Author Archive

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

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