Author Archive

Extracting flight data: not technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for compilation of price data concerning scheduled transport. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1468/20 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The specification of transport data relates to business data content and is not technical.

In the claim, the filtering boils down to disregarding prices that were not offered to a sufficient number of different users. This is a purely business idea.

 

The invention

The invention concerns an Internet service aggregating transport price data, e.g. flight prices, collected from users’ searches of prices on transport providers’ websites.

Claim 1 of the main request specifies a method which searches and extracts flight data from various airline web pages that users view and provide this data to a central data receiving (second) server 22 for storage in a database 26. This database is searchable through the Internet via a further server 28.

The web page containing the price data served by the airline’s website also contains a script. The users’ browsers (clients) 20 execute the script which searches the web page and extracts the price data.

In order to ensure the reliability of received flight prices, the data receiving server monitors IP addresses of the clients and only considers a flight price as trusted and suitable for distribution, after it has received this price from clients at a sufficient number of different IP addresses.

 

Figure 1 of EP2849130

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division found that claim 1 lacked an inventive step over D3.

The Board also considered D3 as the closest prior art and considered that claim 1 differs from D3 as follows:

  • Feature (b), end: By a further Internet server which selects and serves the aggregated data from the database to browser clients.
  • Features (c) and (d): In that the data receiving server monitors IP addresses from which the data was received and only considers a particular price to be trusted, and thereby suitable for distribution, once it has received the same price from Internet browser clients at a number of different IP addresses.
  • Feature (a), end: In that the one or more received executable instructions cause the Internet browsing client to search at least a portion of the received web page data to extract the scheduled transport price data for transmission to the data receiving server.

The Board denied the inventive step of claim 1 based on the following reasoning:

2.5 Like the examining division, the Board judges that the specification of transport data relates to business data content and is not technical (see decision, point 12.5.1) and that the feature of the further Internet server is an obvious option (point 12.5.3). The Board adds to the examining division’s analysis of the latter feature that middleware servers sitting between a database and Internet browser clients were common knowledge at the priority date, as shown by background document D9 for example.

2.6 As for determining trust based on the number of different IP addresses, it was common ground that it produced the effect of returning only trusted prices to Internet browser clients. However, the claimed method (feature (d)) does not actually use the information about the prices’ trustworthiness while storing data in the database and it is doubtful whether the asserted effect is indeed provided.

2.7 Nevertheless, the Board agrees with the examining division that even assuming that only trusted prices are stored in the compiled price data database, this feature is obvious.

The appellant argued that any kind of data filtering was a technical process. However, in the claim, the filtering boils down to disregarding prices that were not offered to a sufficient number of different users. The Board concurs with the examining division (decision, point 12.5.5) that this is a purely business idea.

It is common ground (cf. decision, point 12.7.5) that using IP addresses to distinguish user devices is an implementation choice. However, this would have been obvious, once, in line with the COMVIK principle (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), the aforementioned business idea has been given to the skilled person for implementation. The obviousness of the solution becomes even more apparent considering that in D3 the central server already receives clients’ IP addresses together with the extracted product information (paragraph [80], last sentence).

2.8 At the oral proceedings the main point of contention was the obviousness of using the script to search the received web page to extract the price data.

Firstly, the appellant argued that the skilled person was a computer programmer for cataloging and reporting Internet site activity data. However, the Board considers this to be an arbitrarily restrictive technical qualification to the particular application of D3 that does not exist in practice. In the Board’s view, the skilled person is simply a web programmer.

Secondly, the appellant considered that using the script to search the web page solved the problem of reducing the amount of transmitted data between the merchant and the browser. The Board agrees that this is certainly one effect of the invention. However, the Board sees the invention in a more general sense as being about the decision where to obtain information about products’ prices. In D3, it is done by the merchant, whereas in the invention it is the browser. Thus, the difference in a more general sense represents an alternative choice for where to perform the processing.

In this general context the amount of transmitted data is one of many trade-offs. Others would be: processing power required at the merchant/browser and programming complexity at the merchant/browser. Furthermore, the choice could be driven by non-technical considerations, such as whether the merchant or the customer wants to control the information obtained.

Thus, the Board essentially agrees with the examining division that searching and extracting information about the web page in the browser is more properly to be considered as an alternative to providing this information at the merchant. In such cases, the skilled person would consider any well known alternative in the technical field unless the closest prior art, or some other fact, teaches away from it.

As mentioned above, the skilled person is a web programmer. A web programmer knows that the solution of searching and extracting data from web pages is a well-known technique, commonly known in the art as web scraping. In fact, as stated by the examining division (decision, point 14.4), D3 at paragraph [75] actually teaches obtaining the product price information using web scraping as an alternative to obtaining this information from the embedded script, albeit at another server.

Furthermore, the Board judges that, contrary to the appellant’s view, the use of JavaScript as present in the browser in D3 to scrape pages poses no technical difficulty.

Thus, the Board agrees with the examining division’s conclusion at point 14.4 of the decision that the skilled person would have considered using a scraping functionality in the embedded script as an obvious possibility.

2.9 Hence, claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

All the auxiliary requests were found to lack an inventive step. Finally, the Board dismissed the appeal and the European patent application was refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1468/20 of the 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 education service based on knowledge units: not technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for providing education service based on knowledge units. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2718/19 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

Mental acts in relation to a non-technical pedagogical/didactic learning method expected to be designed by a notional, non-technical person like a teacher are non-technical features.

Mere automation of a known task is not enough for inventive step.

 

The invention

Claim 1 concerns a system for providing education service based on knowledge units. First, a curriculum is generated based on a user’s achievement for at least one knowledge unit, said curriculum including at least one problem composed based on said at least one knowledge unit. According to the present invention, a new form of education service can be provided based on knowledge units.

Figure 3 of EP2819089

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

The appellant’s arguments as far as they are relevant for the present decision are summarised by the board as follows:

The subject-matter defined in claim 1 concerned an “educational technology system”, so called “Edutech”, and therefore concerned the solution of a technical problem. The improvement of an educational technology system using technical means was clearly a technical contribution. The technical means were the knowledge units, the knowledge chain and/or the problem provided to the user and the interaction between these entities such that an improved feedback could be provided to the user according to its knowledge level. This resulted in an improved technology.

The board did not share the appellant’s view:

2.1 The features of claim 1 are seen as a combination of technical and non-technical features. Given the presence of technical features, the overall technical character of the claimed invention is not questioned.

2.2 The closest state of the art is considered to be a computer system comprising user interfaces and storage means as well as a processor and databases. This closest state of the art is considered notorious and also exemplified by document D1 (see e.g. paragraphs [0036] and [0061] to [0063] and Figures 2 and 4).

2.3 The differentiating features concern the education service based on knowledge units and related content like the different knowledge units and the data related to the user’s achievement and their interaction.

2.4 These differentiating features are based on a combination of standard technical features like notes taken on a piece of paper and stored in a well-known paper folder combined with non-technical features which concern mental acts in relation to a non-technical pedagogical/didactic learning method expected to be designed by a notional, non-technical person like a teacher. These differentiating features are the following:

An educational method based on knowledge units, whereby the knowledge units and information on a user’s achievements for the knowledge units are stored for example in a storage location; a curriculum is stored which is based on the user’s achievement of at least one knowledge unit stored in the storage location, which includes an interpretative knowledge unit, a formulaic knowledge unit and/or a computational knowledge unit. The curriculum includes at least one problem composed based on the at least one knowledge unit. The user is further provided with at least one problem, and with contents of the knowledge units associated with the user’s response to the at least one problem, wherein the at least one problem is composed by a knowledge chain comprised of the at least one knowledge unit and at least one further knowledge unit. The knowledge chain includes identification information of the at least one knowledge unit and the at least one other knowledge unit. The user’s knowledge is analysed in order to determine the user’s achievement for the at least one knowledge unit based on a feedback that the user provided in response to at least one other problem composed by the knowledge chain, and to reflect information on the user’s achievement for the at least one knowledge unit, wherein to the at least one problem is assigned the identification information of the at least one knowledge unit and the at least one other knowledge unit, and wherein the at least one knowledge unit is organized with at least one yet other knowledge unit to form an association between the different knowledge units, and the association is identified when the knowledge units constitute another knowledge chain.

2.5 The objective technical problem to be solved by the identified differentiating features of the pedagogical/didactic learning method therefore can be formulated as the implementation of this non-technical pedagogical/didactic learning method on a notorious computer system.

2.6 In order to solve this problem, the non-technical pedagogical/didactic learning method is handed over to the technically skilled person, namely a computer programmer, which implements it without any technical difficulty in a straightforward manner on the above mentioned notorious computer system representing the closest state of the art. The technically skilled person, i.e. the computer programmer, implements the storage location(s) which include(s) all information, user’s achievement results, knowledge units or knowledge chains without any difficulty making use of a database of the computer system. In the given context the use of a database must be considered a standard procedure for the computer programmer since databases and their advantageous use were notoriously well-known for dealing with specifically structured data content at the time of filing of the application.

Moreover, apart from automation of the non-technical pedagogical/didactic learning method, no specific technical details concerning the technical implementation of the non-technical method are defined in the wording of claim 1 which could be considered to provide a technical contribution, a further technical effect or any specific technical solution to a particular technical problem. Nothing of this kind can be identified in the wording of claim 1.

The relation and interaction between the different knowledge units, the knowledge chain and the problem provided to the user do not represent a particular technical solution to a technical problem, contrary to the appellant’s assertion (see statement setting out the grounds of appeal, page 2, fourth paragraph and page 5, second and seventh paragraphs). These features are related to the design of the non-technical pedagogical/didactic learning method and are as such specified by the teacher (the notional non-technical person). These features are not related to specific technical means which could be considered to derive from an inventive contribution of the technically skilled computer programmer. Neither a “knowledge chain” nor a “knowledge unit” nor the “problem provided to the user” are considered technical features.

Moreover, although the method is defined as relating to the domain of “educational technology system” / “Edutech”, it cannot be concluded that the implemented method necessarily requires a technical solution to a technical problem. As indicated, the technicality lies exclusively in the straightforward implementation of a non-technical method on a notorious computer system.

Merely naming something a “technology system” will not automatically put it in a field of technology for the purposes of Article 52(1) and (2) EPC. In the given context, educational training or teaching methods that adapt to the user’s level of knowledge are only technically implemented to provide online-learning or computer-based training.

This is also in accordance with and not in contradiction to the explanations in the “Wikipedia” article on “Educational technology” which the appellant submitted with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal. “Edutech” is a technical realisation of the “theory and practice of educational approaches to learning” or a means to “assist in the communication of knowledge, and its development and exchange” or to provide learning tool. It is therefore the technical realisation of mental, non-technical subject-matter since the roots of “Edutech” lie in didactic and pedagogical learning theories.

These non-technical training and learning theories are in the present case computer-implemented in a straightforward manner for computer learning, on-line training and/or e-learning.

2.7 With regard to the decision T 336/14 cited by the appellant, which also concerns a mixed-type invention comprising technical and non-technical features, the board notes that the subject-matter discussed there is not comparable to the subject-matter of the case at hand. That decision concerned a graphical user interface (GUI) which assisted a mental human process. The potentially excluded subject-matter concerned the presentation of information as such (see point 1.2.5 of the Reasons for the Decision) and was found by the deciding board not to involve an inventive step. Therefore, if this decision is relevant at all to the present application, which the board is not convinced of, it is seen to support the board’s position, and not that of the appellant.

2.8 In summary, the subject-matter defined in claim 1 relates to a notorious standard computer system on which a non-technical method is implemented in a straightforward and obvious manner (Article 52(1) EPC in combination with Article 56 EPC).

The appellant did not file auxiliary requests. Finally, the Board refused the European patent application.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 2718/19 of the 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

Search in internet and personal notes: not technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to a method for presenting information on a website. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1272/20 (Search in internet and personal notes/EVERNOTE) of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

As with all subject-matter excluded as such under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, it has to be established whether the non-technical features, to the extent that they interact with the technical subject-matter of the claim for solving a technical problem, provide a technical contribution and should be taken into account in assessing inventive step.

An assessment based on an isolated analysis of the individual features of the claim without regard for possible interactions with the other claimed features may lead to ignoring features which make a technical contribution.

Meeting the informational needs of a user is not per se a technical effect.

The invention

The invention concerns searching for and presenting to a user relevant notes in connection with other website content as result of an internet search performed by the user. According to the description, “note” is a general name for a piece of information.

Figure 1 of EP3299973

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

In the grounds of appeal, the appellant disagreed with the examining division’s identification of the features of claim 1 which had technical character. The examining division had equated features contributing to technical character with structural features and had excluded any non-structural features from the assessment of inventive step as being non-technical per se.

The appeal board shared the appellant’s view:

3.1 The appellant has – correctly – remarked that in decision T 598/14 the board did not consider that none of the claimed features was technical but rather that the features distinguishing the claimed subject-matter from the prior art did not make a technical contribution. The board further agrees with the appellant that T 598/14 did not express that any manner in which a computer performs a search is non-technical for the sole reason that the result is a “better search”. As with all subject-matter excluded as such under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, it has to be established whether the non-technical features, to the extent that they interact with the technical subject-matter of the claim for solving a technical problem, provide a technical contribution and should be taken into account in assessing inventive step (see also T 154/04, Reasons 5; T 697/17, Reasons 4.2; T 2573/16, Reasons 4.4).

In assessing a claim, it is therefore important to take into account the effect of the features in the claimed invention. An assessment based on an isolated analysis of the individual features of the claim without regard for possible interactions with the other claimed features may lead to ignoring features which make a technical contribution (see also T 731/17, Reasons 6.2 and 6.4; T 697/17, Reasons 4.2).

An invention with an overall purpose which is non-technical may nevertheless be a patentable solution to the problem of finding a technical implementation for achieving the non-technical purpose (T 1784/06, Reasons 2.3). The board does not find any basis either for considering that only hardware features are technical. In decision G 1/19, the Enlarged Board was of the opinion that while a direct link with physical reality is in most cases sufficient to establish technicality, it cannot be a necessary condition (see Reasons 62, 88, 101 and 139).

The board further notes that a technical feature does not lose its technical nature because it is too generic or “functionally defined” (G 3/08, Reasons 10.8.7).

Below is how the appeal board examined the inventive step of claim 1:

3.3 In order to correctly assess inventive step of an invention such as the current one, in which the non-technical aspects are tightly intermingled with the technical features, the board finds it preferable, if not necessary, to assess inventive step from a starting point closer to the invention than a general purpose computer.

3.4 At the date of priority of the current application (in 2010), web browsers for personal computers and web search engines were notoriously known.

…

3.5 The method of claim 1 differs from this notoriously known method using a web browser in that it further includes the steps of:

(i) determining relevant notes within the personal database by comparing the extracted terms to stored notes;

(ii) determining additional relevant notes by comparing the search results information to the stored notes;

(iii) preparing note previews for the relevant notes and the additional relevant notes;

(iv) altering the content of the search results page to provide links to the relevant notes with the search result listings;

(v) receiving a selection of one of the presented note previews, retrieving the stored note corresponding to the selected note preview from the personal database and presenting the respective note to the user.

According to the appellant, the distinguishing features did not relate to mere presentation of information

…

3.7 The board is, however, of the opinion that the idea of obtaining relevant notes and additional relevant notes reflects the interest of the user in receiving, in addition to the public search results, related information from the user’s personal notes. Meeting the informational needs of a user is not per se a technical effect (T 306/10, Reasons 5.2; T 598/14, Reasons 2.4; T 1971/18, Reasons 2.4).

The appellant’s argument that relevance is a technical aspect as it concerns the search query and not the user’s interest is not persuasive. In this case, there is no objectively defined set of data which constitutes the correct result for the search query. What is relevant has to be determined based on non-technical linguistic aspects and subjective user preferences (see also T 1924/17, Reasons 12).

…

3.8 The board is thus of the view that the distinguishing features solve, over the notoriously known method, the technical problem of facilitating, when a search query is performed, user access to personal notes related to search terms of the search query (relevant notes) and to the results of the search (additional relevant notes), where the notes should be presented in the form of “note previews”.

3.9 The user’s personal database with stored notes is already known from the prior art (see point 3.4 above). Features (i), (ii) and (iii) are directly mapped from the formulated problem. The board notes that these features do not describe any (inventive) technical details of the implementation of the non-technical constraints.

3.10 Links were notoriously known and already used in the search result page of the prior-art web browser for facilitating user access to web pages related to the public search results independently of their storage locations in a computer or computer network. It would thus have been obvious for the skilled person seeking to facilitate access to the full notes corresponding to the note previews, which are also search results, to additionally include, for each note preview on the search results page, a link to the note, as in feature (iv). The skilled person would thus also arrive at feature (v), which merely describes the notoriously known way a link works when a user selects it. The distinguishing features entail no inventive technical elements of the implementation.

3.10.1 The appellant argued that there was no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that the web browser could provide a link to local data.

…

3.10.2 These arguments are not persuasive. The distinguishing features do not solve any security problem of accessing personal data from a web browser. The description discloses embodiments based on web browsers (see e.g. page 5, line 28 to page 6, line 18), but is silent about any security problems and corresponding solutions.

3.11 Therefore, claim 1 of the main request does not meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC for lack of inventive step.

The auxiliary requests were not helpful in this case. Finally, the Board refused the European patent application.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1272/20 (Search in internet and personal notes/EVERNOTE) of the 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

Building sustainability score: not technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to methods for calculating, storing, distributing and/or displaying building or structure performance data and scores. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2751/18 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Collecting and analysing water and energy consumption in a building is a non-technical business operation performed as part of building management.

A business step does not become technical by virtue of its technical implementation.

Giving visual indications about internal states of a technical system is in principle a technical effect.

While the gear in use and engine overheating are clearly technical conditions and the optimal gear is precise and credible technical guidance, the building performance score conveys no technical information.

The invention

The invention concerns evaluating whether a building complies with sustainability criteria. Claim 1 concerns a system performing such evaluation. A processor-based device in a building collects data which relates to at least three of the following five categories: the use of water, the use of energy, the amount of waste produced, commuting methods used by occupants (“transportation data”) and the occupants’ experience. The data on water and energy use is obtained from meters. The other three data categories can be either provided by meters or input by the building’s occupants into digital surveys.

The device periodically uploads building performance data to a central web server (CWS). The CWS performs benchmark analyses based on corresponding data received from multiple similar buildings and determines a building’s performance score.

Figure 27(h) of EP2235621

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

  • Claim 1 (auxiliary request)

Is it patentable?

The Board found it convenient to analyse the more specific auxiliary request first. D2 was considered the closest prior art, and the Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D2 in that:

A) The central building control processor is implemented as a central web server (CWS).

B) The device is connected to at least three of: a water meter, an energy meter, a waste meter or waste data inputs entered by a user, a human experience meter or human experience data inputs entered by a user, a transportation meter or transportation data inputs entered by a user, each meter being located in the predetermined building or structure.

C) The central web server performs a benchmark analysis based on the performance data of similar buildings or structures and calculates in accordance therewith a performance score of the predetermined building.

D) The device is configured to visually show the performance scores and the benchmark data on a dashboard to a building user or manager.

E) If the building performance score falls below a predetermined threshold or expected level, the system notifies a manager of the predetermined building or structure of the recommended corrective action(s) to be taken.

Here are the detailed reasoning from the Board regarding the distinguishing features:

2.1.8 The Board agrees with the decision (see points 2.2.3 to 2.2.7, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4) that the distinguishing features implement a non-technical method combining administrative steps with presentation of information (Article 52(2)(c) and (d) EPC). The Board judges that this method comprises following steps:

– A building’s performance is benchmarked based on data describing energy consumption, water consumption, the amount of waste generated, commuting methods used by the occupants and their overall experience, wherein the data is collected from the building concerned and other anonymous similar buildings.

– A performance score is calculated for the building in accordance with the benchmark data.

– The benchmark data and the building performance score are presented to a building manager on a dashboard.

– Corrective actions are recommended to the building manager when the building performance score falls below a predetermined threshold.

2.1.9 The appellant disputed this finding in the decision and argued that the above method provided a technical contribution for the following reasons.

2.1.10 Firstly, the benchmark analysis and building performance score were based on measurements carried out by meters located in the building. The meters were technical entities and obtaining data from them was a technical process.

However, the Board is not persuaded and agrees with the decision (see point 2.2.7) that collecting and analysing water and energy consumption in a building is a non-technical business operation performed as part of building management.

The Board agrees with the appellant to the extent that the use of meters to acquire data about water and energy consumption is a technical feature, but a business step does not become technical by virtue of its technical implementation (see T 1670/07 – Shopping with mobile device/NOKIA, reasons, point 9).

2.1.11 Secondly, the building was a technical system and the benchmark data and performance score indicated its internal states. This was all the more so considering that the benchmark data and the score were based on data obtained from the meters. As set out in decision T 362/90 and decisions following it, visualising internal states of a technical system had technical character. Furthermore, the indication that the building performance score fell below a predetermined threshold indicated a technical malfunction. It was comparable to an alarm indicating overheating of an engine. Providing such an alarm had technical character, even in the absence of an indication of the action to be taken by the user.

The Board does not dispute that giving visual indications about internal states of a technical system is in principle a technical effect. However, the Board disagrees that the information output by the claimed system indicates such states.

Beginning with the building performance score, the disclosed example expresses it as a natural number of arbitrarily assigned points (see point 1.4 above). Even assuming that some technical information about the building was used to obtain this score, such information is subsequently removed from the score due to its nature as a natural number.

Like the decision (see point 3.3.5), the Board cannot see that informing the user that the performance score fell below some arbitrary threshold is comparable to an indication that an engine was overheated or to the case underlying T 362/90 in which a vehicle indicated to the driver the engaged and optimal gears. The fundamental difference between those cases and the claimed invention is that while the gear in use and engine overheating are clearly technical conditions and the optimal gear is precise and credible technical guidance, the building performance score conveys no technical information.

The “benchmark data” and the “recommended corrective action(s)” do not convey technical information either. As was set out at point 3.2.4 of the contested decision, at the general level at which they are claimed and disclosed, these terms cover non-technical notifications, for example “Your building seems to perform worse than other buildings. Hire someone to improve this”.

2.1.12 Thirdly, the crucial idea of the invention was its community aspect, namely that the basis for assessing the building’s performance was a comparison with other similar buildings. In view of the complexity of a building, it would have been too limiting to claim a specific benchmarking algorithm or a specific way of calculating the performance score. Nevertheless, even at the general level claimed, the distinguishing features enabled the building manager to recognise how his building performed compared to the other buildings and to improve its performance, for instance by saving water and energy. This was a technical effect.

The Board is not convinced and notes that the system of D2 already collects data on multiple buildings and analyses it. The actual distinction is the nature of analysis performed and its input. It might well be that the appellant had good reasons for not disclosing those aspects in more detail. However, as set out above, in the absence of further details, the method, set out in point 2.1.8 above, lacks technical character.

The Board is not convinced by the argument attempting to prove that this method derives technical character from (unclaimed) actions of the building manager. In addition to being speculative, this argument is a typical example of the “broken technical chain fallacy” in the sense of T 1670/07 supra, reasons, point 11.

2.1.13 Applying the COMVIK approach (decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), this method is provided to the technically skilled person as a requirement specification to be implemented.

2.1.14 Starting from D2 and facing the problem of implementing this requirement, it would have been obvious to connect the building controllers to water and energy meters and provide a user interface enabling the user to input waste, transport and experience data.

Furthermore, it would have been self-evident to upload the collected building performance data to the building control processor and to adapt it to calculate benchmark data and the building performance score. It would have been equally obvious to configure the building control processor to generate the indication that the building performance score fell below a predetermined threshold, to recommend unspecific corrective actions and to provide the generated information to the workstation for display.

2.1.15 Incidentally, while not claimed, the application discloses that the display might be physically located in the building (published application, [9] and [45]). Interpreted in the light of this disclosure, the claim is still obvious over the combination of the Figure 2 embodiment in D2, which serves as the starting point, and an embodiment relating to Figure 1 which uses a workstation located in the building (D2, [25]).

2.1.16 Hence, claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Independent claim 1 of the main request is broader than claim 1 of the auxiliary request and therefore lacks an inventive step for the same reasons. Finally, the Board refused the European patent application.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 2751/18 of the 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

Approximate string matching: non-technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to managing an archive for approximate string matching. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1867/18 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

The strings occurring in data records are abstract data, with no technical character. Determining by ma­the­ma­tical calculations their frequency, simple or re­­nor­malized, and their “significance” in the above sense is thus also – at least in itself – not technical.

Using a significance value to identify false positives in potential approximate matches is not by itself a technical use given the abstract nature of approximate string matching. Hence, even if this potential use were considered to be implied by claim 1 (it is not), it would not be an implied technical use in the sense of G 1/19.

The invention

The invention relates to approximate string matching (also called fuzzy string matching or searching), i.e. finding strings that match a given pattern string within some tolerance according to a similarity metric, such as the edit distance. The strings being searched may be strings contained in records of a database. Approximate string matching may be used in database operations like join or rollup that group (“consoli­date”) records into sets based on matching keys, in order to take into account that the exact spelling of words may differ within a dataset or between data sources and that words may be misspelled, e.g. COMPNY instead of COMPANY.

Figure 1 of EP2235621

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused the European patent application on the basis that claim 1 did not fulfil the requirement of inventive step, Article 56 EPC, starting from a notorious general-purpose computer system or, alternatively, from prior art document

D1:|T. Bocek et al., Fast similarity search in large dictionaries, Technical Report No. ifi-2007.02, Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, April 2007.[XP002679634]|.

The Board assessed in­ven­tive step for claim 1 first in view of docu­ment D1, and the Board found claim 1 has the following differential features:

16.6 However, the method of D1 does not involve any pre-computation of potential approximate matches between strings occurring in the data records. In D1, the index stores the k-deletion neighborhoods (i.e. the sets of close representations) of the strings in the dictionary.

In the invention according to claim 1, the archive stores instead potential approximate matches between such strings.

These differences may be labelled difference (1).

16.7 D1 does also not disclose a calculation of frequencies of occurrence of strings, a renormalization of such frequencies and a generation of a “significance value” for at least one string based on the renormalization and its storage in the archive in association with the string, as recited in claim 1.

These differences may be labelled difference (2).

16.8 D1 does also not disclose “executing, by an execution module (112), a computation graph wherein a component of the computation graph accesses the archive to determine whether given data records should be processed based on whether strings in the given data records are a potential approximate match, and wherein the component of the computation graph consolidates the given data records having strings that are a potential approximate match”, as recited in claim 1.

These differences may be labelled difference (3).

16.9 The method of claim 1 thus differs from the method disclosed in D1 in differences (1) to (3).

First, the Board assessed whether those differences are obvious:

17. Obviousness of differences (1) and (3)

The board considers that differences (1) and (3) would have been obvious to a skilled person starting from D1 in view of common general knowledge.

17.1 D1 discloses the use of the FastSS algorithm for finding words similar to a query string.

It is known to a skilled person that approximate string matching has further uses such as in the context of approximate join operations (see D4: section 1, paragraphs 1 and 2, and section 2, paragraph 1). It would thus have been obvious to consider how the FastSS algorithm disclosed in D1 could be applied to efficiently implement an approximate join operation.

17.2 The skilled person knows that pre-computation always requires a trade-off to be made between storage require­ments and computation speed at run-time based on an identification of which calculations are expected to be frequently required at run-time.

An approximate join operation involves the merging of the data records of two datasets based on some key field. The required approximate string matching calcu­lations concern exclusively pairs of strings occurring in these records (unlike the query search application primarily considered in D1, where the query string is unknown before run-time).

Hence, it would have been obvious to the skilled person that in such an application context, the pre-processing phase may go further and include not only the gene­ra­tion of the k-deletion neighborhood of all strings occurring in the datasets but also their potential approximate matches determined on the basis of the generated k-deletion neighborhood. This results in difference (1).

17.3 An approximate join operation is an operation that “consolidates” data records having strings in key fields that are an approximate match.

In the implementation at which the skilled person would have arrived starting from D1, as explained in the pre­ceding point, the determination of whether two strings occurring in key fields of the data records are an approximate match would be made by looking up in the archive whether they are a potential approximate match and, if so, based on their edit distance.

This results in difference (3), except for the feature contained therein that the consolidation operation is realised as a “component of [a] computation graph”.

17.4 However, whether the approximate join operation is to be executed as part of graph-based computations or not is, at least in the context of claim 1, a technically arbitrary choice. No aspect of the approach to appro­xi­mate string matching used in the method of claim 1 is specifically adapted to be used in the con­text of graph-based computations, nor has this been argued by the appellant.

17.5 Hence, starting from D1, the skilled person would have arrived to differences (1) and (3) without any inven­tive activity. It may thus be left open to which extent they contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention.

Then, the Board discussed whether the features make technical contribution:

18. No technical contribution by difference (2)

The steps of calculating the frequency of occurrence of a string in the data records, renormalizing the fre­quen­cy by taking into account the potential approximate matches of the string, generating a “significance value” for the string from the renormalized frequency and storing this value in the archive in association with the string – as specified in difference (2) – make no technical contribution to the method of claim 1 (beyond their implicit, not further defined computer-implementation).

18.1 Claim 1 is silent as to what is actually measured by the “significance value” generated for a given string. This can also not be derived from claim 1 as claim 1 does not specify how the significance value is genera­ted from the renormalized frequency.

In the description, where this value is called “significance score”, it is described as representing the inverse of the renormalized frequency of the string and thus “the relative importance of a word [i.e. string] to a phrase containing the word for the purpose of phrase comparison” (see page 11, lines 15-20, and page 28, lines 21 to 27).

The strings occurring in data records are abstract data, with no technical character. Determining by ma­the­ma­tical calculations their frequency, simple or re­­nor­malized, and their “significance” in the above sense is thus also – at least in itself – not technical.

18.2 The generated significance value also does not contribute to producing a technical effect in the context of the method of claim 1.

18.2.1 It is not derivable from claim 1 that the generated significance value is actually used in the context of the claimed method.

Claim 1 specifies, in the step of generating the sig­nificance value, that that value “can be used for iden­ti­fying further potential approximate mat­ches” (em­pha­sis by the board) but claim 1 does not include any step in which it is actually used for that or any other purpose in the context of the claimed method.

The final step of the method of claim 1 specifies that a component of a computation graph “accesses the ar­chive to determine whether given data records should be processed based on whether strings in the given data records are a potential approximate match” and that it “consolidates the given data records having strings that are a potential approximate match”. This wording does not clearly require the significance value stored in the archive to be used in the consolidation opera­tion. It could well be that only the potential appro­xi­mate matches stored in the archive are used for that purpose, as only they are explicitly mentioned in relation to the consolidation operation.

18.2.2 It is also not apparent from the description how the significance value could be used for identifying fur­ther potential approximate matches, i.e. potential approximate matches not identified in the preceding step of “comparing generated close representations […] and identifying whether any of the close repre­senta­tions […] are a potential approximate match”.

The described uses of the “significance score” (as the significance value is named in the description) appear to be confined to the identification of “false posi­tives” when matching phrases or records, i.e. that a potential approximate match identified in the preceding step is not to be considered an actual approximate match. This is in particular the case in all the passa­ges cited by the appellant as basis for the feature concerning the significance value, i.e. page 8, lines 7 to 9, page 11, lines 16 to 20, page 15, lines 2 to 5, and original claim 11.

The board notes that the significance value or score is distinct from the “fuzzy match score” (see page 11, lines 11-20).

18.2.3 It follows that the step of storing the significance value in association to the corresponding string – as specified in difference (2) – does also not make any technical contribution (beyond the implicit, not further defined computer-implementation of that step).

…

Anyway, using a significance value to identify false positives in potential approximate matches is not by itself a technical use given the abstract nature of approximate string matching. Hence, even if this potential use were considered to be implied by claim 1 (it is not), it would not be an implied technical use in the sense of G 1/19.

18.2.5 As to the other alleged technical effects put forward by the appellant (see point 13 above), in particular increased computation speed, they have not been spe­cifically linked to difference (2) but to differences (1) and (3), and they cannot anyway be relied on for difference (2) as the significance value is not used in the context of the method of claim 1.

18.3 Difference (2) does thus not contribute to the techni­cal character of the method of claim 1 (beyond its implicit, not further defined and thus obvious compu­ter-implementation). Consequently, it cannot support the presence of an inventive step.

Finally, the Board refused the European patent application on the ground that the method of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC over D1 and common general knowledge.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision decision T 1867/18 of the 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

Method for cardless payment: technical

This decision concerns an European patent application relating to cardless payment. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1413/07 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

The formulation of the appellant contains pointers to the solution in that it is specified that the customer should not carry any special equipment. This is to be avoided.

The invention

The invention relates to a method for assigning an alias, such as a phone number and a Personal Identification Number (“PIN”), to a credit card so as to eliminate the need for the physical presence of the card during a transaction.

 

Figure 1 of EP1200926

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The examining division refused this European patent application for lack of novelty and lack of inventive step in view of the following document:

D3: WO 98/37524 A1.

The Board had a different opinion. In detail, the sixth embodiment of D3 was considered the closest subject-matter and does not disclose the following features of claim 1:

3.3 In relation to its sixth embodiment document D3 does not disclose the following features of claim 1:

(i)” the credit card number also having an associated PIN;

(ii)” linking the alias with the PIN in the database;

(iii)” entering the PIN into the device upon initiation of a transaction without receipt of the credit card number;

(vi) authenticating the transaction by retrieving the PIN in the database and comparing the retrieved PIN with the received PIN.

The Board found that the differing features indeed solve a technical problem and considered claim 1 inventive:

4.2 Objective technical problem

…

4.2.2 The features of claim 1 which are not disclosed in document D3 in relation to the sixth embodiment are those relating to a PIN, namely features (i)”, (ii)”, (iii)”, and (vi) … The use of a PIN ensures that the method is secure. Furthermore, these features allow the customer to dispense with the mobile telephone since the alias and the PIN are entered into the same device. Instead of carrying the mobile telephone, the customer merely needs to remember the alias and the PIN. This is more convenient.

4.2.3 … Furthermore, in view of the above effects of the differing features, the technical problem cannot be regarded to be merely to provide an alternative solution to a known problem. Such a formulation would not be ambitious enough.

It is therefore appropriate in the present case to reformulate the objective technical problem. The formulation of the appellant contains pointers to the solution in that it is specified that the customer should not carry any special equipment. This is to be avoided.

The objective technical problem is therefore regarded to be how to implement the method in a way which is more convenient to use but still secure.

 

4.3 Obviousness

…

4.3.3 Therefore, in the fifth embodiment the customer still has to carry his mobile telephone. In addition he has to remember the PIN. The fifth embodiment is therefore not more convenient for the customer than the sixth embodiment. The skilled person would therefore not consider the fifth embodiment when attempting to implement the method of the sixth embodiment in a way which is more convenient to use but still secure.

4.3.4 Furthermore, the fifth embodiment involves entering the PIN into the mobile device 1. Even if the skilled person were to consider incorporating the teaching of the fifth embodiment into the sixth embodiment he would therefore be led to have the PIN entered (by the customer) into the mobile device 1, e.g. as part of the confirmation message sent from the mobile device 1 to the financial server 4′. The PIN would thus not be entered into the same device as the alias, which is entered into the terminal 2 (by the salesperson). However, it follows from the wording of claim 1 (see point III., feature (iii)), which has been amended during the appeal proceedings, that the alias and the PIN are entered into the same device (to be performed by the customer). Therefore, the combination of the teachings of the fifth and sixth embodiments of D3 would not lead the skilled person to the claimed subject-matter.

4.3.5 Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step over document D3.

Consequently, the case was remitted to the department of first instance and a patent (EP 1 200 926 B1) was granted afterwards.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1413/07 of the 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

Process and device for producing a three-dimensional component: non-technical

This decision relates to opposition proceedings against a European patent in the field of 3D Printing. The patent was maintained as amended according to auxiliary request VII based on the interlocutory decision of the opposition division. However, the Board of Appeal (Board 3.2.05) eventually revoked the patent.

Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 0225/19 () of 17.10.2022:

Key takeaways

When assessing the technical character of a feature relating to cognitive content displayed to the user of a graphical user interface, the main points to be clarified are clarifications whether the user interface and the way in which the cognitive content is presented credibly support the user in the execution of a technical task through constant and guided human-machine interaction.

The invention

The invention relates to a method for producing a three-dimensional component by a laser melting process, in which the component is produced by successive solidification of individual layers of building material solidifiable by the action of radiation by melting the building material. In addition, the invention also relates to a device for carrying out this method and to the use of a visualisation device for the two-dimensional or multi-dimensional representation of component regions of components produced generatively by the action of radiation on powder-like building material with regard to their component quality.

 

Figure 2 of EP2598313

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request = auxiliary request VII of the opposition proceedings, added numbering of the features)

  • Claim 1 (original version in German)

Is it patentable?

The Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the method known from document E1.3 by features 1.4 to 1.6.

However, feature 1.5 was found non-technical and was not taken into consideration for inventive step:

13.4 According to the decisions T 336/14 and T 1802/13 mentioned by the respondent in this context, when assessing the technical character of a feature relating to cognitive content displayed to the user of a graphical user interface, the main points to be clarified are clarifications whether the user interface and the way in which the cognitive content is presented credibly support the user in the execution of a technical task through constant and guided human-machine interaction (T 336/14, reasons for decision 1.2.4; T 1802/13, reasons for decision 2.1 .5). The technical effect is deemed to have been credibly achieved if the user’s support in performing the technical task is objective, reliable and causally linked to the feature. However, the present case does not deal with user interfaces. The representation of the sensor values ​​only serves to evaluate the component quality (see feature 1.3 and paragraphs [0007], [0022], [0027] of the patent). There is no indication that the viewer of the two-dimensional or three-dimensional image uses the knowledge gained from it in a targeted and uninterrupted manner to adjust the process parameters. Therefore, the decisions mentioned cannot support the Respondents’ point of view. It cannot be seen that the viewer of the two- or three-dimensional image purposefully and continuously uses the knowledge gained from this to adapt the process parameters. Therefore, the decisions mentioned cannot support the Respondents’ point of view. It cannot be seen that the viewer of the two- or three-dimensional image purposefully and continuously uses the knowledge gained from this to adapt the process parameters. Therefore, the decisions mentioned cannot support the Respondents’ point of view.

13.5 For these reasons, no technical effect can be ascribed to the feature that the sensor values ​​are “displayed in [a] two-dimensional and/or multi-dimensional representation in relation to their detection location in the component”, so that it is not taken into account in the examination of inventive step (cf. the Comvik approach based on decision T 641/00; OJ EPO 2003, 352).

Hence, the Board found that the relevant distinguishing features are as follows:

– “[1.4] wherein the sensor values ​​recorded to evaluate the component quality [are] stored together with the coordinate values ​​locating the sensor values ​​in the component (1) and”

– “[1.6] wherein the coordinates of the sensor values ​​are assigned via scanner data”.

In the end, the Board stated that it was obvious to the person skilled in the art, based on document E1.3, to assign the coordinate values ​​of the individual scanning locations available for controlling the scanner to the sensor values ​​recorded at these locations and thus to determine the position of the sensor values ​​in the component in a two- or three-dimensional representation. The solution according to features 1.4 and 1.6 is therefore suggested starting from document E1.3, taking into account general knowledge.

Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 was found not to involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. The auxiliary requests could not remedy this negative decision. Thus, the European patent was finally revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 0225/19 () of 17.10.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.05.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

System for providing information to a user: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application directed to a system for providing information to a user. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1167/19 () of 19.4.2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The distinguishing features merely allow that a cognitive decision is implemented which information is to be displayed in which manner. They do not contribute to the solution of a technical problem.

The invention

The invention relates to the display of a large amount of data using “sparklines”. Sparklines are word-sized, minimized graphical diagrams, e.g. column or bar diagrams. The displayed data is grouped initially according to a particular criterion. This criterion can be changed by changing means triggered by triggering means upon activation by the user.

Figure 1 of EP1850280

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

The Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request differs from a notorious general purpose standard computer only by

– changing means adapted for changing said criterion to at least one further criterion, and

– triggering means which are adapted to trigger said changing means upon activation by the user of the system.

The Board found these features not inventive for the reasons below:

3.5 The Board does not see how these distinguishing features (or more generally, the “specific processing steps” referred to by the appellant) would achieve the technical effect of saving power/reducing the energy consumption of the system and allocating display space with maximum efficiency referred to by the appellant (e.g. grounds of appeal, page 4, first to fifth paragraphs). The submission of the appellant that only the most relevant items of information are displayed and that the same amount of information can be displayed on only one screen where previously two screens would have been necessary (grounds of appeal, page 6, last paragraph to page 7, first paragraph) actually even supports that view of the Board since it makes clear that a cognitive decision is taken which information is relevant and therefore to be displayed, while less relevant information is simply not displayed.

Thus, the distinguishing features/the “specific processing steps” merely allow that a cognitive decision is implemented which information is to be displayed in which manner. They do therefore not contribute to the solution of a technical problem, contrary to the submissions of the appellant.

3.6 The Board notes that the claim, including all processing steps, is formulated in a very broad and abstract manner. Thus, irrespective of whether the processing steps are considered to be technical or not, most of them have been part of the notorious knowledge at the priority date of the application, contrary to the submission of the appellant (grounds of appeal, page 6, fourth paragraph).

Furthermore, the distinguishing features defined above are also formulated in a very broad and abstract manner. For instance, they do not define that the criterion can be changed to the further criterion while the first data is displayed, or if that is the case, that display is changed immediately upon a change of the criterion. Nor is there any indication in the claim about what the criterion might be.

Irrespective thereof, the manner in which data to be displayed is grouped will normally be done depending on the content of the data, i.e. the information to be displayed. In the present case, the information to be displayed is purely business related (for instance, revenues, see page 3, last paragraph of the original application).

That is, neither the content of the data displayed nor the manner in which the displayed data is grouped contributes to the solution of a technical problem.

Hence, the criteria according to which the (non-technical) first data is to be grouped as well as the number of these criteria or the wish to change between different criteria also do not contribute to the solution of a technical problem and will thus normally be given to the technically skilled person as part of the requirement specification.

Consequently, the objective technical problem may be formulated in the present case as how to implement the changing and triggering functions defined in the distinguishing features.

The Board notes that formulating the objective technical problem as being the implementation of a non-technical requirement specification corresponds to the well-known “COMVIK-approach” and the appellant’s submission relating to an ex post facto view does not apply (see point 7. of the “COMVIK“-decision T641/00).

The implementation of the changing and triggering functions, at least at the abstract level claimed of providing corresponding “means for” performing them, would have been a straightforward task for the skilled person.

Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is not inventive (Article 52(1) EPC) under Article 56 EPC 1973 in view of a notorious general purpose standard personal computer as set out above combined with common general knowledge.

The auxiliary requests were not admitted. Thus, the European patent application was finally refused.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 1167/19 () of 19.4.2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Monitoring health of gas turbine engines: non-technical

This decision relates to an opposition against European patent No. 1 630 633. The opposition division found that the patent in an amended form met the requirements of the EPC. Both the opponent and the proprietor filed an appeal. Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 2546/18 () of 21.12.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.06:

Key takeaways

The mere output of the device health assessment cannot be considered to represent or achieve a technical effect, in particular as such output may also lead to a recommendation which may or may not be taken into account by a technician.

Mental acts and mathematical methods as such are not considered to be of a technical nature.

The invention

The invention relates to an apparatus and a method for monitoring the health of devices such as gas turbine engines.

Figure 1 of EP1630633

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

The Board did not agree with the findings of the opposition division and revoked the patent based on the following reasons:

1. The subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC) for the following reasons.

2. The method defined in claim 1 comprises a mixture of steps of a technical nature (such as “receiving a plurality of sensory outputs”) and steps of data analysis which are merely based on mathematical methods and are therefore considered of non-technical nature (such as the features relating to data stream analysis). The Board therefore applies the COMVIK-approach (T 641/00, OJ EPO 2003, 352), also referred to in G 1/19 (OJ EPO 2021, A77).

3. It is common ground between the parties that the method for assessing health of a device disclosed in D2 can be considered to represent the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim 1.

4. The appellant acknowledged that the method of D2 resulted in the extraction and outputting of only a single device health feature, which device health feature can be identified with the “condition signature” according to D2, rather than of “a plurality of device health features“. This distinguishing feature is referenced as feature (i) in the following.

5. The parties disagreed on the question of whether the final feature defined in claim 1, referred to in the following also as feature (ii), was disclosed in D2. This feature defines more precisely the step of receiving said plurality of sensory outputs to comprise three additional steps of

commencing to receive said plurality of sensory outputs at a beginning of a window duration;

sampling said plurality of sensory outputs to produce a sampled data stream; and

outputting said synchronized data stream comprising said sampled data stream at an end of said window duration.

…

6. As was already stated in the Board’s preliminary opinion, the distinguishing features do not contribute to a (single or several) technical effect(s) necessarily achieved over the whole scope of the claim (see also G 1/19 and T 641/00, ibid.).

6.1 The claimed method certainly involves technical considerations, for example in receiving sensory output or in deriving from the sensory data a plurality of device health features, by establishing a link between measured or captured properties and technical condition of the device.

6.2 The purpose of the method according to claim 1 is the output of a device health assessment, or as it is formulated at the end of paragraph 17 of the patent in suit, “[t]he output of this process is an engine health assessment or a series of assessments with varying degrees of probability (or levels of belief)”. The claim does not exclude that the output might be just a simple numerical value, e.g. “3”, which might be looked up in a table by a technician to correspond to a particular condition of the device, e.g. “oil leakage detected” or “bird stroke impact” or even “all components in normal condition”. Paragraph 20 and granted claim 3 specify that health assessment may lead to produce a recommended maintenance action.

6.3 It is not apparent from the patent, and it has also not been argued by the respondent, that the extracted and output health assessment is necessarily used to control the operation of the device undergoing health assessment. The mere output of the device health assessment cannot be considered to represent or achieve a technical effect, in particular as such output may also lead to a recommendation which may or may not be taken into account by a technician.

6.4 Both distinguishing features (i) and (ii) pertain only to the treatment of the previously obtained/sampled data, so as to derive further data characterising the state of the device (“health features” or a “health assessment”).

6.4.1 Feature (i) just results in more device conditions being available to be taken into account in the health assessment. Although potentially based on technical considerations, the extraction of a plurality of device health features is essentially based on mental acts (establishing mathematical models linking sensory data to a physical condition, see also granted claim 8) and/or mathematical methods (use of neural networks etc., see granted claim 9), which may then lead to a corresponding implementation on a normal computer (see also paragraphs 16, 19 and 20 of the patent). Mental acts and mathematical methods as such are not considered to be of a technical nature. Although features based on such aspects might in principle still contribute to a technical effect, this is not the case here, since the claimed method does not achieve a technical effect (see point 6.3 above). The mere implementation on multi-purpose computer(s) does not achieve anything going beyond the normal operation of such computer(s).

6.4.2 Similarly, the operations performed on the sensory output data according to feature (ii) – i.e. data synchronisation by sampling in a (pre-defined) window duration and extraction and output of a plurality of health features – also do not provide a technical effect which goes beyond the normal operation of the computer(s) employed for the execution of the claimed method. They also only rely on the insight that a certain momentary physical condition of the device is characterised by taking into account different measurements at that very moment and consequently that data of different sensory streams need to be synchronised, which is then implemented accordingly on a multi-purpose computer (paragraph 14 of the patent in suit). These considerations clearly imply also technical knowledge. The same is however also the case in D2, and the difference – assuming that there is indeed a different synchronisation method defined in feature (ii) of claim 1 compared to that implemented according to pages 15/16 in D2 – could only be seen in that particular way defined by feature (ii) of synchronising or aligning data. However it is not apparent in the present case that this involves any further technical consideration which would necessarily achieve a technical effect going beyond the normal operation of the computer(s) on which the operations are performed.

6.4.3 Moreover, and as also argued by the appellant, it is also not apparent from the patent that these distinguishing method steps would provide for any technical effect compared to the method known of D2.

6.5 In the absence of any technical effect achieved by features (i) and (ii), the features cannot be considered to contribute to the solution of a technical problem. The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore cannot be considered to involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

…

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 2546/18 () of 21.12.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Providing a digital asset to two user devices: non-technical

This decision relates to a European patent application that deals with online stores and online shopping. Here are practical takeaways from the decision T 2745/18 (Providing a digital asset to two user devices/APPLE) of 24.11.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The mere fact that the distinguishing features relate to the second device is not a synergetic effect.

The invention

The invention relates to improved acquisition and delivery of digital assets. Claim 1 of the main request concerns an online store system providing a purchased digital asset to multiple user devices. While not claimed, the asset might include a song, movie or textual content.

Figure 1 of EP2673742

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Looking at Figure 1, the system comprises a server 102, hosting the online store, and multiple user devices to which the digital assets are downloaded, such as a portable electronic device 106 and a desktop computer 110. These user devices are associated with the user’s account at the online store.

When the user accesses the online store and purchases an asset using one of those devices (“an acquisition device” in claim 1), the asset is provided to this device and to a second electronic device based “on a previous indication by the second electronic device to the online store” (cf. third claimed feature). While not claimed, but disclosed in the application, the indication might for instance specify that the second electronic device should receive only certain media types.

The server delivers the asset to the second device and the acquisition device in different formats, based on the devices. The description does not provide any examples of formats used and does not explain how and based on what criteria it is determined which format should be used for each of the devices.

Is it patentable?

According to the decision, D1 is considered closest prior art. It was held that claim 1 differed from D1 in that:

a) The formats in which the asset is delivered to the acquisition device and to the second device are different and determined based on the devices, whereas D1 does not mention using formats at all.

b) The indication to the online store server for automatically receiving acquired digital assets is provided by the second electronic device.

c) The asset is provided to the acquisition device and to the second user device, whereas in D1 the asset is provided to either the acquisition device or to one or more second user devices.

no synergistic technical effect

2.1.4 The Board disagrees with the appellant that the distinguishing features interact synergistically. The appellant’s arguments in this respect are not convincing.

Firstly, the mere fact that the distinguishing features relate, or as the appellant put it are linked, to the second device is not a synergetic effect.

Secondly, synchronising devices with respect to a digital asset cannot constitute a synergistic technical effect, because it is not derivable based on a comparison between the claimed invention and D1. The system of D1 already provides the same asset to more than one registered user device, albeit not to the acquisition device and a further device (cf. decision, page 10, second paragraph). Accordingly, the actual effect of feature (c) lies in the alternative choice of the receiving devices. The Board cannot see that features (a) and (b) interact synergistically with this choice.

feature (a)

2.2 Concerning feature (a), the Board judges that, at the level of generality at which it is specified, this feature does not contribute to any (further) technical effect. As set out above, the description says that the “digital asset” includes textual content (cf. [27], line 6) and, when used with respect to texts, formatting covers using different fonts or text styles. This, however, relates to presentation of information and lacks technical character. The claimed formulation “based on the device” does not necessarily imply that any technical criteria are applied for selecting formats.

2.3 Incidentally, the Board judges that feature (a) is obvious even if it is narrowly interpreted as meaning that songs are provided to the claimed devices in different audio formats selected based on those devices’ rendering capabilities. The Board considers that the skilled person faced with the problem of ensuring that the devices can optimally render and store received audio assets would have readily considered using different audio formats, such as WAV and MP3. …

feature (b)

2.5 The Board judges that, starting from this embodiment it is obvious to specify the asset types to be accepted by the second device, such as the desktop computer, on the device itself. Interpreted in line with the appellant’s argument as meaning that the indication from the second device is based on the capabilities of this device (which is not claimed), the feature is even more obvious. The easiest way of indicating the second device’s capabilities to the server is to upload this device’s settings to the server.

feature (c)

2.6 Turning to feature (c), the Board judges that providing the asset to the acquisition device and a second device, follows from a business requirement.

In an ancillary line of reasoning the contested decision referred to decision T 2423/10 which concerned an online store, essentially identical to the claimed one, which provided a purchased asset to one device chosen from multiple suitable devices. T 2423/10 stated at point 6 of the reasons that “the range of devices suitable for receiving the “digital asset” is broad, but there are commercial reasons for limiting delivery to one device. The seller might, for example, want to charge the customer a fee for each device to which the “digital asset” is sent”.

The Board takes the view that this finding applies equally to the claimed choice of receiving devices. More particularly, the Board considers that, like the choice discussed in T 2423/10, the claimed choice is also based on business considerations, presumably on the applied fee scheme, and lacks technical character. Hence, applying the COMVIK approach, the business requirement to deliver the asset to the acquisition device and the second device is given to the technically skilled person within the framework of the technical problem.

2.7 Contrary to the appellant’s view, the technically skilled person is constrained by this requirement specification and would implement it, even if this runs against D1’s teaching.

2.8 The Board judges that adapting the system of D1 to provide the asset to the claimed choice of receiving devices does not pose any technical difficulty. As stated in the contested decision (see point 2.1.1, penultimate paragraph), D1 discloses all the necessary means for providing an asset to any subset of available devices (see paragraphs [21] and [40]).

Consequently, the Board finds that claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Further, the Board judges that none of the auxiliary requests add anything inventive. Accordingly, none of the requests fulfils the requirements of the EPC.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2745/18 (Providing a digital asset to two user devices/APPLE) of 24.11.2022.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field