines 9 to 25, and page 6, lines 25 to 32). No technical information is provided as to how the solvers are integrated (second method step), or how the problem-specific translation (third method step) is achieved. Finally, there is no technical characterisation of the tasks to be executed or of the technical means on which the method is implemented.

8. In the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant provided an exemplary list, extracted from Wikipedia, of considerations upon which a generic product configuration may be based, such as the availability of standard interfaces, the use of a single or multiple databases for different user groups, the way of communicating with other systems.

9. For technicality to be acknowledged, however, it is not sufficient to argue the potential presence of technical considerations. These must be derivable, in a credible manner, from the claimed subject-matter and, furthermore, there must be a disclosure with sufficient technical details in the application as filed. This is not the case for the application at issue. Even though the skilled person in charge of the implementation will generally make use of a number of technical features, such as appropriate communication interfaces or database architectures, these are neither explicitly included nor inherent in the claimed subject-matter. The mere possibility of a technical embodiment is not sufficient to lend technical character to a general concept.

10. Even though the avoidance or reduction of redundancies and inconsistencies are among the intended effects of the invention, in the Board’s view they are not credibly and objectively derivable from the claimed features, none of which deals – alone or in combination – with the management or storage of data in a database. Moreover, the integration of “solver technologies capable of efficient [sic] performing the tasks” is a mere desideratum, whose implementation is left to the skilled person. It follows that the alleged improvements in computer efficiency and database consistency are entirely speculative.

In the end, the Board judges that the steps of claim 1 do not provide any technical contribution beyond the straightforward implementation on a general-purpose computer. Therefore, claim 1 lacks an inventive step. Hence, the European patent application was finally refused.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1835/18 (Integrated product configuration/SIEMENS) of 7.9.2022 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

Presenting information of interest to a user based on a user profile: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a system with the ability to self-configure after the installation of new data sources. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the the distinguishing features would only refer to the mere presentation of information. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2021/17 (Intelligent agents/UNIVERSITY of STRATHCLYDE) dated October 7, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The customisation of information to be displayed according to the interest of a user is not technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns monitoring the condition of hardware and/or machines, such as transformers in a power station (see Figure 17 of the published application).

Data from e.g. vibration or temperature sensors (“condition data sources”) is processed in a “conditioning monitoring platform” and displayed via a user interface. The objective is to dynamically adapt to new data sources and processing capabilities without the user having to search for new features (paragraph bridging pages 25 and 26).

This is achieved by using “intelligent agents”, which are software entities that act autonomously to achieve goals based on the environment (see e.g. page 8, lines 20ff.). Such agents are said to react to changes in the environment (reactivity – R), work without external prompting (pro-activity – P) and interact with other agents (social ability – S).

Fig. 1 of WO 2011/045571 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the third auxiliary request:

  • Claim 1 (third auxiliary request)

Is it technical?

Since the third auxiliary request provides the narrowest scope, the Board in charge directed its assessment to this request. According to the Board, in accordance with the Appellant’s view, D1 forms the closest prior art for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request. The Board identified the following distinguishing features over D1:

2.6 In the Board’s view, D1 does not disclose dynamically building a user profile based on the interests of the user. There is no mechanism for interacting with the user by presenting user selectable options and receiving user selections. …

Another difference is that, while in D1 the different functions are all preformed by the same agent, the tasks are in claim 1 divided between “user assistants”, “data managers”, “service managers” which communicate with each other. …

In D1, when a new data source is added, a new agent is added to handle it. In claim 1 of the third auxiliary request, when a new data source is added, an associated data manger is added. The claimed system also allows the addition of one or more data analysis functions and an associated service manager. …

Based on the above-identified distinguishing features, the Board in charge discussed the existence of a technical effect concerning these features as follows:

2.7 The question is what technical effect, if any, is provided by the user profile and the division of tasks and interaction between the various agents.

In the Board’s view, presenting information of interest to the user based on a user profile is not technical, and cannot therefore contribute to inventive step under the “Comvik approach” (see T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK). …

Specifically, the Board found that this kind of customization of the data to be presented is only based on the interest of the user:

Although the presentation of information relating to a technical condition in an apparatus or system may arguably be regarded as technical (see e.g. T 115/85 – Computer-related invention and T 528/07 – Portal system/ACCENTURE), the Board does not consider that the technical character extends to the customisation of such information. The customisation is not based on any technical criteria, but merely on the interest of the user.

Against this view, the Appellant argued that the invention would, besides the customization of what is shown to the user, control communication between the claimed data managers and user assistants to provide better data. However, the Board did not follow this argument:

2.9 The Board does not see that this is a technical effect that could support the presence of an inventive step. In any personalised information system, the user profile determines how the system responds. The particular organisation of tasks, and the interaction between the various agents is, in the Board’s view a matter of software implementation.

In addition, the application underlying the present decision would lack any technical definition that could distinguish the claimed agents from a common software implementation:

The Board notes that there is no definition for what an agent is in terms of technical properties either in the application or even generally in the art (see D1, II.A). Thus, the agents in claim 1 cannot be distinguished from software modules suitable for implementing the desired functions. In the Board’s view, the internal structure of a computer program, for example the particular configuration of software modules, objects, or, indeed, “agents”, does not provide a further technical effect in the sense of T 1173/97 – Computer program product/IBM, i.e. an effect that goes beyond the normal effects of running software on a computer.

Hence, in the Board’s view, the distinguishing features could not provide any technical effect. As a result, and because the main and the first and second auxiliary requests cover the subject-matter of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step according to the COMVIK approach.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2021/17 (Intelligent agents/UNIVERSITY of STRATHCLYDE)

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field