Author Archive

Improving image quality based on user’s preferences: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to an information processing apparatus and method for providing content data to a terminal device. The application was refused by the Examining Division. The applicant filed an appeal but was not successful. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 0631/08 dated March 7, 2014, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The improvement of image quality (resolution etc) is possibly, but not necessarily, a technical process.

The invention

Claim 1 defines an information-processing apparatus for providing content data to a terminal device, i.e. essentially a content server. Its functions encompass, in a first stage, the storage of features of image data which are of interest to certain users connected via a terminal device to the content server, including an exemplary “target user” and a “similar user” as defined in the claim. Subsequently, this information is used to improve the image quality of a part of an image transmitted to the target user. The improved image part comprises features which resemble those that have been found to be of interest to the similar user, and which can thus be assumed to be of interest to the target user. The improvement is relative, namely “more than” the image quality of the other parts of the image data. Hence, according to the appellant, a reduction of the amount of the image data to be transmitted to the target user is achieved since only the areas of interest have to be transmitted in high-quality.

Fig. 11 of EP1197902

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

D1 (WO 00/02389 A1) was considered as the closest prior art. The Examining Division found that the invention was to be considered as an obvious computer implementation of non-technical business rules and did not solve any technical problem. Thus, the Examining Division refused the application for lack of inventive step.

The Board of Appeal in charge arrived at the same conclusion:

Firstly, the Board concluded that D1 does not disclose the following features:

4. Present claim 1 defines, as differences to the prior art, a specific profiling of user preferences and a processing step for improving image quality. The preferences of the target user for particular features of image data are determined by analysing the input information delivered from a similar user, i.e. by analysing and storing the input of another user who has similar interests as the target user regarding the features extracted from the image data.

Then, the Board concluded that the technical contribution provided by the these features does not go beyond the normal computer implementation of a non-technical concept of user profiling and content presentation:

5. Determining and storing user profiles is typically done for promotion and marketing purposes and does per se not involve the use of technical means or any other technical aspects. Compilation and analysis of data concerning human behaviour and interests are activities closely related to business methods which are excluded from patentability. The Board considers that such activities as profiling of human behaviour for promotion or other business purposes lack technical character and are as such not able to contribute to inventive step even if carried out as a computer implemented process. The appellant has argued that the invention provides an innovative way of choosing the parts of an image that are likely to be of interest to a user. The Board cannot accept this argument since the claimed process performs the same steps a human being might choose to take in the same circumstances, viz. collect information about users’ interests (non-technical), group the users accordingly (non-technical), and present information to a target user on the assumption of similarities of personal interests (non-technical). Merely automating this process involved no inventive step.

6. There remains in claim 1 the step of improving the image quality. Unlike profiling, the improvement of image quality (resolution etc) is possibly, but not necessarily, a technical process. An improvement of image quality for aesthetic purposes, for example, would normally not contribute to the technical solution of a technical problem and thus not qualify as technical in terms of a patentable invention. Present claim 1 defines that the image quality of the image parts likely to be of interest according to the target user’s preferences is improved “more than the image quality of the other parts of the image data” (see the claim wording). Hence, the improvement is only a relative improvement between parts of the image, and can in fact be achieved by decreasing the quality of other parts of the image without any improvement of image quality at all (see eg dependent claim 8). Hence, the claimed processing means does not necessarily improve the technical image transmission and rendering process but is simply employed to attract the user’s attention to certain information contents, i.e. a kind of “value-added content” as referred to in claim 1. The image improvement as defined in claim 1 is thus not a technical function or feature of the invention and does consequently not contribute to inventive step.

Finally, the Board concluded that the requirement of inventive step is not fulfilled. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0631/08 dated March 7, 2014, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Providing augmented reality overlays in the context of social networks based on geographic location: technical (but obvious)

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to techniques for providing augmented reality overlays in the context of social networks based on geographic location. The application was refused by the Examining Division. The applicant filed an appeal but was not successful. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1066/22 dated October 28, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Being able to use features/applications offline is a desire that can be assumed.

The invention

The application relates to techniques for providing augmented reality overlays in the context of social networks and content creation for posting on such networks. Machine learning models based on geographic location are used to recognize objects in the users’ camera view and recommend, or apply, appropriate overlays. When the user changes location, the machine learning models are replaced accordingly.

Fig. 1 of EP3343441

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

D4 (MIN WEIQING ET AL: “A survey on context-aware mobile visual recognition”) was considered as the closest prior art. The Examining Division refused the application for inter alia lack of inventive step over D4. The Board of Appeal in charge arrived at the same conclusion:

Firstly, the Board concluded that D4 does not disclose the following features:

“based on the location information, machine learning models are downloaded such that object recognition is performed locally on the user’s mobile device using the downloaded machine learning models,

wherein as the location changes, machine learning models associated with previous location information are removed and replaced with machine learning models associated with the current location”.

On the contrary, in D4, the location-based classifiers reside on the server (i.e., instead of being downloaded).

According to the Board, those distinguishing features have a technical effect and solve a technical problem, but the solution is obvious:

3. According to the Examining Division (point 4.2 in the decision) the objective technical problem is to allow an offline use of the recognition methods. This requires the download of the location-based object classifiers (point 4.2, see also point 6). The replacing of the older ones is then, in the Examining Division’s view, “standard housekeeping”.

…

5. The Board finds the analysis of the Examining Division to be convincing.

5.1 Being able to use features/applications offline is a desire that users can be assumed (actually, are known) to have had at the relevant priority date. Accordingly, it is a reasonable objective technical problem for the skilled person to address, whether D4 mentions it or not. This requires, necessarily, the download of the location based object classifiers to the device.

5.2 Removing data which is no longer needed appears then as an obvious option, for instance in order to save storage space on the device.

6. Regarding the argument of the Appellant that this analysis overlooks the synergy between the distinguishing features, the Board remarks the following.

6.1 Article 56 EPC states that an invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

6.2 As argued above and in agreement with the Examining Division, the Board considers that the invention is the obvious solution of a technical problem that the skilled person would have considered in view of the prior art. The mere fact that the considered technical problem does not reflect all effects achieved by the invention cannot disprove the conclusion that the invention was obvious over the prior art.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. All the other requests could not overcome this objection. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1066/22 dated October 28, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Obtaining position information of a moving body: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent relating to a display device including a present position information obtaining unit configured to obtain present position information of a moving body and a display control unit. The patent was maintained in an amended form after opposition proceedings but revoked entirely after the subsequent appeal proceedings. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1596/21 dated July 12, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.04.

Key takeaways

A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process.

Lowering the cognitive burden of a driver is not a technical task.

The invention

According to the application, a display device obtains the current position of a moving body and uses a control unit to display information about objects through a transparent member. This member is between the traveler’s viewpoint and the scenery. If the displayed information is too close to the road, the control unit shifts it outward.

Fig. 3 of EP2793193

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

D3 (US 2004/0193331 A1) was considered as the closest prior art.

The Opposition Division decided that the seventh auxiliary request then on file met the requirements of the EPC.

The Board of Appeal in charge came to a different conclusion and found that claim 1 lacked an inventive step.

Firstly, the Board concluded that D3 does not disclose the following features:

the display control unit (4) is configured to change a display position of the information on the object to an outward direction of a road (71) in a case that the display position of the information on the object based on the present position information is inside the road (71)

Then, the Board assessed whether the above distinguishing features have a technical effect and came to a negative conclusion:

15.1 In line with the established case law of the boards, a feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process. Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the feature. This is not the case if the alleged effect depends on subjective interests or preferences of the user (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edn., 2022 (CLBoA), I.D.9.2.10 b)).

…

15.3 The board is not convinced that the display position of the information on an object specified in the distinguishing features (i.e. inside or in “an outward direction of a road”) objectively enables a driver to better and more safely control and navigate a vehicle along the road.

Firstly, the board agrees with the opposition division that changing the display position “to an outward direction of a road” does not necessarily mean that the display position is moved completely out of the road (see point 16.7 of the decision under appeal). Thus, the displayed information after the change of display position may still hide a part of the road including objects relevant to the driver’s safety. In such a case, the driver’s safety is conditioned by the scene, not the change in display position.

Secondly, changing the display position “to an outward direction of a road” (possibly to a position as far away from the road as allowed by the size of the transparent member and the display range of the light sources) causes the driver to deviate their gaze from the (central part of) the road, this possibly being detrimental to safety depending on the scene, irrespective of the nature of the object for which information is displayed. Whether this is less detrimental to safety than displaying the information on the object inside (or at a more central position in) the road depends on whether and where objects relevant to the driver’s safety are situated on the road as well as the driver’s preferences and cognitive aptitudes (see page 17 of the statement of grounds of appeal: “subjective preferences”).

As an aside, the board notes that claim 1 also covers cases in which the information on the object is displayed first at a position inside the road and then moved on the transparent member to a position outside the road. Such visual “animation” on the transparent member is clearly detrimental to safety.

…

15.5 Even assuming, arguendo, that the distinguishing features helped the driver focus on certain information (e.g. the information whose display position inside the road is not changed), the board still finds that the distinguishing features have no technical character. As argued by the appellant during the opposition proceedings (see point 19.9 of the decision under appeal) and on page 17 of the statement of grounds of appeal, the distinguishing features do not specify the object or the information that is displayed. Thus, the displayed information may be an indication of the model of a vehicle on the road, the name of a facility on the side of the road or (unspecified) information indicating a road sign already present along the road (i.e. “this is a winding road”). Although the driver may take informed decisions on the basis of such information, the information itself is purely cognitive and does not provide the driver with technical instructions helping them to, for example, avoid accidents (see also CLBoA I.D.9.2.10 c)).

15.6 Paragraph [0053] of the application as filed, cited by the respondent in point 3.5 of the reply to the appeal, specifies that “when the information to be displayed outside the roadway is actually displayed inside the roadway, it could cause misunderstandings to the driver and possibly too much information could be displayed inside the roadway”. In view of this, the problem underlying the patent in fact relates to lowering the cognitive burden of the driver. It is established case law that this problem is not technical (see CLBoA, I.D.9.10 b)i) and iii)).

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. All the other requests could not overcome this objection. Hence, the European patent was revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1596/21 dated July 12, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.04.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Storing and retrieving biomedical information: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a system for storing and retrieving biomedical information. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1199/20 (Medical information service/ACTX) dated July 11, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Information modelling (using a data structure) is an intellectual activity and cannot contribute to the technical character of the invention unless it serves a technical purpose.

De facto changes in the memory usage or the processing speed are not suitable criteria for distinguishing between technical and non-technical features.

The invention

The claimed system stores biomedical information in a three-level hierarchical data structure. A node at each level is linked to one or more nodes at the adjacent level(s). Each clinical-action node stores medical information and one or more (Boolean) expressions specifying combinations of genomic variants for which the medical information is relevant. When queried for information about a patient, the system retrieves the medical information of those clinical-action nodes whose expressions match the patient’s genomic variants. The retrieved information may relate e.g. to the effectiveness or adverse effects of a medicament.

Fig. 15 of EP2962270

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 (which was relevant for assessing the inventive step):

  • Claim 1 (auxiliary request 3)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused the European patent application for inter alia lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) over the notoriously known prior art of a distributed information system.

The outcome was not changed after the appeal. The Board of Appeal made the following reasonings regarding auxiliary request 3:

2.3 The Board agrees that a generally known distributed information system can be taken as a starting point for assessing inventive step. Such a system comprises (virtual) data facilities for storing information and (virtual) servers for receiving user queries, retrieving and returning relevant information.

Claim 1 essentially differs by the data structure, specifying the types of stored data and their relationships.

The Board agrees with the examining division that the data structure is not technical. It describes the organisation of biological data at an abstract logical level, which is in the realm of information modelling (as noted in point 2.2 of the decision under appeal). Information modelling is an intellectual activity and cannot contribute to the technical character of the invention unless it serves a technical purpose (see e.g. T 49/99 – Information modelling/INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS, point 7). As elaborated in more detail below, the Board does not consider that the claimed data structure serves such a purpose.

First: the claimed “medical information” is broad and can contain non-technical information

2.5 Firstly, they argued that retrieving medical information relevant to a patient’s genomic variants was a technical purpose since this information objectively described a human being. The appellant cited section G-II, 3.3 of the Guidelines for Examination, according to which the processing of biological data might serve a technical purpose, such as providing a medical diagnosis or estimating a genotype.

The Board agrees that in certain cases the provision of a medical diagnosis or a genotype estimate might be regarded as a technical purpose. However, the system of claim 1 retrieves “medical information”. This broad term encompasses administrative or financial details related to health care, such as information about suitable insurance policies or the cost of medical treatments. Therefore, the Board considers that retrieving such general information does not constitute a technical purpose for the claimed data structure.

The Board furthermore notes that claim 1 only defines the data structure, i.e. the types of stored data and their relations, but not the actual content of the stored information, i.e. which medical information, expressions and variants are stored and linked. The retrieved information, however, can only be as good as the stored information. Since the latter is not part of the claim, it is impossible to say anything about the relevance or objectivity of the retrieved medical information. Technical advantages or achievements that depend on the undisclosed content of stored information cannot form the basis for assessing inventive step (see e.g. T 1153/02 – Diagnostic system/FIRST OPINION, point 3.6).

2.6 In this context, the appellant asserted that the system of claim 1 did not merely retrieve pre-stored patient data but could infer new information about patients from their genomic data and the generic information stored in the data structure.

The Board notes, however, that the novelty of retrieved information does not make this information relevant. As claim 1 does not specify the stored content, it permits linking any variants to any medical information, potentially allowing the storage and retrieval of biologically meaningless or factually erroneous information.

Second: the data stored in the claimed data structure are not functional

2.7 Secondly, the appellant argued that the data structure was characterised by functional data indexing stored information by genetic variants. It defined a particular way of storing, retrieving, and processing data which affected the system’s storage space and processing speed. The appellant referred to earlier decisions, in particular T 1351/04 (File search method/FUJITSU) and T 1159/15 (Model determination system/Accenture), in which the boards of appeal had recognised such data structures as technical.

In the Board’s view, however, the data stored in the claimed data structure are not functional as they do not comprise or otherwise reflect any technical aspects of the system. Rather, the data structure defines a conceptual model of biological information that takes into account the inherent hierarchical properties of the modelled information.

2.8 Furthermore, the Board finds that decisions T 1351/04 and T 1159/15 are not relevant to the present case:

In T 1351/04, it was held that a data structure defining a search index was technical since the information it comprised was intended to control the computer by directing it to a certain memory location (see points 7.2 and 9). The information stored in the data structure of claim 1, however, is not intended to provide such a functionality. The system does not use the patient’s variants to access and retrieve clinical-action nodes. Instead, it retrieves clinical-action nodes based on clinical actions specified in the query and only uses the patient’s variants to assess the relevance of the retrieved information.

In T 1159/15, the invention related to a hierarchical data structure storing cognitive data as well as instructions for aggregating these data from a lower to a higher level. The deciding Board held that the instructions were functional data as they defined how the system responded to a query independently of the cognitive data (point 5). The data structure in claim 1, however, does not comprise any system instructions that are independent of the stored biological information.

The Board in case T 1159/15 further held that the data structure was technical because it defined a particular way of storing, retrieving and processing data which affected the storage space and the speed of processing (point 5.1). The present Board, however, notes that any data structure or algorithm (whether technical or not) when implemented on a computer would affect the computer’s storage space and speed of processing. Therefore, in the Board’s view, de facto changes in the memory usage or the processing speed are not suitable criteria for distinguishing between technical and non-technical features (see e.g. T 1227/05 – Circuit simulation/Infineon, point 3.2.5 and T 1954/08 – Marketing simulation/SAP, point 6.2).

Summary: the claimed data structure is an abstract model of biological information

2.9 In summary, the Board judges that the data structure in claim 1 is an abstract model of biological information. It does not contribute to the technical character of the invention because it neither serves a technical purpose nor involves any technical considerations about the internal functioning of the system. The Board thus agrees with the examining division that the data structure is non-technical and forms part of the requirements specification given to the skilled person for implementation. The Board considers that the claimed implementation amounts to straightforward automation of these requirements that would have been obvious to the skilled person.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 lacks an inventive step. All the other requests could not overcome this objection. Hence, the European patent application was finally rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1199/20 (Medical information service/ACTX) dated July 11, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Displaying inventory instructions on electronic price labels: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to electronic price label and electronic price label system. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1637/20 (Displaying inventory instructions on electronic price labels/MariElla) dated May 7, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The inventory task itself, i.e. manually counting products on a shelf, lacks a technical aspect. Thus, a visual prompt to execute such a task cannot be deemed technical either, unlike assisting a person in performing a technical task.

The invention

The invention concerns electronic price labels that indicate to store personnel which products require inventory. An electronic price label system transmits an instruction (“inventory indication command”) to an electronic price label which, for example, inverts the display colors or activates an LED. In this way store personnel are informed that the products associated with the price label require inventorying. Once the inventory check is completed, the electronic price label receives an instruction (“inventory indication stop command”) to revert to its normal colors or switch off the LED, signalling that the products have been inventoried.

Figure 1 of EP3327649

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

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 of the main request was not inventive over D1 (WO 2015/136146 A1). In their view, the distinguishing features related to a non-technical inventory management scheme, which did not contribute to inventive step, and well-known implementation options such as electronic price labels with LEDs – it was inter alia referred to D2 (EP 0 837 439 A2).

The Board of Appeal arrived at the same conclusion:

6. D1 discloses an electronic price label system comprising electronic price labels and a base station, for providing and displaying product related information, e.g. a price, promotion or discount (see page 7, lines 6 to 10, page 12, lines 10 to 14 and Figure 3).

The Board agrees with the appellant that D1 does not disclose the use of the electronic price label system for displaying inventory information or its connection to an inventory management system with a product database. Furthermore, D1 does not disclose the manner in which the inventory information is displayed, i.e. by “turn[ing] indication light source on and/or us[ing] inverted colours on the display”.

7. The Board, however, judges that these distinguishing features are essentially non-technical requirements which, in line with the Comvik approach (see T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), are given to the technically skilled person to implement.

Typically, inventory management is the responsibility of a store manager. For example, the manager instructs staff to conduct routine inventory checks, such as counting the daily inventory of milk cartons and updating the inventory database accordingly. These instructions might be communicated verbally or in writing, such as through a note affixed to the shelf containing the products.

The store manager is familiar with conventional electronic price labels and their use for providing and displaying product-related information, such as pricing, promotions or discounts (see D1, page 7, lines 6 to 10). The use of electronic labels as opposed to paper labels offers the advantage, also known to the manager, that manual work and errors are reduced.

Therefore, the Board judges that the store manager would come up with the idea of using this well-known advantage also in the area of inventory management, in particular to indicate to store personnel the need for stocktaking for certain products.

8. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the desire to use electronic price labels for informing store personnel about inventory tasks can be included in the problem formulation. In other words, the store manager would ask the technical expert in electronic (shelf) labels to supplement the price information with an indication that the products associated with the electronic price label must be inventoried.

9. Faced with this task, given the electronic price label system of D1, the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed solution without involving an inventive step.

He would use the central computer for transmitting data/control instructions, specifically inventory indications, to be displayed on electronic price labels (see D1, page 12, lines 10 to 14 and Figure 3). Notably, the claim does not specify the trigger for sending these instructions – this could be done manually by the store manager. Additionally, the skilled person would recognise the necessity for the central computer to be connected to the system required to provide the necessary inventory data, for example an inventory management system with a product database.

Moreover, the Board judges that the way in which inventory instructions are visually displayed, whether through inverting display colors or activating LEDs, depends on subjective preferences, such as what store staff or managers find visually appealing. Implementing such visual displays would have been obvious to the skilled person – see also D1, page 7, lines 20 to 23 or D2, column 3, lines 35 to 49.

10. The inventory task itself, i.e. manually counting products on a shelf, lacks a technical aspect. Thus, a visual prompt to execute such a task cannot be deemed technical either, unlike assisting a person in performing a technical task. In particular, the Board cannot see how this would facilitate conducting inventory checks with reliability from a technical standpoint, as the determination to conduct the checks and the accuracy of the counting rests entirely with the store personnel. Moreover, executing the inventory task while the store remains open is unrelated to the manner in which the inventory instructions are communicated to store personnel.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. The auxiliary request could not overcome this objection. Hence, the European patent application was finally rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1637/20 (Displaying inventory instructions on electronic price labels/MariElla) dated May 7, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Managing content subscriptions: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent relating to a media guidance application for managing accounts for subscription services. Granted in 2019, the patent subsequently faced opposition. The opposition proceedings concluded in 2021, with the patent being upheld in its granted form. However, the opponent filed an appeal and prevailed, resulting in the revocation of the patent. Here are some practical takeaways from the decision T 2202/21 of February 27, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Key takeaways

“Management of credentials” is  an administrative task, analogous to maintaining an inventory of automobile spare parts.

The mere use of a (trusted) third party to manage the subscription credentials does not provide as such any additional security.

The invention

The invention relates to managing accounts for subscription services by a media guidance application. For example, by monitoring user activity and managing user accounts on behalf of a user, the media guidance application may recommend subscription services and/or terms of a subscription service tailored to the individual needs of the user.

Figure 2 of EP3369233

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 8 (the only independent method claim) of the patent in its originally granted form:

  • Claim 8 (granted) with feature subdivisions

Is it patentable?

D2 (US 8 843 736 B2) was the most relevant prior art document in the opposition proceedings and the subsequent appeal proceedings. The Opposition Division (OD) found that claim 8 involves an inventive step over D2. However, the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03 (TBA) had another opinion.

The OD and the TBA had the same assessment regarding which features are distinguishing features, but they had different opinions regarding the inventive step.

Distinguishing features

The following features were found as the distinguishing features:

  • (a) A successful comparison of the first authentication key against a plurality of acceptable authentication keys precedes the storage of the “first user account” at the content provider server [features M8.3 and M8.4].
  • (b) The content aggregator server – rather than the user equipment device (“CE device 12”) – issues the request for the service including the second authentication key [feature M8.6].

Technical effects and objective technical problem

The TBA disagreed with the OD regarding the formulation of the technical task:

1.1.7 The opposition division’s formulation of the objective technical problem (“management of credentials for a plurality of subscription services”, cf. Reasons 21 of the decision under appeal) was not based on any particular technical effects associated with the distinguishing features previously identified. This preliminary step is however necessary in the framework of the problem-solution approach to properly assess whether or not the skilled person would have considered the introduction of these features into the system of D2. Furthermore, although credentials may have a well-recognised technical purpose per se, the board is not convinced that the “management of credentials” should necessarily be considered as a technical task rather than an administrative one, analogous to, for instance, maintaining an inventory of automobile spare parts.

…

1.1.9 As to features M8.3 and M8.4, the board considers that they could provide a reliable verification of the first authentication key on which the generated first subscription is based. But only inasmuch as the “plurality of acceptable authentication keys” were securely obtained and handled by the content provider server – an aspect not required at all by claim 8. Feature M8.6, on the other hand, cannot be credibly associated with any technical aspect. In particular, the advantage derived from feature M8.6, i.e. having a (trusted) third party send the request for the service instead of the user device, is explicitly driven by administrative aspects rather than technical ones in the opposed patent (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0178] and [0241]). The underlying administrative (business-related) constraint could in fact be that a first subscription service enters into an agreement with a second subscription service to offer subscriptions on the first subscription service at a discounted price, thus necessitating a delegation of processing tasks from the user device to a (trusted) third party (such as a “content aggregator server”).

Hence, applying the well-established COMVIK approach (cf. T 641/00 as confirmed, for example, by G 1/19), the objective technical problem could be framed as “how to securely implement the above administrative concept in the system of D2, while maintaining control over the respective user accounts” (see also the opposed patent, e.g. column 53, lines 45-50 or column 68, lines 41-46).

Could-would approach

The TBA found that the distinguishing features do not involve an inventive step:

1.1.11 Nonetheless, the board considers that validating user accounts at a first subscription service (cf. e.g. D2, Fig. 1: “CONTENT SERVER 1”) based on credentials of new users obtained from a second subscription service (cf. D2, Fig. 1: “MANAGEMENT SERVER”) – as per feature M8.6 – rather than from a user device (cf. D2, Fig. 1: “CE device 12”) would have constituted a straightforward endeavour for the skilled person entrusted with the task of implementing the administrative concept of “subscription credential aggregation”. In this respect, the board stresses that – irrespective of its administrative convenience – the mere use of a (trusted) third party to manage the subscription credentials does not provide as such any additional security. Rather, such technical contribution should be derivable from the specific implementation of the communication between the concerned entities and the third party. Yet, this aspect is not present in claim 8, either.

1.1.12 As to features M8.3 and M8.4, in the system of D2, the authenticity of a credential is guaranteed, by way of example, with a keyed hash value (cf. D2, column 5, lines 58 and 59). Even accepting arguendo that the use of a pre-defined list of valid user credentials at the “content provider server” credibly contributed to the overall security (cf. point 1.1.9 above), the skilled person would have considered this possibility as a well-known alternative to the keyed hash.

Finally, the TBA concluded that claim 8 as granted lacks an inventive step.

The auxiliary requests were not admitted because the TBA considered that they were late filed (i.e., they should have been filed within the time limit of filing the grounds of appeal, as stipulated by Article 12(3) and 12(4), third sentence, RPBA: a complete case must be included in the statement of grounds of appeal).

In the end, the patent was revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2202/21 of February 27, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Indicating the presence of a substance in an article: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a system and a method for indicating the presence of a substance in an article. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 3104/19 of April 11, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

Obvious automation of an administrative method does not solve a technical problem by technical means.

The invention

The invention relates to a system and a method for indicating the presence of a substance in an article. The system of the invention calculates the total amount of a selected substance in an article using information related to the compositions of the components and materials of the article. The aim is to identify if the selected substance is present in the article in a quantity (amount) that may exceed legally set thresholds, such as a substance which may be considered dangerous for the public according to certain regulations if it is present in the article in a certain quantity.

Figure 2a of EP2754108

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

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The Board concluded that no technical problem is solved by the claimed system because claim 1 concerns an obvious automation of an administrative method.

Below are the detailed reasons:

3.1 Starting point for the skilled person’s considerations is the conventional administrative procedure whereby information about the presence of certain substance(s) in the components of an article has to be requested and obtained from the corresponding component manufacturers/suppliers …

3.2 Instead of that procedure, the claimed system retrieves the relevant information from various record units, (e.g. databases), where information about the material and substance compositions of the component(s) of the article is stored.

…

3.2.3 Once the relevant information is retrieved, the system calculates the total amount of the substance in question. …

3.2.4 In the board’s view, the claimed system can be seen as a general purpose computer system with network capabilities, which retrieves data, executes a mathematical calculation based on these data and shows the result. In other words, the claimed system is considered to be general purpose computer (system) with network capabilities, which is able to perform the basic operations of storage, retrieval and processing of data, as well as receiving input from and providing output to a user. It is common ground that such a computer was notoriously known to the skilled person at the priority date of the application.

…

3.3.2 There is no measurement (e.g. weighing) or any analysis (chemical, spectral, etc.) which takes place in order to determine the substance(s) contained in the component of the article. The indicated total amount of the selected substance corresponds rather to the expected, theoretical amount, since it is based on information related to the theoretical compositions of the components and the materials included in the article and not on any actual measurements.

3.3.3 Hence, even if indicating the total amount of a substance or determining the material composition of an article were considered technical problems, they are not solved using technical means by the claimed system.

…

3.4.2 … In any case, the indicated total amount of the selected substance corresponds merely to an expected, theoretical rather than a detected or measured amount.

….

3.5.2 … Instead of providing declarations about the amount of a substance in a component/material directly to the user, the suppliers/manufacturers of the various components provide the relevant information to record units, from where it can be retrieved (by the claimed system) any time the amount of a substance has to be calculated.

In the board’s view therefore, if there are any gains in efficiency, they are the result of modifying the administrative procedure of obtaining the total amount of a candidate substance in an article and not by solving a technical problem by technical means. According to established case law and practice, this amounts to a circumvention of a technical problem rather than to a solution of the technical problem through technical means, assuming that improving efficiency or reducing costs were regarded as technical problems.

…

3.7 Hence, no technical problem is solved by the claimed system. No technical effect is apparent beyond those expected when an administrative procedure is implemented using a computer system.

Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. The appellant filed an auxiliary request but it was rejected due to late filing. Hence, the European patent application was finally rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 3104/19 of April 11, 2024, 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

Predicting a specific malfunction of a specific mechanical or electrical component based on specific parameters: technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a method for prediction of a malfunction of a unit (e.g., an industrial asset). Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0182/20 (Malfunction prediction/HITACHI ENERGY) of October 24, 2023, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Measuring specific parameters is inherently technical.

The choice of parameters for predicting a specified malfunctions reflects technical considerations about the functioning of the claimed mechanical or electrical components.

The invention

The invention concerns predicting future malfunctions of mechanical or electrical components based on the current values of one or more parameters. Essentially, the invention is calculating the probability of a malfunction M based on the current state of parameter(s) according to some mathematical functions.

Figure 1 of EP3183699

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1 of the sole request:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division held that in claim 1 the technical features were notorious, and the non-technical features did not provide a technical effect. No prior art was cited – neither in the search report nor in the decision under appeal. In detail, the division held that calculating the probability of a malfunction in a mechanical or electrical component constituted a non-technical modelling and forecasting process, which was an abstract intellectual activity. The calculated probability was deemed a piece of information, which lacked a technical effect in itself as any effect depend on human decision-making.

In the appeal proceedings, the applicant amended the claims (the above sole request) and could convince the Board to remit the case back to the examining division. In detail:

Firstly, the Board confirmed that claim 1 comprises a number of technical features:

3.4 Beyond the server-based processing, the method in claim 1 comprises a number of technical features. Firstly, the method involves measuring specific parameters (e.g. temperature and lubricant condition in the bearings of a gas turbine), which is inherently technical (G 1/19, points 85, 99). Furthermore, these measurements are used to predict specific malfunctions in particular components (e.g. a bearing defect in a gas turbine or an insulation defect in a transformer). The Board considers that the choice of parameters for predicting the specified malfunctions reflects technical considerations about the functioning of the claimed mechanical or electrical components (i.e. gas turbine, transformer, and diesel engine).

Then, the Board made a detail discussion whether the mathematical calculations are technical or non-technical. The Board found that claim 1 corresponds to the second situation of two main situations identified in G 1/19 in which numerical calculations contribute to the technical character of the invention:

3.6 G 1/19 identifies two main situations in which numerical calculations contribute to the technical character of the invention.

First, when the calculated numerical data provide a technical effect, which is at least implied in the claim. This is the case when their potential use is limited to technical purposes (G 1/19, points 124 and 128).

Second, when the calculated numerical data represent an indirect measurement of the physical state or property of a specific physical entity (G 1/19, point 99; see also T 3226/19 – Opportunity estimation/LANDMARK GRAPHICS, points 2.5 to 2.7). In this case, technicality is independent of the data’s use.

The Board sees the conditional probability obtained by the method of claim 1 as an indirect measurement of the physical state (i.e., a particular failure) of a specific physical entity based on the following observations:

3.9 Firstly, the claimed method involves taking a measurement of a specific physical entity at a first point in time and estimating the state of this physical entity (i.e., its probability of failure) at another point in time. This is similar to the example in G 1/19, point 99, where the measurement of a specific physical entity at a specific location is obtained from measurements of another physical entity and/or measurements at another location.

3.10 Secondly, the estimate of the component’s future state is based on a mathematical framework that credibly reflects reality. The Board considers this to be an essential factor in deciding whether the calculated numerical data can be seen as an indirect measurement. Arbitrary or speculative models and algorithms that are not grounded in reality are not capable of predicting the physical state or property of a real physical entity. Such abstract calculations cannot be regarded as (indirect) measurements.

In claim 1, however, the probability is calculated from the transition matrix T, the conditional probability distribution P(M|a), and the current measurement of the parameter a. The mathematical framework in the claim is rooted in stochastic modelling and simulation, specifically Markov chains, which are recognised for credibly capturing and predicting the transition dynamics of systems based on empirical data.

The fact that the result is a probability does not detract from its ability to provide a technically meaningful estimate of the component’s state. Making accurate predictions in the real world, given all its uncertainties, is rarely possible.

3.11 Lastly, there is a credible causal link between the measured parameters and the predicted malfunctions. For instance, a bearing defect in a gas turbine is likely to generate more heat, degrade lubricant, and cause vibrations in the shaft and/or casing. Therefore, temperature, lubricant condition, and shaft or casing vibrations are suitable parameters for predicting a bearing defect.

3.12 In summary, the Board is satisfied that the calculated probability provides a credible estimate of the future physical state of a specific physical entity and, therefore, can be seen as an indirect measurement.

Finally, the Board concluded that all features in the claim contribute to the technical character of the invention and must be examined for obviousness. The Board remitted the case to the examining division for further prosecution including a search (Article 111(1) EPC).

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 0182/20 (Malfunction prediction/HITACHI ENERGY) of October 24, 2023, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Method of reserving compartments: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method of reserving compartments. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1203/20 of January 25, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

An administrative scheme of managing compartments will be provided to the skilled person as non-technical constraints for implementation.

Automating steps of a manual process has always been considered a pervasive aim in any technical system.

The invention

The invention relates to reserving compartments in a post system. The post system comprises compartments (lockers) which can be reserved by users. The system maintains a database with records including the status of each compartment (“reserved” – “available”) and when it receives a request for a reservation it looks for available compartments on the basis of their status as stored in the database.

Reservations are made for a certain period of time, i.e. they have a start and an end time. The system monitors the time and when the end time of a reservation passes, it changes automatically the status from “reserved” to “available” unless it detects that there is a package in the compartment.

Figure 1 of EP2927884

Here is how the invention was defined by independent claim 10 of the main request:

  • Claim 10 (system claim) of the main request

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacks an inventive step. The applicant appealed but was unable to change the outcome of the case. The following references are cited in the decision:

D1: US 2002/0080030 A1

D4: US 2003/0222760 A1

Main request

Regarding the main request, the Board considered D1 as a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step, wherein the following features were considered as distinguishing features of claim 10:

  • (i) the post system is adapted to identify at least one record within the reservation table of the database associated with a reserved compartment having a reservation time that is past a current time, and to update the record of the reservation table corresponding to the identified compartment to available;
  • (ii) wherein the identifying at least one record further includes comparing the reservation time with the current time and data from a recognition means, the recognition means provided at the one or more compartments and adapted to recognise if a package is deposited in a compartment, wherein the record corresponding to the reserved compartment is updated to available if the recognition means do not detect that a package has been deposited in the reserved compartment within the reservation time; and
  • (iii) the post system is adapted to update the reservation table by storing data indicating a reserved status associated with the at least one available compartment to be reserved and a reservation time to establish a compartment reservation.

However, the Board considered that the distinguishing features are not technical and thus found that the subject-matter of claim 10 of the main request does not involve an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC):

2.5.1 As stated previously, the board considers that the difference between the claimed system and the system of D1 lies in the way they are managed. The identified distinguishing features represent thus an implementation of an administrative scheme for managing the compartments.

According to established case law and practice, the board considers that the administrative scheme of managing the compartments will be provided to the skilled person as non-technical constraints for implementation. Any technical problem present would relate merely to how these non-technical constraints are (to be) implemented.

As stated previously, the system of D1 comprises all the necessary technical means for implementing the administrative (business) scheme underlying the claimed system. The board’s view is therefore that such an implementation would be obvious to the skilled person using common general knowledge.

First auxiliary request

The system of claim 8 of the first auxiliary request (based on claim 10 of the main request) comprises additional features enabling it to receive an indication of the location of the shop system and searching for available compartments within a specific range around that location. Moreover, claim 8 defines that the system uses the IP address of the shop system to identify its location automatically.

The main difference of the claimed system from the system of D1 is that in the latter the location is input by the user, who makes the reservation request (paragraph [158]), while in the claimed system the user’s location (“shop location”) is identified automatically by the system on the basis of the IP address of the shop’s terminal.

However, the Board considered that the difference refers to a mere automation of a manual process and thus does not involve an inventive step:

3.5 The board does not find these arguments persuasive. Leaving open the question of whether minimising the user interaction with the system represents a technical problem, the board notes that automating steps of a manual process has always been considered a pervasive aim in any technical system.

3.5.1 The board thus considers that the skilled person would inherently seek to automate any step in the compartment reservation procedure described in D1. One of the few user inputs in the reservation procedure is the input of the desired location. It would thus be obvious for the skilled person to try and automate this step of the procedure, i.e. to provide for an automatic identification of the user’s location.

Since none of other requests were considered allowable, the Board dismissed the appeal and the European patent application was ultimately rejected.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1203/20 of January 25, 2024 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

Identifying an application type of unknown data: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for identifying an application type of unknown data that may be encountered during a data recovery process. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1245/20 (Identifying an application type of unknown data/MAGNET FORENSICS) of March 3, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

Features relating to a mental act only relate to non-technical activities and thus cannot produce a technical effect.

Mere programming (software engineering) is not technical.

Mere presentation of information is not technical.

(based on G 1/19) A technical effect shall be derivable over the whole scope of the claim.

The invention

The application relates to methods of identifying an application type of unknown data that may be encountered during a data recovery process. Claim 1 defines a computer-implemented data analysis method (200) of displaying data with an unknown application type recovered from one or more addresses marked as unallocated on a storage device. The recovering step is done by step (A) of claim 1, whereas the displaying step is performed at step (F) of claim 1 (unfold the accordion below for further details).

Figure 1 of EP3049970

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request, feature labelling (A) to (F) added by the board)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacks an inventive step over a general purpose computer system or the disclosure of documents D1 or D5 and thus refused the application.

The applicant appealed but was unable to change the outcome of the case. The Board in charge assessed each step of claim 1 and found none of the steps in claim 1 can provide an inventive step.

Step (B) was considered by the Board as relating to mental act (non-technical activity), which does not contribute to a technical effect:

7.3.1 In step (B) of claim 1, it is stipulated that the “database information” of the recovered data comprises “at least one table with at least one column”. Column identifiers of the unknown database of the recovered data are analysed “to determine that the recovered data corresponds to database information”. The board notes that claim 1 does not define how the column identifiers are recognised or found if the database from which the recovered data originates is “unknown”.

…

7.3.3 Thus, after having found, in a manner undefined in claim 1, column identifiers (“col_1”, “col_2”, “col_3”, .., “col_N”) of an unknown database DBj, these column identifiers are analysed, and it is determined whether they correspond to database information.

Thus, some column identifiers correspond to some database information, and this correspondence appears to be pre-defined, this being similar to the associations, in the catalogue of the prior art disclosed in the application, of applications to respective data formats illustrated in point 6.1.1. Analysing the column identifiers by reading them and looking at a pre-defined correspondence between the column identifiers and an associated database to determine the associated database cannot be considered to involve an inventive step. It is, rather, based on an analysis of data formats by a software engineer or programmer, which is in essence a mental act and thus a non-technical activity not contributing to a technical effect.

Steps (C), (D) and (E) were considered by the Board as relating to mere programming (software engineering), which does not contribute to a technical effect:

7.4.11 Steps C and D alone cannot provide an inventive step since they consist in looking whether a keyword in a table of associations or catalogue is present in the column identifier to implicitly look up in the table of associations or catalogue the data field associated with this keyword and to implicitly look up in another table of associations or catalogue the application associated with this data field. These steps essentially just relate to mere programming based on non-technical considerations of software engineering and do not contribute to a technical effect over the prior art disclosed in the application.

…

7.5.4 Step (E) alone cannot provide an inventive step since storing the mapping determined in step (C) and (D) is obvious and would be performed by the skilled person without exercising an inventive step and depending on the circumstances. Moreover, the mapping itself relates just to software engineering and the analysis of data formats in applications, this being non-technical.

Step F was considered by the Board as relating to mere presentation of information, which does not contribute to a technical effect:

7.6 Step (F)

There is a displaying step (F) in a preview section (having reference sign 560) of a user interface (having reference sign 500) of a data record (of the database information) having a data field DFy. The data record is displayed in a column of the user interface “based on the stored mapping of the stored data field of the data record to the stored column”.

The board considers that step (F) concerns a mere presentation of information which is non-technical and cannot render claim 1 inventive.

Moreover, the Board also cited G 1/19 and stated that a technical effect shall be derivable over the whole scope of the claim:

13. One question that arises is whether the method of claim 1 has the potential to cause technical effects. But the mapping and display of the data record in a respective column of the user interface resulting from the claimed method is not specifically adapted for any technical use (see G 1/19, point 94). Since the board does not see any technical effect from the implementation of the claimed method in a computer system derivable over the whole scope of the claim, the claimed subject-matter does not achieve a technical effect over the prior art acknowledged in the application.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1245/20 (Identifying an application type of unknown data/MAGNET FORENSICS) of March 3, 2023 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