Author Archive

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

Selection of an available memory size: technical

This decision relates to a European patent for a method for the selection of an available memory size of a circuit. The patent had been revoked as an outcome of the opposition proceedings. The proprietor appealed, but the Board of Appeal has not overturned the decision of the Opposition Division. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2010/17 (Selection of an available memory size/THALES DIS FRANCE) of 9.6.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

When assessing inventive step using the problem/solution approach, an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field may legitimately be added to the problem as a constraint to be met.

The invention

This European patent relates to a method for the selection of an available memory size of a circuit including at least a processor (for example a CPU, a microprocessor or a processing unit) and a memory.

The patent had been revoked based on the decision from the Opposition Division that claim 1 was not novel over D7.

Fig. 2 of EP2399257

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request, itemisation in parentheses added by the board)

Is it patentable?

During the appeal, the appellant (proprietor) contested that document D7 disclosed features (1.7), (1.8) and (1.9) of claim 1. The Board considers that document D7 discloses features (1.7) and (1.8) but does not explicitly or implicitly disclose feature (1.9) of claim 1:

1.5 The board agrees with the respondent that document D7 discloses features (1.7) and (1.8). These features specify that the selected memory size is registered and locked permanently. The claim wording specifies the method steps on a functional level and does not imply any actions for blocking access to physical memory on a permanent basis (such as using a one-time programming memory, which is disclosed in paragraph [0020] of the patent as an implementation option). The claim features (1.7) and (1.8) specify that only the selected memory size is registered and locked. This is exactly what document D7 discloses in paragraph [0029], where the selected memory size is indicated by the key, which is then applied to permanently enable access to all or some of the partitioned memory depending on the user’s selection. In document D7, by use of the received key, the selected memory size is registered permanently. In view of its interpretation of the claimed subject-matter and its analysis of D7, the board is not convinced by the appellant’s arguments. Consequently, features (1.7) and (1.8) of claim 1 are disclosed in document D7.

1.6 The board considers that document D7 does not explicitly or implicitly disclose feature (1.9) of claim 1. The term “signature” used in this feature is interpreted as meaning a “security signature” (see paragraph [0021] of the patent) used to calculate a signature for data to be transmitted (see paragraph [0022] of the patent). Hence, the board agrees with the appellant that, at least in the context of the current application, the term “signature” is to be interpreted as being associated with security and may be used for enhancing the security of a message to the server. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the signature is generated by the integrated circuit itself. Consequently, the board is not convinced by the respondent’s arguments that the signature could be interpreted as a clear text signature or as merely providing redundancy for data transmission.

However, the Board considers feature (1.9) cannot be a basis for acknowledging inventive step:

2.1 The skilled person, when starting from document D7, could and would have arrived at feature (1.9) without exercising inventive skill in view of the business requirement to transmit payment data in a secure manner to the manufacturer of the integrated circuit. In this context, the board notes that in accordance with the established case law of the boards, when assessing inventive step using the problem/solution approach, an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field (such as the business need mentioned above) may legitimately be added to the problem as a constraint to be met (see decisions T 641/00, OJ EPO 2003, 352; T 154/04, OJ EPO 2008, 46).

Moreover, it was well known to use digital signatures or the like to enhance the security of messages. The board notes that the contested patent does not disclose any details on how the signature is calculated. It discloses merely which data is used to calculate the signature. In view of this, from the patent specification, it is assumed that it would have been well known to calculate signatures. Since the skilled person would have considered adding a signature to the payment data to be transmitted to the server in D7 as a matter of routine development, it also would have been immediately clear that the signature has to be generated on the side of the sender of the message, i.e. the computer (integrated circuit), and not on the side of the server, as the signature needs to be sent with the payment data. Consequently, feature (1.9) of claim 1 cannot be a basis for acknowledging inventive step.

Therefore, the Board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 (main request) does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Further, none of the auxiliary requests was admissible. The appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2010/17 (Selection of an available memory size/THALES DIS FRANCE) of 9.6.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Simultaneously generating a winning outcome in game machines: non-technical

In this decision, relevant for gambling machine manufacturers, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent relating to simultaneously generating a winning outcome in game machines. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0941/17 of August 11, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The choice of a specific game to be played is an administrative decision unrelated to any technical problems or considerations.

The invention

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

2.1 The claimed invention relates to a group of associated gaming devices, a method of operating them and an individual gaming device.

According to the application, it is desirable from time to time to have all the gaming devices in the group produce a winning outcome at the same time. Such an occurrence creates spontaneous enthusiasm with the players and draws attention to the gaming devices, increasing thus the chances that more users will start playing at those devices, increasing the profit of the devices’ owner.

2.2 For this to happen it is important that all the gaming devices generate a winning game outcome at the same time. …

2.3 The forced winning outcome is generated by a lottery drawer, irrespective of the game played at the machine. …

2.4 By using synchronised clocks and identical databases and pseudo-number generators in the associated gaming devices the simultaneous occurrence of the winning outcomes in all the devices can be achieved (see pages 1 to 3 of the published application).

Fig. 1 of WO 2013/045276 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

At the appeal stage, the Board in charge as a first step assessed the distinguishing features over the closest prior art identified during examination:

3.3 Comparing claim 1 with D5, the features distinguishing the claimed group of associated gaming devices from D5 appear to relate to how the forced winning game outcome is generated.

In claim 1 there is a lottery drawer using a pseudo-random number generator and a comparator. A database contains entries with lists of winning numbers for a specific time interval, like 24 hours, for example. At predetermined times, a seed from the specific database entry is provided to the pseudo random number generator, which generates a pseudo random number. At the same time a winning number is drawn from the list of winning numbers of the database entry. The pseudo random number and the winning number are fed to the comparator and, when the two numbers much, a winning signal will be generated.

In D5 there is no information about how the winning outcome is achieved or what game it relates to.

However, the Board considered the solution provided by the distinguishing features (a lottery drawer) to be non-technical since they would only describe a lottery game:

3.4 The board considers that the use of a draw of a lottery as a way to generate a winning outcome does not address any technical problem. In the board’s view, the choice of a specific game to be played is an administrative decision unrelated to any technical problems or considerations.

3.7 The skilled person (a computer programmer, expert in gaming devices) would seek for a way to implement the winning event in the gaming devices of D5. The idea to use a lottery drawer and the rules of the “manipulated” lottery draw are not technical features and will be given to the skilled person for implementation in the associated gaming devices of D5. The skilled person would carry out this task in an obvious manner using only common general knowledge, especially since no details are provided in the application that would indicate particular technical problems to be solved or technical considerations to take into account in the implementation of the lottery drawer.

Against this assessment, the appellant argued as follows:

3.8 In its letter of 23 April 2021 the appellant put forward an argument related to the event list of D5. Making reference to paragraphs [0006] and [0007] of D5 the appellant argued that the event list in the gaming machines of D5 comprises a finite list of events to occur in specific points in time. When the point in time of the last event in the list is reached, the event list must be replaced.

In contrast to that, in the claimed invention the lottery drawer used entries from a database to create the winning events using a pseudo random number generator. The events in the database did not define a series of fixed points in time. Rather, the series of the sequential entries in the database would wrap around to the beginning when the end of the entries in the database was reached (see lines 30 and 31 on page 4 of the published application).

The use of draw of lottery in the claim, thus solved the technical problem of making the event list of D5 reusable so that the present event list need not be replaced by a new event list when its end is reached.

In response, the Board in charge explained that this line of argumentation would not relate to the claimed invention since the claim would only specify how a winning event is generated on the plurality of game devices at the same time and would thus be silent about reusing an event list. Furthermore, the arguments of the appellant would be technically incorrect:

Secondly, even if the appellant’s argument is taken into account, the board notes that it is not correct that the sequential entries (30) do not define fixed points in time. As it is explained in the application (see page 4, lines 17 to 21), the sequential entries (30) correspond to a predetermined time interval, like 24 hours, and with the setting of a first date for the first entry, they correspond to specific dates (see also Figure 3). Each entry 30 comprises a list of winning numbers to be drawn on the specific date (time interval).

Sine the additional features added to claim 1 according to the auxiliary requests were considered to be disclosed by the closest prior art document, the Board dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0941/17 of August 11, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy 
* = Required field

Editing 3D content: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application for a system and method that enables users without any skills specific to 3D software to edit 3D content. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2448/16 () of 25.6.2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The cognitive meaning of providing/storing language information as well as adjusting, placing and generating an image do not have any non-obvious technical implication for the functioning of the computer device and its interactive graphical user interface (GUI). The underlying technical operation can be carried out by any conventional computer.

The invention

The application relates to positioning a consumable in a 3D simulation, e.g. of a virtual room. A consumable may be an image, a video, a text or any kind of software element. It takes trial and error to position a single 3D consumable. This is difficult because there are six variables that must simultaneously be adjusted (x, y, z, thetax, thetay, and thetaz). Therefore creating a great amount of content in a short period of time is impractical. It is an object of the invention to provide a system for placing content in a 3D environment onto a 2D picture wherein the user does not need to be intimately familiar with 3D tools. The invention proposes hardware and a graphical user interface (GUI) with different tools, e.g. a projection matrix, for placing and adjusting the consumable via a “drag and drop” operation.

Fig. 7 of EP2394240

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The Board in general agrees with the reasoning of the Examining Division that many of the features (A)-(M) of system claim 1 relate to non-technical features where technical character only arises because a general purpose computer system is claimed in order to automate the method steps.

3.1.2 The cognitive meaning of providing/storing language information as well as adjusting, placing and generating an image do not have any non-obvious technical implication for the functioning of the computer device and its interactive graphical user interface (GUI). The underlying technical operation can be carried out by any conventional computer (see Fig. 1 of the application).

3.1.3 Furthermore, the method steps are mainly of administrative nature and neither the claim nor the application as a whole describe any technical interaction between these steps and the technical features which would go beyond the mere automation of the steps relating to administration (see T 641/00, G 3/08, G 1/19, “Case Law of the Boars of Appeal”, 9th edition, I.D.9.1.2- I.D.9.1.4).

For the problem-and-solution approach, D1 (US 6 628 279) was considered as the closest prior art, because it discloses a 2D image of a 3D object. Additional 2D/3D objects can be placed in a 3D environment.

According to the Board, D1 does not disclose features (E) to (F).

As to features (I) to (J) the Appellant argued that D1 was silent on any projection matrix being clipped and scaled by a projection matrix component. However, the Board was not convinced:

3.3.5 Also in this respect, the Board is of the opinion that the wording of these features is rather broad and not sufficiently specific in order to make a distinction over the disclosure of D1. A “projection matrix” is equivalent to a matrix of coordinates and the grid of the designed objects. A “projection matrix” is a mathematical concept …

…

3.3.8 Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that the term “projection matrix” of claim 1 refers to the well-known fundamental mathematical concept of construing 3D objects based on a 3D matrix. The matrix goes in general in perspective view to a single point in infinity such that all objects maintain perspective relative to the 3D image. This concept is known in painting since several hundreds of years. An equivalent concept is used in D1 in order to construe a 3D representation of a house in a 3D coordinate system maintaining perspective relative to the 3D image (feature (M)). The 3D coordinate system, the coordinates of the house/consumables and the grid forming the structure of the house/consumables in D1 therefore can be considered as a “projection matrix”. D1 therefore discloses features (I) to (J) and (M).

In the end, only features (E)/(F) were considered as the distinguishing features, which were found obvious by the Board:

3.5 Effect – Problem

These features have the effect that the language of the CAD software and specific consumables can easily be changed.

3.6 Obviousness

3.6.1 As to features (E)/(F) the description of the present application does not provide any specific detail, effect or technical problem solved. Fig. 25 of D1 shows a standard PC. Such PCs require a standard operating system. The operating language of any operating system (Windows, iOS, etc.) and applications can in general be changed in the options.

3.6.2 It is a normal option that the computer system of D1 comprises a parameter, which sets the language to a preferred language, e.g. English. Such a parameter is a common option and is well-known in the art. It is furthermore a normal option that the language parameter can be changed for specific software elements (consumables).

3.6.3 Therefor the Board is of the opinion that the subject-matter of the Main Request does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

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 2448/16 ()of 25.6.2021 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