Author Archive

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

Viewing and recording program content: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application directed to viewing and recording program content. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2386/17 () of 20.7.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.04:

Key takeaways

Any aspects based on the subjective interests, personal preferences and (business/commercial) activities or circumstances of the user are non-technical in nature.

Allowing the user to state their preferences on which segments of a programme should be recorded based on the type of programme is non-technical because it is essentially based on commercial and psychological considerations.

The invention

The invention relates to a method of recording segments of programming content comprising a live transmission, such as a sporting event. Transmitted start triggers indicate the start time of programming content and segment triggers indicate the start time of segments of the programming content. The recording of segments is based on user preferences on a type of live segment to be recorded and a type of preceding live segment to be recorded.

EP2410736

Figure 5 of EP2410736

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

WO 03/093965 A1 (cited as D4) was considered as the closest prior art.

According to the Board, the method of claim 1 differs from that of D4 by the following distinguishing features:

(a) a particular segment is recorded “based on a first user preference indicating a type of live segment to be recorded”;

(b) “in response to a determination to record the particular segment, recording, based on a second user preference indicating a type of preceding live segment to be recorded with the type of live segment to be recorded, another segment preceding the particular segment, wherein the recording the another segment comprises transferring the another segment from a buffer to a record memory”.

However, the Board concluded that the distinguishing features do not involve an inventive step. Here are the Board’s main considerations:

Objective technical problem

6.1 It is established case law of the boards that any aspects based on the subjective interests, personal preferences and (business/commercial) activities or circumstances of the user are non-technical in nature (see decisions T 478/06, point 6 of the Reasons and T 972/07, point 6 of the Reasons).

6.2 Distinguishing features (a) and (b) allow a user to set preferences such that a live programme segment of a certain type (e.g. sports) and a preceding segment are automatically recorded.

6.3 In the board’s view, allowing the user to state their preferences on which segments of a programme should be recorded based on the type of programme is non-technical because it is essentially based on commercial and psychological considerations, i.e. on making a product more attractive to the user and in creating an effect in the user’s mind. Technical aspects only come into play with the technical implementation of such a non-technical idea.

6.4 In line with the “COMVIK approach” established by the case law of the boards, if the problem is based on a mix of technical and non-technical considerations, the objective technical problem may have to be formulated by including the non-technical aspects, whether novel or not, as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved, in particular as a constraint that has to be met (see decision T 641/00 “Two identities/COMVIK“, OJ EPO 2003, 352, point 5 ff of the Reasons; decision T 154/04, OJ EPO 2008, 46, point 16 of the Reasons; opinion G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, point 10.13.2 of the Reasons; decision G 1/19, OJ EPO 2021, A77, points 30 to 34 of the Reasons and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 9th edition, July 2019, I.D.9.1.4).

6.5 In the current case, the board thus considers that the objective technical problem should be formulated as how to allow a user to set preferences such that a live programme segment of a certain type (e.g. sports) and a preceding segment are automatically recorded.

Obviousness

7.1 The board considers that starting from D4 and faced with the above objective technical problem, the skilled person would immediately have realised that the user had to be allowed to state their preferences, for instance, via a user interface, as was well known in the art. The skilled person would also have realised that a technical problem had to be overcome in that the preceding live segment might have already started being received when start triggers for an incoming live segment were received (see the example on page 34, lines 3 to 7, according to which two start triggers are received 15 and 5 seconds prior to the start of a segment, i.e. shortly before the segment itself, and likely after the preceding segment has already started). In the board’s view, the solution to this problem would have been straightforward to the skilled person: to use a circular buffer to store received segments for long enough so that they are still stored in the buffer when start triggers for the next segment are received. Such a circular buffer for buffering incoming broadcast programmes was well known in the art (see, for instance, paragraphs [0049] and [0226] of D3).

Hence the skilled person would have arrived at the distinguishing features of claim 1 without any inventive activity.

Hence, the Board decided that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC) in view of document D4 and the skilled person’s common general knowledge.

Since none of the auxiliary requests could overcome this issue, the European patent application was finally refused.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2386/17 () of 20.7.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.04.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Randomly selecting a number of game results for which dynamic raised odds are respectively generated: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to a gambling game system that provides additional awards. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the the first distinguishing features of claim 1 would be rendered obvious, whereas the second distinguishing features would fail to provide a technical effect. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1497/19 () of May 18, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Rules for playing a game cannot contribute to an inventive step within the meaning of Articles 52(1) EPC in combination with Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

The invention

In the Abstract of the application, the invention is described as follows:

The invention refers to a gambling game system providing additional awards aims to increase the odds thereof. The gambling game system includes a central control unit to receive game results generated by a game result generation device, players’ betting received by a betting table and dynamic raised odds generated by a dynamic raised odds calculation element. After the betting is stopped in each round of game, the dynamic raised odds are output to an electronic display board to be displayed instantly and respectively on a plurality of display zones, and the game results, the players’ betting and the dynamic raised odds are transmitted to a payout element. The payout element pays out to the players who win the betting in one round of the game according to the payout odds or the dynamic raised odds which are at higher priority, so that the players can expect to get extra awards, and the appeal of the gambling game system is higher to further increase utilization of the gambling game system (cf. EP 2 899 701 A1, Abstract).

Fig. 1 of EP 2 899 701 A1

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

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

As a first step, the Board in charge determined the following two distinguishing features, which are not disclosed by the closest prior art document D1:

The subject-matter defined in claim 1 differs from the gambling game system known from document D1 by the following two distinguishing features:

– the use of a touch screen and

– the random selection of a specific number of game results for which dynamic raised odds are respectively generated / selected.

According to the Board, the two distinguishing features do not produce a synergistic effect. Hence, both features do not have to be considered together but it is enough to show that each of the two features is individually obvious.

Concerning the first distinguishing feature, the Board found that it relates to a straightforward non-inventive design option:

2.3.1 The first distinguishing feature solves the problem of how to efficiently realise the input panel. It concerns a well-known, straightforward design choice which cannot provide an inventive contribution. Document D1 even hints at this realisation in figures 3, 5 and 7, all of which show versions of the game table display on the electronic screen on which interaction with the players or bankers is possible. The shown screens include user-interaction buttons inside/on the display, i.e., the cash out, redo bet, cancel, help buttons in the lower line or lower right corner of each of these figures. The realisation of these buttons is not further specified in document D1. However, the skilled person would have been aware of the two most obvious realisations: either in form of physical buttons or in form of a touch screen. Hence, the implementation using a touch screen represents one obvious choice out of the limited number of two possible choices. This feature does not provide any inventive contribution over the prior art.

With respect to the second distinguishing feature, the Board found that it would only relate to game rules. Hence, this feature was considered non-technical and therefore cannot contribute to inventive step.

2.3.2 The second distinguishing feature concerns rules for playing a game and as such does not contribute to an inventive step within the meaning of Articles 52(1) EPC in combination with Article 52(2)(c) EPC, because it relates to a non-technical feature. The claim’s overall technicality is not questioned, but the technical contribution of the second distinguishing feature resides only in the standard automation and implementation of a non-technical rule, namely a specific gaming rule in the gambling game system. The specific gaming rule concerns the choice of how the dynamic raised odds are to be calculated or determined. It is consequently a non-technical rule selected by the game designer. It also offers no further technical advantage nor produces a further technical effect, as it is merely implemented into the gambling system in a straightforward manner by the software programmer. Hence, the second distinguishing feature cannot provide an inventive step, either, due to its missing technicality.

Against this background, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1497/19 () of May 18, 2022

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Including a video recording option in advertisements: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application directed to targeted advertisements. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2174/18 (Including a video recording option in advertisements/COMCAST) of 25.5.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Authentication is performed by different entities, however, this relates to a non-technical requirement.

Adding a service option to an advertisement is a known concept.

The invention

The invention relates to targeted advertisements which make users aware of entertainment content without them having to discover it themselves.

Figure 1 shows a “content page” (myCITY TIMES) from a “publisher” web server (www.pub.zzz) displayed in a web browser 100 on a user’s computer. It has an advertisement 102 from a third party ad “server” targeted at gardeners on behalf of a (video) “service provider” that offers the TV series “Gardening”. The basic idea of the invention is that the third party ad server determines that a user is a customer of the service provider and customises an advertisement by adding an “interactive control” of functionality offered by the service provider. Thus, the third party server can provide the above mentioned advertisement 102 with a “RECORD NOW!” button 103 which automatically configures digital recording of the series via a digital video recording service offered by the (video) service provider.

 

EP2533185A1

Figure 1 of EP 2 533 185 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (second auxiliary request)

Is it patentable?

US 2004/0215509 A1 (cited as D4) was considered as the closest prior art. The Board came to the conclusion that even the most limited second auxiliary request lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

In detail, according to the Board, the distinguishing features over D4 can be broken down into two groups representing different aspects of the invention:

(A) Authentication aspect: The user authentication is not performed by the third party advertiser, but by the service provider.

(B) Service aspect: The service provider is a video service provider, the service is a digital video recording service and the interactive control enables to remotely control recording of a video program.

No synergistic relationship between (A) and (B)

The Board considered there is no synergistic relationship between (A) and (B):

2.7…Contrary to the appellant’s view, the ad server in claim 1 is neither authenticated to the service provider nor does it control the video recording service. The link to the service provider including a path associated with the ad server (see lines 7 to 9 in claim 1 and the example in paragraph [0025]) merely indicates a specific web page of the service provider’s web server. The Board can only assume that the reason for including this specific path is to inform the service provider which ad server is providing the ad. This is, however, part of the (business) agreement between the service provider and third party advertiser; the former needs to inform the latter which advertisements to customise and deliver to the user.

In view of the above, the Board considers that there is no synergistic relationship between (A) and (B). Their contribution to inventive step, therefore, has to be assessed separately and independently from each other.

Feature (A) would be non-technical 

2.4…In the Board’s view it is clear that D4 also discloses the key element of the invention, namely that this targeting is in addition to the conventional advertising service, as it is disclosed as “icing on the cake” (see paragraph [0025]).

In summary, both in D4 and the invention the ad server receives user authentication status information and, based thereon, serves a specific advertisement. Authentication is performed by different entities, however, as discussed further below, this relates to a non-technical requirement.

2.8 It is common ground that the effect of difference (A) is that user authentication data is not provided to outside parties such as the third party ad server – see paragraph [0025] of the application.

2.9 This, however, relates to data privacy, i.e. what information to share and not to share with third parties, and thus is not a technical matter (see e.g. T 1248/12 – Privacy preserving data mining/CROSSIX, reasons 3.2). Under the “Comvik approach” (T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK) it may legitimately be part of the problem to be solved, for example in the form of a requirement specification given to the skilled person to implement.

In the context of D4 this would mean that the list of cookies, for example authentication cookies for an online shop, is not shared with or collected by the ad server (see paragraphs [0009] and [0021]). As a consequence, the ad server could not itself authenticate a user (see paragraph [0022]) but would need to get this information from elsewhere. The only other party which could perform user authentication is the one in possession of the cookies, i.e. the online shop.

Thus, in this situation the steps as in claim 1, namely authenticating the user via the service provider, i.e. the online shop, and providing authentication status information to the ad server are inevitable. The latter might also include, depending on the business agreement, information as to which advertisements to serve.

The Board judges that the technical implementation of this authentication procedure, e.g. by sending an authentication cookie via a web page request to the service provider’s web server and using a specific path for indicating the originating ad server, would have been obvious to the skilled person, a web programmer.

Feature (B) would be obvious 

2.10 Regarding difference (B) the appellant argued that the specific control enabled the user to schedule the recording of a video program via a digital video recorder (set-top box) or a cloud service in a convenient and flexible way.

This raised the awareness of the user regarding the availability of video programs/content (see paragraph [0001] and [0002] of the application). Even though D1 disclosed a video recording service, it required the installation of a browser plug-in and was limited to set-top boxes.

2.11 Firstly, the Board notes that adding a service option to an advertisement is a known concept. For example, the advertisements in D4 include a link for online shopping (see paragraph [0017]).

Secondly, D1 discloses the recording functionality as far as it is claimed – see paragraphs [0029] to [0031] since claim 1 is not limited to a specific implementation regarding the control of the digital video recording service, e.g. the use of a cloud service.

Thus the Board judges that, when asked to implement such a service option, the skilled person would have turned to D1 and arrived at the claimed solution without inventive effort.

Since claim 1 of the main and first auxiliary requests is broader than claim 1 of the second auxiliary request, they were found to lack inventive step for the same reasons (Article 56 EPC). Hence, the European patent application was finally refused.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2174/18 (Including a video recording option in advertisements/COMCAST) of 25.5.2022 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

Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors based on a simulation: non-technical

The application underlying the present decision relates to developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors based on a simulation. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since the relevant features of claim 1 would not produce a technical effect. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2660/18 (Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors/GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL-AMERICAS) of December 7, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

A technical effect must be achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision relates to determining rod pattern (or blade pattern) designs for a nuclear reactor core.

The description outlines the underlying problem as follows:

[0002] A core of a nuclear reactor such as boiling water reactor (BWR) or pressurized water reactor (PWR) has several hundred individual fuel bundles of fuel rods (BWR) or groups of fuel rods (PWR) that have different characteristics. These bundles (fuel rod groups) are preferably arranged so that interaction between rods within a fuel bundle (rod group), and between fuel bundles (fuel rod groups) satisfies all regulatory and reactor design constraints, including governmental and customer-specified constraints. Additional, the rod pattern design, e.g., the arrangement of control mechanisms such as control blades (BWR) or control rods (PWR) within the core must be determined so as to optimize core cycle energy. Core cycle energy is the amount of energy that a reactor core generates before the core needs to be refreshed with new fuel elements, such as is done at an outage.

[0006] A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed core simulation program reads the resulting input file and outputs the results of the simulation to a text or binary file. A designer then evaluates the simulation output to determine if the design criteria has been met, and also to verify that no violations of margins to thermal limits have occurred. Failure to meet design criteria (i.e., violations of one or more limits) require a manual designer modification to the input file. Specifically, the designer would manually change one or more operation parameter and rerun the core simulation program. This process was repeated until a satisfactory rod pattern design was achieved.

[0007] This process is extremely time consuming. …

Fig. 4 of EP 1 435 626 A2

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

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

First of all, the Board stated that the closest prior art document D1 fails to teach the following two features of claim 1:

7. The distinguishing features of claim 1 having regard to the disclosure of document D1 are thus:

(DF1) defining the sets of limits using a database server

(DF2) comparing the simulated results against the limits using a total objective function which is the sum of all individual constraint components defined by

OBJpar = MULTpar * (RESULTpar- CONSpar),

where CONS is a limit of the defined set of limits for a particular constraint parameter (par); RESULT is one of the simulation results for that particular constraint parameter and MULT is a multiplier for the constraint parameter.

However, both features would only refer to obvious measures.

In addition, more interestingly, the Board ruled that claim 1 also lacks an inventive step in view of a general-purpose computer. Against this assessment, the Appellant argued as follows:

15. The appellant argued that the technical effect was “reducing the time to design rods and doing so in a safe manner” and the “implicit use of the modified rods in the reactor that was simulated for operating the reactor safely within target operating and core performance value limits”. The technical effect resulted from a computer-based arrangement that provided “a way to efficiently develop a rod pattern design for a nuclear reactor, where the rod pattern design represented a control mechanism for operating the reactor”, as well as a “computer-based method for providing internal and external users the ability to quickly develop, simulate, modify and perfect a rod pattern design for (implicit) use in their reactor” (letter of 19 November 2021, pages 8 and 9).

However, the Board in charge explained that such an effect would not be produced by the distinguishing features:

15.1 The board does not see such an effect coming from the distinguishing features. Moreover, the same effects are achieved by the method disclosed in document D1 (see abstract: “The system is successfully demonstrated by generating control rod programming for the 2894-MW (thermal) Kuosheng nuclear power plant in Taiwan. The computing time is tremendously reduced compared to programs using mathematical methods.”).

Furthermore, to convince the Board, the Appellant referred to T 0625/11, cited in the G1/19 decision:

16. During the oral proceedings, the appellant also cited decision T 625/11. In case T 625/11, the board concluded that the determination, as a limit value, of the value of a first operating parameter conferred a technical character to the claim which went beyond the mere interaction between the numerical simulation algorithm and the computer system. The nature of the parameter thus identified was, in fact, “intimately linked to” the operation of a nuclear reactor, independently of whether the parameter was actually used in a nuclear reactor (T 625/11, Reasons 8.4).

However, contrary to the parameters used in T0625/11, in the Board’s view, the claimed limits might correspond to limits set by a human person or by an organization:

17.1 The limits are “limiting or target operating and core performance values for a specific reactor plant or core energy cycle”. They might correspond to limits set by an administrative authority such as the NRC mentioned in the application (page 2, second full paragraph).

Hence, the Board maintained its position that no technical effect is produced by the distinguishing features as no parameter is identified by the claimed method that is intimately linked to the operation of a nuclear reactor, as it is the case in the method according to T 0625/11:

18. The board is of the opinion that no technical effect is achieved by the method’s functionality as the method merely produces a test rod pattern (i.e. a fuel bundle configuration) design and data “indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation”.

19. Thus, contrary to case T 625/11, no parameter is identified that is “intimately linked to” the operation of a nuclear reactor.

Moreover, the rod pattern design and the limits cold both not be directly used in a reactor:

Although the method yields a rod pattern design and provides limits of core performance values for a reactor plant having this design, this rod pattern design and the limits cannot be used directly in a nuclear reactor system. The rod pattern would first need to be manufactured.

In addition, a rod pattern could also be used for study purposes and thus may be utilized in non-technical applications, and therefore, a technical effect would not be achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95):

Moreover, a rod pattern design appears to have non-technical uses such as for study purposes. These are “relevant uses other than the use with a technical device”, and therefore a technical effect is not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95). In fact, the reactor for which the rod pattern was designed may not yet have been built and may never be built.

Hence, the present case would not be an exceptional case in which calculated effects achieved by a simulation could be considered as implied technical effects:

Hence, this is not an “exceptional case” in which calculated effects can be considered implied technical effects (see decision G 1/19, points 94, 95 and 128).

Since also the auxiliary requests were considered obvious, as a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2660/18 (Developing rod patterns in nuclear reactors/GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL-AMERICAS) of December 7, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Monitoring a manufacturing process in a textile plant: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent directed to a method of monitoring a manufacturing process in a textile plant. In this case, the appellant was the opponent to a European patent. The opposition was rejected at the first instance, but the appellant (opponent) won the appeal proceedings and the European patent was eventually revoked. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1313/17 () of 9.11.2021 by Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.06:

Key takeaways

Despite being non-technical as such, these features could still contribute to the invention’s technical character if they were to form the basis for a further technical use of the outcome of the claimed method

 

The invention

The patent provides a method to optimize a textile manufacturing process (213)  in a textile plant such as a spinning mill is applied when raw material (201) is processed in the manufacturing process in several processing steps (202, 203) into intermediate products and an end product (204) is produced.

Figure 2 of EP 2 352 867

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

E1 was taken as the closest prior art document. The Board considers that claim 1 is novel because E1 does not disclose features A1.4 (second part “linked in an index file”), A1.5, A1.6, A1.7a and A1.7b.

However, according to the Board, the distinguishing features, as compared to E1, are not of a technical nature, nor is a technical use of their results implicitly specified in the claim. Here are more details:

In summary, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the method described in E1 in that

– the measured parameters, which are stored in the database (A1.4, first part, known as such from E1, see the reasoning under novelty above, Reasons 2.2.2), are linked in an index file (A1.4, second part), further in that

– the data stored in the database are statistically evaluated (A1.5), and in that

– a parameter of the end product is determined by comparison of the data stored in the database with a predetermined parameter of the raw material (A1.6 and A1.7a), or in that the parameter of the raw material is determined by comparison of the data stored in the database with a predetermined parameter of the end product (A1.6 and A1.7b).

“Although claim 1 defines “a method for optimizing with regard to quality, productivity and/or profitability a manufacturing process in a textile plant”, it does not include a step relating to any such optimisation. By executing the method steps as defined in the claim, a parameter of the end product or of the raw material is determined. The parameter so determined might allow an algorithm (but just as well an experienced user) to select optimal parameters in the production process to achieve a set quality level. In other words, the determined parameter could or could not be used in a subsequent optimisation step by setting production parameters in a real manufacturing process, rendering the optimisation a potential and thus only optional step.

Furthermore, the Board sees the terminology used in features A1.4 to A1.6, relating to a database, an index file and a statistical evaluation, as implying the use of a computer.

The Board thus presently considers that claim 1 does actually not relate to a “method for optimizing […] a manufacturing process” but defines a computer-implemented method for prediction of parameters in the end product or necessary parameters of the raw material.

Using the COMVIK approach, the Board found that the features of the characterising portion of claim 1 are not of a technical nature. Nor do they appear to contribute to the technical character of the invention in the context of the implementation of the data processing. They relate to handling and evaluating the data in order to predict certain parameters on the basis of an empirical model.

Despite being non-technical as such, these features could still contribute to the invention’s technical character (and would thus have to be considered in the assessment of inventive step) if they were to form the basis for a further technical use of the outcome (in the present case: the “determined parameter”) of the claimed method (see G1/19, reasons 137).

As also stated in the same paragraph of G1/19, such further use has to be at least implicitly specified in the claim. This condition is not met if the data resulting from a claimed process has relevant uses other than the use with a technical device (G1/19, reasons 95).

In the present case, the Board presently considers that the potential use of the data stored in the database as well as the parameter determined by comparison of the data stored in the database is not limited to technical purposes. In particular, the determined parameter is not limited to an application in a subsequent optimisation of a manufacturing process in the physical reality. It could just as well be used for educational purposes or form the basis for purely economic considerations, such as the calculation of the costs of manufacture. Any technical effect resulting from applying the determined parameter in a subsequent manufacturing process may therefore be considered as a “downstream” effect which may or may not be caused by said determined parameter (see also G1/19, reasons 96).

Whenever the determined parameter is not subsequently used in connection with a manufacturing process in the physical reality, but used for other purposes as set out above or not used at all (which is considered by the Board to be covered by claim 1), the claimed method will not achieve a technical effect.”

In the end, the Board concluded that the method of claim 1 does not achieve a technical effect and hence does not solve a technical problem over the whole scope of the claim, thereby rendering the claimed method non-inventive. Since the auxiliary requests were also not allowable, the patent was eventually revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1313/17 () of 9.11.2021by 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

Estimating departure time: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application directed to a method of estimating the departure time when users have to leave their current location in order to arrive at the destination for a scheduled event on time. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1636/18 (Estimating departure time/QUALCOMM) of 3.3.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

An effect (a bonus effect) that is a mere consequence of a modified business scheme cannot contribute to the technical character of the subject-matter claimed.

Inherent effects are not enough to establish technical character. A “further” technical effect going beyond the normal effect of implementing something in a computer has to be achieved.

The invention

Looking at Figure 1 of the application, a user may populate a calendar module 112 with an event 114 at a specified location 116. A wireless device 110 may then calculate a departure time for this event by comparing its current location to the scheduled event location 116. If the two locations differ by more than a given threshold, the wireless device estimates the travel time from the current location to the event location. Finally, the device may determine a departure time from the estimated travel time and the scheduled event time and may generate an alert by comparing the departure time and the current time.

 

Figure 1 of EP 2 491 341 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request with the appellant's numbering)

Is it patentable?

D4 (US 2007/0250257 A1) was considered by the Board in charge as a valid starting point for assessing inventive step and it was found that claim 1 differs by features 1.3 to 1.5.

Feature 1.3

Concerning feature 1.3, the appellant argued that network-provided time properly reflects the local time and results in more accurate departure alerts. The Board, however, considered that obtaining the current time from a network is one of several obvious choices (cf. decision, items 2.1 and 2.2).

Features 1.4 and 1.5

Concerning features 1.4 and 1.5, the appellant argued that not estimating the travel and departure times when the mobile device was near the destination achieved the technical effect of saving computational resources.

However, the Board was not convinced for the following reasons:

2.5 … Estimating travel times and generating departure alerts is known from D4. Features 1.4 and 1.5 merely specify a condition on when to perform (or not) these operations. In the Board’s view, this condition does not necessarily come from technical considerations, but may merely reflect subjective user preferences. Some users may prefer not to be disturbed by annoying notifications when they are close to their intended destination. Other users, however, may be unfamiliar with the neighborhood and may prefer to have such reminders.

Any energy efficiency, if indeed achieved, would be an inevitable bonus effect resulting from the straightforward implementation of these non-technical considerations. An effect that is a mere consequence of a modified business scheme cannot contribute to the technical character of the subject-matter claimed (see e.g. T 258/03 – Auction method/HITACHI, Headnote II).

2.6 Moreover, according to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, the technical character of a feature is independent of the prior art. Therefore, relative effects, such as reduced processing time, cannot be used to distinguish between technical and non-technical method steps. This is because it is always possible to conceive of a method that requires more computational resources (e.g. T 1227/05 – Circuit simulation/Infineon, point 3.2.5). Considering the relative amount of processing time as an indicator of technicality might render the same method both technical and non-technical depending on the chosen starting point in the prior art. Although features reducing the required computing resources might involve an inventive step, the assessment of inventive step presupposes that these features contribute to the technical character of the invention.

2.7 The appellant also argued during the written proceedings that since the method was carried out on a wireless device, and since it caused a change in this device, i.e. a necessary change in the computational resources by carrying out the method, a technical contribution had to be acknowledged.

2.8 However, these effects are inherent to any computer-implemented method. Inherent effects are not enough to establish technical character. A “further” technical effect going beyond the normal effect of implementing something in a computer has to be achieved. (G 3/08 – Programs for computers, point 13.5; T 1755/10 – Software structure/TRILOGY, point 6).

Features 1.4 and 1.5, however, do not achieve a “further” technical effect in the context of the claimed method.

In the end, the Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 did not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. The auxiliary requests were also found to lack an inventive step. Hence, the European patent application was finally refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1636/18 (Estimating departure time/QUALCOMM) of 3.3.2022 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