Author Archive

Adjusting a credit according to a data file: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to the area of digital security. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent that deals with an electronic safe. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1607/18 of December 21, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Technical features that do not contribute to the technical character of an invention can be included into the formulation of the technical problem.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention as follows:

1.1 The present application is about an electronic safe for use in retail environments, where the safe counts the money being deposited and electronically transmits a report containing the amount of money counted to a central processing location.

1.2 Upon receipt of this report, the retailer can be credited the deposited money amount even before it is picked up by an armored car service and deposited at a bank or similar institution. Retailers can therefore benefit from cash collections almost immediately.

Fig. 2 of WO 2009/018095 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

During the appeal proceedings, the Board in charge arrived at the conclusion that claim 1 only comprises one distinguishing feature over the closest prior art document D1:

2.3.2 D1 therefore does not explicitly disclose that the credit is adjusted based on differences, if any, between the verified amount and the calculated total amount of cash deposited into the safe as identified in the data file (second part of feature (G)).

Based on the distinguishing feature, the Appellant argued the technical effect and the problem to be solved as follows:

2.4.1 The Appellant has argued that the effect of the distinguishing features was that only small data files comprising the aggregated sum (in D1 e.g. the sum of the deposit of “3/6” and the first deposit of “3/7”) had to be transmitted thus reducing the load on the communication network.

2.4.2 The problem to be solved was the reduction of the amount of data sent between the safe and the central units. The invention generally simplified data handling and thereby error handling. The invention also required less bandwidth. The invention therefore achieved a technical effect by reducing the load on the network.

However, the Board in charge did bot follow the Appellant’s line of argumentation and considered the distinguishing feature as only having a business-related aim:

2.4.3 The Board however came to the conclusion that the effect of reducing the network load is not an effect of the difference between D1 and claim 1 (i.e. the second part of feature (G)). Indeed, feature (G) relates to a method of doing business, i.e. adjusting any difference between an accounted total amount and the amount of cash picked up by an armored car. This “adjusting” according to feature (G) is merely a non-technical business aim and does not achieve any technical effect or solve a technical problem by technical features. When regarded on its own, feature (G) would constitute subject-matter excluded from patentability under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.

Hence, the Board formulated the technical problem as follows:

2.4.5 The problem to be solved can therefore be formulated as adjusting in the system of D1 the step of “reconciliation” (claim 4 of D1) by “adjusting the credit previously provided based on differences, if any, between the verified amount and the calculated total amount of cash deposited into the safe as identified in the data file” (cf. task of the agent, [0051], [0053], feature (G)).

Solving this problem would be obvious to the skilled person:

2.5.1 The solution to this problem results in a straightforward manner from the problem to be solved. It is obvious that the agent in D1 would adjust the credit, if the amount of cash arriving in the bank/ armored car service facility differs from the amount in the data file, e.g. if the retailer or anyone else has taken out cash from the electronic safe without any record.

As a result, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1607/18 of December 21, 2021 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

Relationship between a user’s comment and a specific viewable object: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to the area of multimedia content. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent that deals with a relationship between a user’s comment and a specific viewable object. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1822/18 (Augmenting user-input information/ARRIS ENTERPRISES) of November 24, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Lowering the cognitive burden for a user is not a technical effect.

The invention

According to the Board in charge, the claimed invention relates to augmenting user-input information. The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application relates to augmenting user-input information associated with a media source such as a movie (description as published, paragraph [0002]). According to the background of the invention (description, paragraph [0003]), various devices exist that provide a source of viewable media content, such as televisions, computers and mobile devices. Viewers of such media sources may wish to provide some type of commentary related to what is being viewed.

Some services offer a viewer the opportunity to provide a comment that is then viewable by others who follow the viewer or who visit the web page hosting the comment. The comment is often general and easily assigned to the media content as a whole. In other cases, however, the comment is specific to a single portion of the content. This can be confusing, since a comment directed to a specific portion, for example, can lack relevance to a user outside the context of that specific portion of the content. A user may often wish to obtain additional information about a specific portion of content, people or objects viewed in the content, and this can be challenging.

Fig. 3 of WO 2013/162870 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

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

Is it technical?

During the appeal proceedings, as a first step, the Board in charge determined the distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D1:

2.5.2 The board agrees with the examining division that the method disclosed in document D1 automatically creates an association between the user comment and the primary-content metadata, this metadata comprising, for example, the content ID and point in time (D1, paragraphs [0084], [0085], [0088], [0104], [0109] and [0114]). However, the board agrees with the appellant that features F6a and F7 are not disclosed in document D1. Consequently, the board concludes that the distinguishing features are the features F4b, F6a and F7. …

The Appellant argued the technical effect produced by the above-cited distinguishing features as follows:

2.6 According to the appellant a technical effect of the distinguishing features was that an association between the user-input information and a specific viewable object in the primary media content could be generated automatically using only the user’s comment and the primary-content metadata. In other words, the only user-input information that was used to generate the association was the user’s comment (statement of grounds of appeal, page 3).

Then, the Appellant defined the technical problem:

2.6.2 The appellant argued that in the light of the aforementioned technical effects the objective technical problems solved were: (i) how to adapt the method of document D1 to work with different devices, (ii) how to reduce or eliminate the disruption to viewers due to interaction with the primary device, and (iii) how to remove the possibility of incorrect “point and click” operations.

However, the Board in charge did not agree to this assessment:

2.7 Regarding the alleged effects of the distinguishing features with respect to avoiding the “point and click” operations used in the method disclosed in D1, there is nothing in claim 1 which precludes the use of “point and click” operations for user input, including for inputting the text of a user comment (for example by using a pointing device to select letters on a displayed keyboard). Moreover, according to the established case law, lowering the cognitive burden for a user is not a technical effect (see, for example, T 1741/08, Reasons 2.1; T 1834/10, Reasons 5). This applies also with respect to diverting the user’s attention as well as in the case of multiple viewers.

2.7.1 Furthermore, the board does not see that lowering a burden for the user is derivable from the distinguishing features over substantially the whole range claimed (see G 1/19, Reasons 82). Indeed, the claimed subject-matter is broad, and it is not limited to: a particular form of human-machine interaction, the case of multiple viewers, or a commenting user with special needs.

2.7.2 Regarding the possible generation of a wrong association in the method disclosed in document D1, the board informed the appellant during the oral proceedings that it was not convinced that the association created by the claimed method was necessarily one that was intended by the user. Indeed, the association created depends, among other things, on the availability of suitable primary-content metadata and the time period for receiving a comment after a user has viewed a specific media content on the display.

As a result, the Board arrived at the conclusion that the distinguishing feature would only relate to the presentation of information and would thus lack further technical considerations:

2.8 Contrary to the appellant’s submissions, the board considers – in line with the examining division’s opinion (see the contested decision, point 13.4; see also the annex to the summons of 10 May 2017, point 4.3) – that the distinguishing features are aimed at the presentation of information to the user for a non-technical purpose (for informational and commercial applications, for example; see the description, paragraph [0035], for an example application). In particular, the relationship between a user’s comment and a specific viewable object displayed serves only for the purpose of displaying this relationship with the aim of enhancing (“augmented user comment”) the informational content presented to a user.

In view of the above, the distinguishing features do not contribute to a “further” technical effect (see decision T 1173/97, OJ EPO 1999, 609). Moreover, the board does not see that the distinguishing features involve any “further technical considerations” (see opinion G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, Reasons 13.5.1). Instead, the generation of the association between the parsed user-input metadata and the primary-content metadata by means of analysing the metadata can only be seen as a non-technical algorithm underlying the claimed method. Claim 1 does not specify how this non-technical algorithm underlying the distinguishing features is specifically implemented by exploiting particular computer hardware characteristics, for example, which may, at least in certain circumstances, allow a specific technical effect to be derived within the computer system in the sense of a “further” technical effect (see decision G 1/19, Reasons 51).

Therefore, at the end of the hearing, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1822/18 (Augmenting user-input information/ARRIS ENTERPRISES) of November 24, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Detecting street addresses in text: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to the area of electronic communication, such as emails and the like. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent that specifically deals with detecting street addresses in a message text. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0504/18 (Linking an address/BLACKBERRY) of June 18, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Improved efficiency of a computer-implemented method due to algorithmic features of the program can normally only be considered a “further” technical effect if it is based on “further technical considerations”.

The invention

According to the Board in charge, the claimed invention relates to linking an address in a message such as an email. The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. …

According to the technical background disclosed in the application, users of communication devices or computers may send messages such as emails that include phone numbers, email addresses or web addresses. Applications on some devices create hyperlinks for phone numbers, email addresses and web addresses, so that the user can click on the link within the message and the device will respond by respectively either placing a call, opening an email to be sent or opening the browser to the linked web page (paragraph [0005]).

Known mobile devices can obtain position or location information from a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver or the like. A mapping application may use this information to display a map showing a mobile device’s current position (paragraphs [0002] and [0003]). Many mobile devices also have address books stored thereon that contain information such as street addresses, cities, postal codes, provinces, states, countries and telephone numbers for each entry in the respective address book (paragraph [0004]).

The application proposes detecting a physical address such as a street address within a text message, creating a link for this physical address so that selecting the link will result, for example, in the address location being displayed on a map (description, paragraphs [0029] and [0030]).

Fig. 1 of EP 2 246 793 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

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

Is it technical?

During the oral hearing, both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D1 fails to teach how the links for the street addresses are generated. This is because D1 lacks any disclosure about an algorithm that is capable of detecting street addresses in text. However, according to the Board, detecting street addresses in text would not be technical:

3.5 …

However, the board regards the problem of detecting street addresses in text as non-technical. A street address consists of data in an administrative, non-technical data format. In respect of the specific algorithm for recognising a street address, specified in claim features B to G and J to L, the board sees no “further technical considerations” (see opinion G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, Reasons 13.5 and 13.5.1) underlying this algorithm, relating for example to functioning of the computer, but rather considerations relating to “merely” finding an algorithm in a non-technical field.

To convince the Board, the Appellant argued that including links in the text of a message would make the message interactive, rendering it technical:

3.6 In the oral proceedings, the appellant argued that the claimed automated creation of links to an application made a text document interactive, and therefore provided a technical purpose. The claim features relating to the algorithm for address detection, even if they were themselves regarded as non-technical by the board, contributed to achieving the overall technical purpose of the claimed method and thus also contributed to the technical character of the claimed method. In this context, the appellant referred to decision G 1/19, Reasons 112 and 113. The appellant argued that non-technical features could make a technical contribution if they interacted with technical features such as the menu of options to achieve a technical purpose.

Furthermore, according to the Appellant, the structure of the claimed algorithm to generate the links would be efficient due its specific 2-step structure and thus would involve further technical considerations. To substantiate its position, the Appellant pointed to a decision of 1992:

Furthermore, referring to decision T 769/92, the appellant argued that “technical considerations” did not need to relate to computer hardware, but more generally to the processing of data. In particular, the claimed address detection algorithm involved “further technical considerations”, as it had been structured in a two-step approach to make it efficient. In a first step, the algorithm identified a segment of the text comprising a number and at least two character strings using fast, simple pattern matching (see steps B to F of claim 1). Only in a second step did the algorithm involve more complex processing, such as accessing a database in order to validate the segment as an address (see steps G and J to L of claim 1).

However, the Board did not follow the arguments of the Appellant. First of all, the Board expressed that the findings of T 769/92 would be obsolete in view of G 3/08. Furthermore, the alleged improved efficiency could only provide a further technical effect if it is based on further technical considerations, which would not be the case here:

3.7 In respect of the appellant’s argument regarding technical considerations, the cited decision T 769/92 can no longer provide a basis in view of opinion G 3/08, Reasons 13.5 and 13.5.1, which states that technical considerations are not sufficient and raises the bar for technical character to “further technical considerations”. The recent decision T 2825/19, Reasons 5.3.6, considered that “further technical considerations” could be considerations that specifically exploit technical properties of the computer system hardware to solve a technical problem related to the internal operation of the computer system. In that cited decision the board saw no support for interpreting the concept “further technical considerations” to give a broader meaning that would also cover considerations aiming to solve problems “merely” relating to programming. Consequently, in agreement with the reasoning of that decision, the board does not accept the appellant’s view that the processing of data in general implies “further technical considerations” (see also decision T 598/14, Reasons 2.3).

In respect of the improved efficiency of the claimed algorithm as a technical effect, the board holds the view that improved efficiency of a computer-implemented method due to algorithmic features of the program can normally only be considered a “further” technical effect if it is based on “further technical considerations” (see decisions T 1924/17, Reasons 21; T 697/17, Reasons 5.2.3), but that is not the case here.

Therefore, according to the Board, features B to J and feature G of claim 1 of the main request, relating to the algorithm for generating links of the addresses in the text of the message, have to be considered non-technical and thus have to be ignored for the assessment of inventive step:

3.8 In respect of the appellant’s argument that the algorithm for detecting an address contributed to the overall technical purpose of providing an interactive text document, the board sees no such contribution in the present case, since the relationship between automated address detection and configuration of the link is a mere aggregation of activities. Enabling interactivity by using links was already known from document D1 (and well known in general, as admitted by the appellant). It is clear that the selectable links work independently of the automatic detection of any street addresses; they might just be added manually to such an address, for example. Moreover, D1 discloses that the links can also be used for other kinds of data such as web addresses or phone numbers. Hence, the board is not convinced that the alleged technical purpose of generating interactive text documents by means of links could somehow lend technical character to the algorithm for automated address detection.

3.9 According to the established case law of the boards of appeal, when assessing inventive step in accordance with the problem-and-solution approach, an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field may legitimately appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem to be solved, as a constraint that has to be met (see decisions T 641/00, OJ EPO 2003, 352; T 154/04, OJ EPO 2008, 46).

Consequently, when starting from document D1, the objective technical problem to be solved is how to automatically provide selectable links in the text messages of D1 for the known street address, given the algorithm for detecting street addresses in a text according to features B to G and J to L of claim 1.

Since all other features are known from D1, as a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0504/18 (Linking an address/BLACKBERRY) of June 18, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Flight simulators: partly technical

This decision relates to a European patent application in the field of  flight simulators. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0424/16 of 29.6.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The choice by a game developer of the nature of the graphical elements to be displayed on the screen, the manner in which a user may control the graphical elements by means of the input device, and the consequences of such user inputs for the progress of the game, must generally be regarded as non-technical aspects of the game content, conceived as part of a creative design process aiming to produce a game which appeals to the gaming public.

It is inherent in the nature of a flight simulation video game that the user must be able to control the flight direction by means of the input device. Whether this is achieved in a realistic manner by, for example, a joystick, or in a simplified manner by indicating a desired direction of flight by means of a graphical element movable by a pointing device, is a choice to be made by a game developer in deciding the content and nature of the game.

The invention

The invention concerns an aircraft control system and method for a user of a simulated aircraft, wherein the desired direction of flight is controlled by means of a “pointing device”, which may be “a computer mouse, a touch screen or a trackball”. By this means, “the user will be able to take off, land, fly traffic patterns, intercept other aircraft, etc., without spending a long time learning how to align simulated aircraft with the desired direction”. The system is not, therefore, a professional flight simulator, of the type used to train pilots, but a system in which flight simulation software is run on a PC etc. for entertainment. In short, the invention is a computer game system and method.

Figure 1 EP2642467

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (Auxiliary Request 1)

Is it patentable?

Claim 1 of the main request was found to lack clarity, which had been improved in the Auxiliary Request I (AR1). The discussion of inventive step was therefore focused on claim 1 of AR1. D1 was considered as the closest prior art. The Board considered the following features of claim 1 of AR1 as the distinguishing features:

(a) The graphical element on the video device “correspond[s] to the desired direction of flight” and the system operates “to align the aircraft with the desired direction of flight” as indicated by the graphical element;

(b) “wherein the modeling means (203) analyzes which control surface adjustments are needed to the simulated aircraft (100) to fly along the desired direction of flight (106) and …”

(c) the modelling means “then applies said control surface adjustments to the simulated aircraft” (to thereby align the aircraft with the desired direction of flight).

It must first be determined whether features (a)-(c) are of a purely technical character, as contended by the appellant, or whether they comprise non-technical features.

Feature (a)

4.3 A video or computer game typically involves an animated image comprising graphical elements being displayed on a video screen to a user having the power to control or influence properties of one or more of the graphical elements by manipulating an input device, such as a mouse or joystick, the changes brought about by such manipulations being displayed on the screen.

4.4 While video screens and input devices are technical devices per se, the choice by a game developer of the nature of the graphical elements to be displayed on the screen, the manner in which a user may control the graphical elements by means of the input device, and the consequences of such user inputs for the progress of the game, must generally be regarded as non-technical aspects of the game content, conceived as part of a creative design process aiming to produce a game which appeals to the gaming public. The same is true of the tasks which a user is set and the levels of difficulty associated with such tasks.

It is accepted that in certain exceptional cases the Boards have recognised a graphical feature displayed in a video game as having a technical character (see below, points 4.18 to 4.21). However, as a general rule, the features mentioned in the previous paragraph constitute non-technical aspects of the game to be played.

4.5 In the Board’s view, feature (a) is just such a non-technical feature, being part of the content of the game. It is inherent in the nature of a flight simulation video game that the user must be able to control the flight direction by means of the input device. Whether this is achieved in a realistic manner by, for example, a joystick, or in a simplified manner by indicating a desired direction of flight by means of a graphical element movable by a pointing device, is a choice to be made by a game developer in deciding the content and nature of the game.

Features (b) and (c)

4.6 Concerning features (b) and (c), clearly the modeling means is a technical feature, but it may be asked whether the effects which the modeling means is programmed to produce can be considered to make a technical contribution to the claimed subject-matter (the Examining Division found that they did not).

Features (b) and (c) produce the effects that the aircraft is aligned with the direction indicated in feature (a), and that the simulated change in direction corresponds to a realistic change of trajectory of the aircraft, i.e. one which could actually be brought about by appropriate adjustment of the flight control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder) of the real aircraft which the system is aiming to simulate.

This is achieved by the modeling means performing an analysis to determine which control surface adjustments would be needed to fly along the desired direction of flight, and then applying these control surface adjustments to the simulated aircraft. As will be shown below (point 4.13), the Board’s conclusion on inventive step is the same whether these features are considered to be technical or not, and hence the Board proceeds by assuming, arguendo, and to the appellant’s advantage, that these features are technical.

Inventive step

4.7 Claim 1 therefore comprises a mixture of technical and non-technical features, and the Board will apply the principles set out in T 641/00, according to which features which do not contribute to the technical character of the invention cannot support the presence of inventive step, but may legitimately appear as part of the framework of the technical problem to be solved, in particular as a constraint that has to be met (T 641/00, Headnote, points I and II).

4.8 In the light of the above considerations, the Board sees the technical problem solved by the distinguishing features as implementing a control system for a simulated aircraft which aligns the aircraft with a desired direction of flight as indicated by a graphical element on screen which is moved by a pointing device, subject to the constraint that the simulated change in direction corresponds to a realistic change of trajectory of the aircraft being simulated.

4.9 Since the problem facing the skilled person includes the requirement that any manoeuvre must be realistic, i.e. must correspond to one which could actually be carried out in practice as a result of adjustments to the flight control surfaces of the simulated aircraft, it would be obvious, if not inevitable, that the solution must involve determining (by some means, which may be referred to as “modeling means”) a set of adjustments to the flight control surfaces which would bring about the desired trajectory change. Without such a determination, it is difficult to see how it could be verified that the envisaged manoeuvre would correspond to one which could actually be carried out in practice. In the Board’s view, the programming required to implement such a determination would be within the capacity of the skilled person in the field, and the appellant has not argued otherwise.

4.10 Having calculated the adjustments required to realistically manoeuvre the aircraft to align with the indicated direction, it would then be obvious to implement the manoeuvre by providing the calculated adjustments as inputs into the flight simulation software so that the simulated aircraft would follow the appropriate path.

 

In the end, the Board judged that the subject-matter of claim 1 of AR1 did not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC. The other auxiliary requests were either not allowable or not admitted into the proceedings. Hence, the European application was finally refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0424/16 of 29.6.2021 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

Implementing a game tournament: non-technical

This application underlying this decision relates to the area of computer games. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent that deals with implementing a tournament for players of a computer game. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1488/17 of October 12, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

For being considered technical with respect to patentability, it is not sufficient that a feature belongs to a technical system. Instead, it must contribute to the solution of a technical problem.

The invention

According to the Board in charge, the claimed invention relates to a system for conducting online a video game tournament having a plurality of levels. The Board  summarized the invention as follows:

1.2 The claimed invention proposes a system conducting a video game tournament in which players can decide themselves when they play their game(s). The system maintains a list of registered players and the level of the tournament which each player is eligible to play at. Players have first to declare themselves ready to play before they are set to play a game. The system maintains a second list of players that have declared themselves ready to play. The system matches players, who are in this second list and at the same level, for a game. After the game ends, the system allows the winner to advance to the next (higher) level, and if they were at the last (highest) level they are awarded a prize.

After each game, players can decide whether or not they declare themselves ready to play the next game. So players can play several games in a row or can interrupt the tournament and resume at a later time, without any consequence to the running of the tournament. In such a way, the system allows players to have more control of their playing schedule, while the tournament runs normally (see paragraph [0010] of the application).

Fig. 3 of WO 2012/174656 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

During the appeal proceedings, the Board in charge noted that it is common ground that claim 1 differs from the closest prior art document D2 in the following two aspects:

2.2 …

– it provides a ready list in the tournament server, the ready list being populated in response to signals received from players via their player devices;

– it provides a second processor in the tournament server which is configured to match players on the ready list, transmits a signal to each of the matched players and updates the ready list by deleting the matched players (see also statement of the grounds of appeal, last paragraph on the first page).

According to the appellant’s first line of argumentation, the claimed subject-matter would make the course of a tournament more flexible:

2.3 … The claimed system provided flexibility to the players because they did not need to play any games at predetermined times. Players could play whenever they wished and this did not affect the other players participating at the tournament.

However, in the Board’s view, the distinguishing features would only define how the tournament is played and would thus not relate to the solution of a technical problem:

2.5 In the board’s view, the distinguishing features define how the tournament is to be run, i.e. they relate to the rules of running the tournament. Such rules are rules for playing games, which are not technical and excluded from patentability as such (Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC).

Moreover, the increased flexibility would not be achieved by a technical consideration but only by modifying the rules of the tournament:

2.5.2 Moreover, the increased flexibility is achieved by modifying the rules of the game tournament. It is the change of the rules that provides the possibility to the players to determine freely when they play their matches. As stated previously, the rules of the tournament are not technical, and any modification to them does not address any technical problem or involve any technical considerations, but merely provides a set of new rules for playing a game.

Hence, the distinguishing features would only relate to non-technical game rules:

2.5.3 Hence, the claimed system differs from the one in D2 only in that it runs a tournament with modified game rules. These modified rules are not technical as they relate to the underlying non-technical game rules of the tournament. According to established case law and practice (see e.g. T 641/00, “Two identities/COMVIK“, OJ EPO 2003, 352, Headnote 2, and Reasons 5 to 7), these modified rules for running the tournament will be given to the skilled person for implementation.

According to a second line of argumentation, the appellant stated that the distinguishing features belong to a technical system and therefore have to be considered as technical:

2.6 In an alternative line of reasoning, the appellant argued that the claims related to a system, which was incontestably technical, and the distinguishing features were technical features. Even if these features were implementing rules for playing games, this did not change the fact that the features themselves were components of a technical system and were of technical nature. Although they were known technical components when taken in isolation, it was their functions that were important. Each component had an associated function and enabled players to play in a certain way. The technical problem was not related to the implementation of game rules but to how to provide a system for the specific game tournament. This was a technical problem.

However, again, the Board in charge did not agree:

2.7 The board does not find this argument persuasive. As a general remark, the board notes that a distinguishing feature needs to solve a technical problem in a non-obvious way in order to be considered a basis for an inventive step.

2.8 Summarising, the board’s conclusion is that the features distinguishing claim 1 from the state of the art constitute an obvious implementation of the non-technical rules for playing the game tournament.

Hence, the distinguishing features cannot be taken into account for the assessment of inventive step. As a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1488/17 of October 12, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Whitelist October to December 2021

In the 4th quarter (October to December) of 2021, only 2 positively decided cases were added to our knowledge base in which relevant aspects of the claimed-subject-matter were considered technical. For those who do not have the time to read all of our selected decision, in the following, we will briefly summarize these cases.

T 2010/17: Selection of an available memory size

The application underlying this decision relates to the configuration of circuits. More specifically, a configuration can be locked and protected by a signature.

The feature of “generating a signature representative of the selected memory size by the integrated circuit” was considered technical by the Board in charge. However, the Board also ruled that this feature is rendered obvious to the skilled person.

T 0227/18: Supporting multiple instances of the same payment application

This decision relates to a method for supporting a plurality of instances of the same type of payment application, e.g. MasterCard PayPass or Maestro PayPass, on a wireless smart device.

According to the Board in charge, associating different instances/bank accounts with the same type of application is a technical solution to the problem of how to enable the use of different bank accounts with the same type of application using a single IC card or smart device.

Fear missing out?

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Optimized load management: technical

This decision relates to a European patent regarding a method for optimizing a chronological developing of consumption of electric energy by a group of different consumers with regard to a supply of electric power. The patent has been unsuccessfully opposed after grant and the opponent has filed an appeal. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0199/16 of 27.8.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.02:

Key takeaways

Whether a feature contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter is to be assessed in view of the whole scope of the claim.

The invention

The invention generally relates to a method of and an apparatus for optimizing a chronological developing of consumption of electric energy by a group of different consumers with regard to a supply of electric power which includes electric power from at least one wind or solar power generator.

Figure 1 of EP2695270

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (granted)

Is it patentable?

D1 was considered as the closest prior art. It was unarguable that D1 does not disclose features 1.3.2, 1.4 and 1.5.1 to 1.5.3. However, the respondent (opponent in the opposition proceedings) argued that these features do not have a technical character, but rather relate to mere mental acts and therefore are not to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step.

However, the Board in charge had a different opinion:

2.1.4 The board recognises that method steps 1.3.2, 1.4 and 1.5.1 to 1.5.3 of claim 1, relating to determining characteristic time curves, making a prognosis for a future time period, making a plan for apportioning of electric power based on the characteristic time curves and adapting it to the prognosis, when considered in isolation, only involve data processing and simulation aspects. However it is a general principle that the question whether a feature contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter is to be assessed in view of the whole scope of the claim.

The claimed invention does not refer to a simulation as such. The data processing or simulation is rather defined in claim 1 as being based on (real) measurements of consumed electric power in a technical system, resulting in a plan and a prognosis, which does not produce a purely virtual effect. Rather, the plan made on the basis of the characteristic time curves and thus, on the basis of the measured consumed electric power, is in fact defined in claim 1 as being used for a (real) apportionment of the electric power according to this plan within the future period of time at a temporal resolution equal to at least 0.1 Hz (feature 1.8). Consequently, claim 1 is clearly limited to a technical teaching, involving the specific technical use of the calculated characteristic time curves, plan and prognosis. Features 1.3.2, 1.4 and 1.5.1 to 1.5.3 in particular define a way of processing the measured consumed electric power such as to achieve an appropriate apportionment of electric power to individual consumers, and thus contribute to a specific technical effect. Thus, irrespective of wether features 1.3.2, 1.4 and 1.5.1 to 1.5.3 are per se considered to be technical or non-technical in nature, in the overall context of claim 1, they in any case provide a technical contribution to the invention, having technical character as a whole, over the prior art, and are consequently to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step (see also the findings in T 0641/00 (COMVIK), Headnote I.).

2.1.5 For the sake of completeness, the board observes that it does not understand the decision G 1/19, cited by the respondent, to mean that any feature in a claim related to a simulation, if considered in isolation, is in principle not to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step, and the respondent has not submitted anything further in this respect.

2.1.6 The board has therefore come to the conclusion that features 1.3.2, 1.4 and 1.5.1 to 1.5.3 are to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step.

In the end, the Board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 is not rendered obvious by document D1 and that the ground for opposition under Article 100(a) in combination with Article 56 EPC does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent as granted.

Hence, the patent is maintained as granted.

More information

You can read the whole decision here:T 0199/16of 27.8.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.02.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Informing conference participants about the conference proceedings: non-technical

In this decision, relating to an application concerning microphones typically used at conferences, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent relating to informing conference participants about the conference proceedings by means of different colours of a ring-shaped indicator attached to a speaker’s microphone. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1895/17 (Ring-shaped microphone indicator/Bosch) of December 8, 2020 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03:

Key takeaways

How cognitive content is conveyed to a user does not contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem.

The invention

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

The application concerns a conference system with a delegate unit having a microphone. The microphone (58) has a ring-shaped indicator (96) mounted between its stem (94) and its windshield (98).

The indicator can radiate in at least two colours, either steadily or by means of flashing. By doing so, various states of the delegate unit can be indicated, including a “microphone-on” state indicating who is currently speaking, a “request-to-speak” state indicating who has requested to speak, a “next-speaker” state indicating who will be the next speaker and a “last-minute” state indicating that the current speaker has used up almost all of their speaker time.

As a result, the audience attending a conference via the conference system can be provided with additional information about the way in which the conference proceeds.

Fig. 2 of EP 1 686 835 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 7:

  • Claim 7 (main request - numbering added by the Board)

Is it technical?

During the appeal proceedings, as a first step, the Board in charge determined the distinguishing features of claim 7 over the closest prior art document D5 as follows:

4.3 As to features (c) and (d), document D5 does not disclose that the claimed ring-shaped indicator also radiates light in a second colour, differing from the first colour and indicating the second state of the delegate unit, i.e. it does not disclose features (c) and (d).

As a next step, the Board determined the effect of the distinguishing features, specifically with respect to the claimed first and second state:

4.4.1 It is apparent that these features do not provide details concerning the first and second state, in particular concerning what these states actually represent. However, from the dependent claims the skilled reader would immediately understand that the second state of the delegate unit is meant to reflect a request of a user, see e.g. claim 4 (or, similarly, claim 12) of the main request stating that the ring-shaped indicator radiating steadily in the second colour indicates a “request-to-speak-state” and claim 13 of the main request specifying that the ring-shaped indicator flashing in the second colour means that the “request to speak” is the first one on a list of “requests to speak”. Neither the claims nor the description comprise an example of the second state that represents a functional state of the delegate unit.

Based on this assessment, the Board in charge concludes that the two states do not provide any technical information. More specifically, the information provided by the colours of the ring-shaped indicator would not be directed at the improvement of a technical device and would require a cognitive interpretation of a human person to be understood:

4.4.2 As a result, the second state referred to in features (c) and (d) is rather related to cognitive information addressed to a person’s mental process rather than to “technical information” within the meaning of T 336/14 (see Reasons 1.2.5), i.e. it requires a cognitive interpretation by this person to discern the meaning of the “second colour”. In other words, this information is not directed to an improved operation of a technical device such as the microphone or delegate unit by the person.

More precisely, the Board argued that the ring-shaped indicator only refers to how cognitive information is presented to a user. Then, the Board outlined that how cognitive content is provided to a user/person does not contribute to the solution of a technical problem:

4.4.3 Moreover, the mirroring of a second state of the delegate unit by the ring-shaped indicator of the claimed microphone by means of a second colour as apparent from feature (c) is merely related to how cognitive information is presented to a user (see e.g. T 1143/06 and T 1802/13). In line with T 1143/06 (cf. Reasons 5.4), a feature which relates to the manner how cognitive content is conveyed to the user normally does not contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem and the board cannot recognise why the present application would constitute an exception in this respect.

Against this background and in view of the closest prior art D5, the Board in charge formulated the problem solved by the distinguishing features as follows:

4.4.5 The only technical aspect of features (c) and (d) resides in the fact that the same ring-shaped indicator of the microphone is used to mirror the delegate unit’s first and second state. It provides for a practical implementation of the non-technical aim mentioned above. In accordance with the well-established “COMVIK approach” (T 641/00, headnote 2), this non-technical aim may legitimately be incorporated into the objective technical problem as a constraint to be met.

4.5 Hence, the underlying objective technical problem may be framed as “how to provide for a practical implementation ensuring that also the conference participants (and not only the speakers) can be informed about the states of D5’s delegate unit“.

However, confronted with this problem in view of D5, the skilled person would arrive at the claimed subject-matter without being inventive:

4.6 When confronted with the above objective technical problem, it would have been obvious for the person skilled in the field of conference systems (such as the “CDS 4000” system of D5), based on their common general knowledge, to augment the functionality of the microphone’s ring-shaped indicator of D5 to not only mirror the delegate unit’s red-light indicator, as is typically the case for conventional conference systems, but to mirror also its green-light indicator.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1895/17 (Ring-shaped microphone indicator/Bosch) of December 8, 2020

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Recording usage data for an industrial truck: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application for a method for recording usage data for an industrial truck. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0199/16 () of 14.10.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The generation of fee calculations is of a non-technical nature and as such without a technical connection is excluded from patentability by Article 52 (2) EPC.

The invention

The application relates to a method for user data acquisition of a truck for calculating fees for the use of the truck. It is proposed to report the wear-relevant measured variables via a wireless connection to a central processing unit, where the fee can be calculated.

Figure of EP2518681

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request), translated from German to English

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division had refused the application for lack of inventive step, as the subject-matter of the claims related to a business method that would not result in a combined technical effect with the technical features known from telematics systems and would not change the technical character of these known technical features.

During the appeal stage, D4 was considered as the closest prior art for claim 1. The Board considers that D4 discloses features (A) to (G), but not “to determine usage data in the form of a usage fee” (feature (H)), i.e. the calculation of the (leasing) fee from the measured variables, e.g. the operating hours.

The appellant tried to argue that the distinguishing feature has technical effect because the calculated fee could also be used to correct the measured variables.

However, the Board was not convinced. The Board cannot directly deduce from the application that the calculated fee will be used for a data correction. Rather, it is examined how a data correction affects the pay. On the other hand, a data correction is not part of the wording of the claim.

Feature (H) therefore only has the effect that an automated billing based on the user time or the wear and tear of the device used can be created. Feature (H) thus has a non-technical effect, since it is primarily used for business purposes. The features (A) to (H) are technical in their entirety and some have purely technical purposes. However, this does not apply to feature (H) when considered in isolation.

The Board essentially agrees with the reasoning of the examining division that feature (H) in itself is a purely commercial, non-technical feature. The established problem-solution approach in the presence of non-technical features has been established since decision T 641/00. The solution to the problem is obvious in the present case simply by including the non-technical features in the problem.

In addition, the Board does not see any structural technical features in the wording of the claim that would pose technical problems for the specialist. The technical problem would more likely lie in how the measured quantities are determined. On the other hand, the application for the implementation of the feature (H) does not specify any special technical solutions that go beyond what the specialist could achieve by reprogramming the central computer, would have an additional or special technical effect or would represent an unexpected and non-obvious solution. The technical means used to solve the problem are not specified any further. The task to be solved is simply a fee calculation from measured variables. It follows directly from the task,

Therefore, the Board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The appeal was thus dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0199/16 () of 14.10.2021 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

Preventing payment in case of an incorrect amount entered by a customer: non-technical

In this decision, relevant for providers of digital payment solutions, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent relating to prevent a payment in case of an incorrect amount entered by a customer. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0994/18 of July 20, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

A technical effect must be clearly reflected by the claim wording. Otherwise it cannot be successfully used for arguing inventive step.

The invention

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

2. It relates to a secure mobile payment method ([0004]) in which essentially a merchant’s POS (“recipient terminal”) sends an invoice, including a “first” payment amount, to a customer’s mobile phone (“payer terminal”), which returns a “second” payment amount and an encrypted payment request. The second payment amount is either the first payment amount or an amount entered by the customer. The POS cannot decipher the payment request, but can only forward it to a payment server if the second payment amount is equal to the first payment amount.

Fig. 1 of WO 2011/065974 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

At the end of the first instance examination phase, the application underlying the present decision was rejected since it was considered not inventive over a distributed networked information system exchanging both encrypted and unencrypted data. In more detail, the examining division considered the gist of the application relates to a payment process and thus to a business method that is excluded from patent protection.

To convince the Board in charge to set the first instance decision aside, the applicant argued that the claimed subject-matter provides for a payment method that requires less data transmission and improved security. However, the Board did not follow these arguments:

4.2 Even taking the appellant’s latest arguments into consideration, the Board judges that the decision to include or exclude the payment amount in the information which the merchant provides to the customer is not based on technical considerations. In particular, this is not related in any way to the effects mentioned by the appellant, i.e. reduced data transmission, cryptography or improved security.

Firstly, preventing payment in case of an incorrect amount entered by the customer is a business need – not transmitting payment data to the server follows directly from this need.

Secondly, irrespective of whether or not the customer enters a payment amount he communicates with the merchant and, thus, in this sense is verified.

Furthermore, the applicant argued in its brief of June 18, 2021 filed shortly before the oral hearing (which took place in absence of the applicant) that the payment amount as claimed is used as a verification of the user itself as this information is essentially used as a one-time-pad. However, the Board disagreed since it was of the opinion that the payment amount, from a technical perspective, cannot be used as a one-time pad:

The Board also notes that the payment amount cannot be equated to a one-time-pad. The latter has a specific technical meaning, namely that of a random secret key for encrypting a plain text, which is not what the payment amount is used for.

As a result, the Board in charge ruled that the subject-matter as claimed refers to a business method implemented in a known system architecture. Since features relating to a business method as such cannot contribute to inventive step, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0994/18 of July 20, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field