Author Archive

Eye-tracking to automatically detecting user interactions: technical

The decision concerns an examination appeal related to eye-tracking, particularly generating a profile reflecting a user’s eye movements while reading an electronic book. The Examining Division argued that combining an e-reader with eye-tracking was an obvious use of a notoriously well-known technology and merely an implementation of a business requirement. The applicant maintained that the invention solves a technical problem by automatically detecting user interactions through eye-tracking.

While the Board agreed that features unrelated to eye-tracking were an obvious implementation of a business requirement, it found that eye-tracking features are technical, as they involve automatically detecting user interactions. It also noted that combining a computer or mobile device with an eye-tracker was not notoriously known. The Board considered the Examining Division’s argument— that the skilled person would recognize the role of the eye in reading and decide to implement automatic detection—to involve hindsight. In the absence of relevant prior art, the case was remitted for further search and assessment of inventive step.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0725/21 (Eye-tracking/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of February 27, 2025 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.05.01

Key takeaways

Business requirement dictates that upon determining that the user starts reading a book, this book’s characteristics should be recorded in their profile. This is an obvious implementation of a business requirement given to the skilled person to implement for non-technical reasons.

It is common ground that the features that concern eye-tracking have a technical character, as these features are not part or a direct implementation of the underlying non-technical scheme, but solve the technical problem of automatically detecting user interactions.

A combination of a computer or mobile device with an eye-tracker was not notoriously known. In the absence of any pointer in the prior art, the examining division’s argument that the skilled person would have recognised the crucial role of the eye in book reading and then decided to automatically detect the user’s eye movements is considered to involve hind-sight

The invention

The Board defined the invention as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns a method for generating a profile reflecting the user’s eye movements when they are reading an electronic book, see paragraphs [23] and [47] of the original application.

1.2 In more detail, once the user has opened a book in an e-reader application running on their computer device ([23]), the method determines the book’s characteristics, such as its genre (not claimed), and stores them in the user profile that the computer device holds, see [43]. Although not claimed, the user profile is shared with a recommendation system and used for making purchase recommendations, see [24] and [38].

1.3 The key aspect and focus of the discussion in this appeal are the features stating that, when the user is reading the displayed book, the method tracks information related to their eye movements and records it in the user’s profile.

Claim 1 of Main Request

A computer-implemented method for generating a profile (105) for a user (101) in a recommender system (150) comprising:

detecting that the user (101) has opened a consumable content in an e-reader application (310) on a device (300), the consumable content comprising at least a portion of an electronic book;

determining a set of characteristics for the consumable content;

identifying at least one action performed by the user (101) on the consumable content through the e-reader application (310); and

updating the profile (105) for the user (101) based on the identified at least one action and the set of characteristics;

wherein the device (300) has the ability to track eye movement, and

wherein the identifying at least one action performed by the user (101) comprises recording information related to the movement of an eye of the user when the user (101) is consuming the consumable content.

Is it patentable?

The Examining division considered the features were well known:

2.1 The examining division considered that the starting point for inventive step (Article 56 EPC) was a web-enabled personal computer or mobile device that ran a web browser corresponding to the e-reader application in claim 1. Such devices were notoriously known at the priority date, and their existence did not need to be proved by written evidence, see decision, points 14 (last paragraph) and 15.

2.2 The examining division further found that, since the application lacked technical detail on how eye-tracking was implemented, these features had to be considered either insufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC) or obvious (Article 56 EPC). Specifically, at point 16 of the decision, they argued: “Therefore, for the sake of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC), the principles described must be understood as well-known for the person skilled in the art (Article 56 EPC) for purposes known. He merely reutilises this well-known functionality”.

The Board partly agreed with the Division that the a web-enabled reading device was well known, and the features which were not concerning eye-tracking related to business requirement:

2.3 The Board agrees with the examining division’s interpretation of the device as a web-enabled personal computer or mobile device, especially considering that paragraph [23] of the published application says the e-reader might be an application running on a personal computer. The Board also agrees that such web-enabled devices were notoriously known at the priority date.

Furthermore, the Board agrees with the examining division’s assessment of the claim features that do not concern eye-tracking. More specifically, the Board concurs that, using the COMVIK approach (T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), these features are an obvious implementation of a business requirement given to the skilled person to implement for non-technical reasons. Although not clearly stated in the decision, this business requirement dictates that upon determining that the user starts reading a book, this book’s characteristics should be recorded in their profile, see decision, points 14 and 17 to 19.

However, the Board disagreed with the Division, and sided with the argument of the appellant on the features concerning eye-tracking:

2.4 The crucial features in this appeal, on which the appellant’s arguments focus, are those concerning eye-tracking. It is common ground that these features have technical character, see decision, points 25 and 34.

2.5 Concerning sufficiency of disclosure, the Board agrees with the appellant that the requirements of Article 83 EPC are met.

It is true that the application provides little technical detail on eye-tracking and relies in this regard on the skilled person’s common general knowledge, see point 1.3 above.

The Board considers however that the skilled person to whom the disclosure on eye-tracking is aimed (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition, II.C.4.1) is a human-computer interaction expert with experience in hardware integration and sensor interfacing. Given the common ground that eye-tracking sensors were known in general, the skilled person would have been aware of their existence and capable of selecting a suitable one to connect to a computer device running the e-reader application to detect the user’s eye movements. Furthermore, in order to store the detected information in the user’s profile, the skilled person would have known how to provide the information in a format suitable for computer storage.

2.6 Turning to inventive step, the examining division argued that the combination of a computer or mobile device with an eye-tracker was obvious and would have involved merely reusing the well-known functionality, see point 2.2 above. At point 25 of the decision, they added that: “Indeed, as the applicants rightfully argue, the eye movement sensor may not be given to the person skilled in the art, because this is part of the solution. However, the person skilled in the art is confronted with the question: How to capture how a user interacts with the content? This does not refer to any technical solution, but the person skilled in the art would realise, especially in the context of reading electronic books, that the eye is an important attribute in this process. He would therefore have chosen to also capture this type of activity, and would have used the very well-known eye movement sensor as an “of-the-shelf” solution without having to exercise any inventive skills”. The examining division did not provide any documentary evidence concerning eye-tracking.

2.7 The Board agrees with the appellant (see section VIII) that the claimed combination of a computer or mobile device with an eye-tracker was not notoriously known. Moreover, these features are not part or a direct implementation of the underlying non-technical scheme, but solve the technical problem of automatically detecting user interactions.

2.8 Accordingly, claim 1 includes technical features which, in combination, were neither notoriously known nor acknowledged as part of the common general knowledge. Inventive step should therefore be assessed on the basis of pertinent prior art after performing a search, see T 1515/07 – Cost estimate/SAP, reasons, point 6.

2.9 In the absence of any pointer in the prior art, the examining division’s argument that the skilled person would have recognised the crucial role of the eye in book reading and then decided to automatically detect the user’s eye movements is considered to involve hind-sight. Generally, such speculative reasoning, not based on verifiable facts, cannot replace a proper assessment of pertinent prior art.

Therefore, in view of the above, the Board judges that performing an additional search is necessary to assess inventive step, and remitted the case back to examination.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0725/21 (Eye-tracking/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of February 27, 2025 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.05.01

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy Yes, I consent to the collection, processing and use of my above-mentioned personal data for the purposes of processing my message and for the purposes of contacting me via email. The legal basis of the processing shall be formed by my consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR. The data will be deleted three months after expiry of the purpose, provided that longer retention periods are not required by law. I can revoke this consent with future effect at any time. I have taken note of the privacy statement and consent to it. With regard to the processing of my data, I am entitled to inalienable rights, information on which can be found in the privacy statement.

* = Required field

Preston Richard

Preston is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He handles patent applications in the field of electronics and communication technology, particularly hardware and software inventions related to wireless communication and entertainment devices.

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Adaptive driving models: non-technical

The decision is based on an examination appeal and relates to an adaptive deep learning models calibrated and personalized for (“users” of) autonomous vehicles. The Applicant argued that continuous learning of a deep learning model and it allowed for efficient fine-tuning through fast re-training with minimal data.

The Board disagreed as continuous learning aspect is not part of the claimed invention, and person skilled in the art implements a method for providing a deep learning model to an autonomous vehicle which uses a static library of deep learning models for different vehicles, from which a managing device selects a model corresponding to the vehicle in question. Thus, the application was refused.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 2412/22 (Adaptive driving models/STRADVISION) of November 24, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.05.06

Key takeaways

The question is not what the prior art discloses, but how the person skilled in the art would modify it, e.g. in order to improve it”.

In general, the person skilled in the art would consider well-known alternatives, this applies to adapting the model on a central device and sending the updated model to the vehicle

The number of differences over a certain piece of prior art is neither decisive nor a reliable indicator for the presence of an inventive step. First, the number of differences itself may be, and often is, deceiving. One modification may imply or make obvious several other differences. Secondly, whether several modifications combine to provide an inventive overall contribution does not depend on their number. For instance they may be obvious solutions to independent, “partial problems”.

The invention

The Board defined the invention as follows:

1. The application relates to the provision of adaptive deep learning models calibrated and personalized for (“users” of) autonomous vehicles.

1.1 According to the application, known autonomous vehicles use “legacy” deep learning models trained by using data collected per country or region, and this is not satisfactory for drivers with different “tendencies”, which the board understands to refer to driving behaviours. The application therefore proposes that the learning models be customized (see page 1).

1.2 In order to do this, the system maintains a collection of legacy models. For any individual vehicle, a suitable legacy model is selected for fine tuning. The legacy model is selected to have been trained for “video” conditions (i.e. vehicle type, place, time, or driver) similar to those applying to the vehicle of interest. The tuning is realised by further training the legacy models with data collected from the vehicle of the specific user (see page 2). This data is labelled by a combination of automatic and manual labelling.

Claim 1 of Main Request

A method for providing a deep learning model, to thereby support at least one specific autonomous vehicle to perform an autonomous driving according to surrounding circumstances, comprising steps of:

(a) a managing device which interworks with each of autonomous vehicles driven by each of legacy deep learning models pre-trained, if a video data transmitted from the specific autonomous vehicle among the autonomous vehicles is acquired through a video storage system, instructing a fine-tuning system to acquire a deep learning model corresponding to a specific legacy deep learning model of the specific autonomous vehicle to be updated by using the video data from a deep learning model library storing one or more deep learning models;

(b) the managing device inputting the video data and its corresponding labeled data to the fine-tuning system as training data, to thereby update the deep learning model by re-training the deep learning model with the training data including the video data and the labeled data; and

(c) the managing device instructing an automatic updating system to transmit the updated deep learning model to the specific autonomous vehicle, to thereby support the specific autonomous vehicle to perform the autonomous driving by using the updated deep learning model other than the specific legacy deep learning model;

wherein the managing device acquires the labeled data by inputting the video data to at least one of an auto-labeling system and a manual-labeling system, and

wherein the auto-labeling system applies an auto-labeling operation, using a certain deep learning model for labeling acquired from the deep learning model library, to the video data, to thereby generate at least part of the labeled data, and the manual-labeling system distributes the video data to each of labelers by using a distribution algorithm and acquires outputs of the labelers corresponding to the video data, to thereby generate at least part of the labeled data,

wherein, at the step of (a), the managing device instructs the deep learning model library to find at least one among the deep learning models whose relationship score in relation to the video data is larger than a threshold, and to deliver it to the fine-tuning system as the deep learning model, and wherein relationship scores are calculated by using at least part of video subject vehicle information, video subject time information, video subject location information and video subject driver information of the deep learning models.

Is it patentable?

The Applicant and the Board agreed that the differences were as follows:

3. In its communication the Board identified the following set of differences between claim 1 and D1:

(a) the fine tuning taking place on a server (“managing device”) rather than on the vehicle, and the subsequent transmission of the customised model to the vehicle

(b) the existence of a library of legacy models for specific vehicles

(c) the selection of one model for updating based on a relationship score determined using video data information

(d) a certain data labelling scheme, as recited in the penultimate claim paragraph.

And the Applicant argued that features a to c were technical and inventive for the following reasons:

6.1 The invention related to continuous learning of a deep learning model for a specific autonomous vehicle. The model was retrained with specific video data for specific circumstances and stored in a library containing the various models. The storage of models retrained for various circumstances allowed for efficient fine-tuning through fast re-training with minimal data. The selection step based on video data information ensured that the proper model was selected and updated.

…

6.2.2 The skilled person also had no reason to perform the model adaptation on a server. There was enough computing power on a vehicle to perform re-training, and the need to communicate with a server might compromise real-time adaptation. In fact, the real-time requirement of D1 taught away from a centralized solution. Sending video data, waiting for computation and receiving the adapted model caused time delays which did not allow real-time adaptation.

But the Board disagreed:

7. The Board remarks first that the Appellant’s conceptual presentation of the invention (see 6 and 6.1 above) does not entirely correspond to the claimed invention, which is less detailed and therefore of broader scope.

7.1 In particular, the continuous learning aspect is not part of the claimed invention. The library is not defined to be dynamic in content, because the claim does not specify a storage of the updated model in the library.

…

7.3 The claim therefore covers a method for providing a deep learning model to an autonomous vehicle based on a static library of deep learning models for different vehicles, from which a managing device selects a model corresponding to the vehicle in question, retrains it using the vehicle video data, and transmits it to the vehicle.

The Applicant argued that library model were not needed in D1, but the Board again disagreed:

9. Thereby the person skilled in the art implements a method for providing a deep learning model to an autonomous vehicle which uses a static library of deep learning models for different vehicles, from which a managing device selects a model corresponding to the vehicle in question.

The Board addressed why the features were obvious:

10.1 However, for inventive step, the question is not what D1 discloses, but how the person skilled in the art would modify it, e.g. in order to improve it.

10.2 In general, the person skilled in the art would consider well-known alternatives. In the case in hand, this applies to adapting the model on a central device and sending the updated model to the vehicle. There are, in the Board’s view, good reasons for doing this, in particular the fact that more computational resources may be – and generally are – available on the server, and that this way the on-board computer, with necessarily limited resources, is free to perform other tasks.

10.3 Indeed this requires data transmission, but the trade-off is known to the person skilled in the art, who would choose one of the two options depending on the circumstances.

Finally, the applicant argued that D1 focused on real-time adaptation during the operation of the vehicle and that this taught away from a centralized solution. However, the Board disagreed as D1 also conserned real-time adaptation, and it was know that certalised computation may offer the same level of real time as adaptation in the device.

Auxiliary Request

In the first and fourth requests it is defined that “the deep learning models have the video data information as their tagged data”, which according to the Appellant this simplifies and speeds up the model selection step. However, this did not change the assessment of the Board.According to the Appellant this simplifies and speeds up the model selection step.

17. The Board remarks that once a library of models for various types of vehicles is defined (see point 9 above), the models need to be indexed by type, so that they can be differentiated and retrieved. This indexing implies a “tag” of some form as claimed.

Claims 1 of auxiliary requests 2, 3 and 4′ (also) define a cross-validation step between the manual and the automatic labeling. The Board considered they were obvious and noted as follows:

20. However, if this were the case, it would also imply that the cross-validation would be obvious for the skilled person: Given that D1 already specifies a combination of automatic and manual labeling (paragraph 78, see 2.1 above), the person skilled in the art, knowing how to improve accuracy by cross-validation between automatic and manual labeling, would use cross-validation without exercising any inventive skill.

Finally, the Applicant argued that the invention had number of differences and starting from D1 requred a number of modification. But the Board did not accept this argument:

22. The Board remarks that the number of differences over a certain piece of prior art is neither decisive nor a reliable indicator for the presence of an inventive step.

22.1 First, the number of differences itself may be, and often is, deceiving. One modification may imply or make obvious several other differences. For instance, as in the case in hand, performing the computations on a server instead of on the user vehicle, implies data transmission, and with it a host of other associated “differences” which may or may not be specified in a claim, like an antenna, a transmission protocol etc. A library implies storage, indexing, a retrieving mechanism and so forth. Also, in complex systems it is very easy to accumulate a large number of individual differences while simply considering the different options available to the person skilled in the art.

22.2 Secondly, whether several modifications combine to provide an inventive overall contribution does not depend on their number. For instance they may be obvious solutions to independent, “partial problems”.

Therefore, the Board decided that the appeal was dismissed, and the patent application was refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2412/22 (Adaptive driving models/STRADVISION) of November 24, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.05.06

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Workflow rules controlling tasks and tags labelling the states of the tasks: non-technical

The decision is based on an examination appeal and relates to dynamically automating workflows by moving data objects through different states and assigning tasks. The applicant argued that the invention is a technical system using operating tags to dynamically automate workflows, providing flexibility and avoiding rigid structures, and this dynamic interaction creates a technical effect under G 1/19.

Although the Board agreed that in G 1/19 while technical effects beyond a straightforward implementation can contribute to inventive step, the “operating tags” simply manage business conditions (e.g., task execution states) and represent a non-technical feature without delivering a technical effect. Thus, the application was refused.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: : T 0279/21 (State-transition-controlled processing of objects/SWISS RE) of January 30, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01

Key takeaways

When an invention is at the boundary between technical and non-technical matter, also a non-technical interpretation of a claimed feature may have a sensible meaning, in particular if the description and Figures disclose embodiments which permit such an interpretation. This also means that if a non-technical interpretation of a feature makes sense, then such an interpretation should not be excluded.

The “implementation” of a business method implies some sort of mapping between non-technical steps of the business method and their technical realisation. Even a 1:1 mapping might be inventive if it is not “straight-forward” (e.g. not standard programming or routine modification of the technical means used), or “unspecified” (e.g. not simply as “means for [carrying out the step]”).

The invention

1.1 The invention relates to a central control system for providing automated real-time interaction and state-transition-controlled processing of (data) objects.

1.2 Traditional workflow systems comprise at their core a workflow execution engine which controls and monitors the processing of objects.

1.3 In practice, workflow execution engines are rarely able to accurately or completely execute all the steps of the process by means of the workflow system alone and human intervention is required, in particular to gather all information needed to decide the next steps of further processing.

1.5 The invention is said, rather generally, to provide a system which is capable of flexibly capturing the external and/or internal factors that may affect the processing of an object within a workflow and that is more capable of being operated by externally or internally occurring boundary conditions or constraints. Furthermore it is able to react dynamically to changing environmental or internal conditions or measuring parameters that are possibly not known or predictable at the beginning of the workflow process, in particular without human inter action, page 4, 2nd paragraph.

1.6 The solution of the invention is a state-transition-controlled processing of objects wherein a selected object 71, 72, 73 is processed from one process state 121, 122 to a subse quent process state 122, 123 by executing the process tasks 131 assigned to the process state of the object, see Figure 1, by the control system. The state transition of the object in the process flow is controlled based upon the operating parameters of an assigned operating tag 132, see page 17, 2nd paragraph. These operating parameters can be changed by authorised assigner units or assignee units. The application explains that a dedicated signalling is done to associated run-time execution modules 50, 51, 52 which serves as means for executing the activated process tasks based on the transmitted control and steering signalling.

Claim 1

1. A method for state-transition-controlled decentralized processing of data objects (71,72,73) by an electronic control system (10), wherein, by means of the electronic control system (10), a data object (71,72,73) is selected and processed following a state-structured process flow (12) comprising a plurality of process states (121,122,123), and for each process state (121, 122, 123) one or more process tasks (131) are executed by means of the control system (10), and wherein the selected data object (71,72,73) is processed from one process state (121,122,123) to a subsequent process state (121,122,123), characterized in

that state parameters of the selected data object (71,72,73) are captured by capturing means (15,151,152,153,154) of the control system (10), and a process state (121,122,123) is determined based on the captured state parameters and assigned to the selected data object (71,72,73),

that based on the process state (121,122,123) and state parameters of the selected data object (71,72,73) at least one process task (131) is generated by means of the control system (10), wherein each process task (131) comprises at least an assigner unit (31,…,34) and an assignee unit (41,…,44), and wherein for a specific process state (121,122,123), a generated process task (131) is activated in dependence of the task parameters assigned to a process task (131),

that one or more operating tags (132) are generated and are assigned to a process task (131) by means of the control system (10), the operating tags (132) comprising dynamically alterable operating parameters controlling operation of an associated process task (131) by means of the control system (10) and adding operational constraints to the processing of the process task (131), wherein the operating tags (132) are settable by authorized assigner units (31,…,34) or assignee units (41,…,44) or the control system (10),

that the operating tags (132) comprise an encapsulated data structure, wherein controlled access to the operational tag (132) is provided by the control system (10) for authorized assigner units (31,…,34) or assignee units (41,…,44) by means of the encapsulated data structure of an operating tag (132) of a tagged process task (131), and wherein the encapsulated data structure comprises the dynamically alterable operating parameters and/or the operational constraint parameters and/or the expanding or the indicating parameters of task states,

that the state-structured process flow (12) is dynamically operated by the control system (10), wherein by means of the control system (10), an data object (71,72,73) is processed from the determined process state (121,122,123) to a subsequent process state (121,122,123) by executing the assigned process tasks (131) based upon the operating parameters of the operating tags (132) by means of the control system (10), and wherein the state-structured process flow (12) is a discrete time stochastic control process, wherein the control system (10) comprises a stochastic rating module and wherein the initiation of the next process tasks (131) are based at least on the selection of the process tasks (131) of the preceding process state (121,122,123) and an additional rating by means of the stochastic rating module, and

in that by means of a signaling module (14) of the control system (10), control and steering signaling (141,142,143) is generated and transmitted to associated runtime execution modules (50,51,52), wherein the data object (71,72,73) is processed by executing the activated process tasks (131) by means of the runtime execution modules (50,51,52) based on the transmitted control and steering signaling (141,142,143), wherein the control system (10) and the runtime execution modules (50,51,52) interact in runtime, and wherein the data object (71,72,73) is processed based on the dynamically adapted process flow (10) with the generated process tasks (131) and alterable operating parameters of the associated operating tags (132) by executing the activated process tasks (131) by means of the runtime execution modules (50,51,52) based on the transmitted control and steering signaling (141,142,143)

Is it patentable?

In the decision of the Division, the claims were interpreted as non-technical, and the appellant disagreed:

2.1 The examining division in summary argued, see reasons, point 2.1 of the impugned decision, that the claimed subject-matter related to abstract information modelling concepts at meta-language level in the context of workflows. They pointed out that the design and modelling of workflows for business pro cesses represented activities in the sphere of methods for doing business.

2.3 The appellant disagrees with this non-technical interpretation. The application does not disclose the modelling of a business process as such. The invention rather relates to the automatic execution of a process with technical means and with an electronic control system. A claim shall be interpreted in good faith and objectively by the person skilled in the art. A missing contribution of particular features, such as “object”, “assigner units” and “assignee units”, to the technical character shall not be a criterion for an over-broad interpreta tion of claims. The description and Figures should always be interpreted as a “whole” and an application be regarded in its entirety.

The object of the invention is to provide a technical possibility that allows a workflow to be changed in a controlled manner, that is, the electronic control system enables dynamic reaction to and adjustment of the automated workflow. The solution of the invention involves “operating tags” which represent a protected, dynamically modifiable and tagged area which the electronic control system uses (if possible) to adapt the automation of the workflow.

The appellant further argued that following G 1/19 a method that changes something which is processed, has a technical effect and is therefore technical. The invention introduces the concept of “operating tags” which repre sent a technical possibility of interaction with a process task. In contrast to D1 the invention does not need a complex folder structure for realising a workflow system.

The Board interpreted the claims as follows, and agrees with the Division:

2.4 Regarding the question of how to interpret the claimed subject-matter the Board notes that according to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal on the general principles for claim interpretation, see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, Edition 2022, II.A-6, the wording of the claims should typically be given its broadest technically sensible meaning by a skilled reader. When an invention is at the boundary between technical and non-technical matter, also a non-technical interpretation of a claimed feature may have a sensible meaning, in particular if the description and Figures disclose embodiments which permit such an interpretation. Claims must be read with a mind willing to understand and to make technical sense of them, thereby ruling out illogical or technically meaningless interpretations. This also means that if a non-technical interpretation of a feature makes sense, then such an interpretation should not be excluded.

2.10 The examining division considered the subject-matter of claim 1 to be distinguished from D1 by the feature: “and wherein the state-structured process flow is a discrete time stochastic control process, wherein the control system comprises a stochastic rating module and the initiation of the next process task is also based on an additional rating by means of the stochastic rating module”.

2.11 The examining division was of the opinion that the claimed rating is nothing more than a non-technical workflow rule according to which a next process task is initiated. Such workflow rules stem from business requirements and their implementation on the D1 system is a straight-forward modular programming based on common general knowledge.

2.12 The appellant in summary argues that the feature “discrete time stochastic control process” must be seen in combination with the system control structure and the operating tags. Such a control is not disclosed in D1 nor is it needed. D1 discloses that different workflow instances may be associated with objects, but these workflow instance are not altered.

2.17 As mentioned above, the application does not define how the “stochastic rating module” determines the “stochastic rating”. The Board agrees with the examining division that this merely amounts to a mathematical rule according to which a new process task gets initiated, see second half on page 7 of the decision, which cannot contribute to the technical character of claim 1, an thus not to the presence of inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Finally, the Board addressed the argument of the appellant regarding G 1/19:

2.18 The Board considers that the appellant did not draw the correct conclusion from the statements in G 1/19. The appellant considered that when this decision, e.g. at reasons, point 51, states that any technical effect going beyond the implementation of the process on a computer may be considered for inventive step, it means anything beyond a 1:1 mapping between the implementation and a step of the business method being implemented. In other words, any subject-matter that does not “map” to a step in the business method is technical. This was said to apply to all computer-implemented inventions, such as the present case, not just simulations. Accordingly, at least the “operating tags”, which did not “map” to a step in the business method, were technical.

The Board agrees that the “implementation” of a business method implies some sort of mapping between non-technical steps of the business method and their technical realisation. Decision G 1/19 has something to say about this mapping, at least in the forward direction, at point 51, when it rephrases the requirement for technical effect as “technical effect going beyond the simulation’s straightforward or unspecified implementation on a standard computer system”. Thus, even a 1:1 mapping might be inventive if it is not “straight-forward” (e.g. not standard programming or routine modification of the technical means used), or “unspecified” (e.g. not simply as “means for [carrying out the step]”).

But, looking for a mapping from implementation to a step of the business method in the reverse direction does not make sense as the steps of the non-technical activity do not have to be specified explicitly. They would include any steps that the business person would come up with in a non-technical workflow. The way this is handled is by considering the mapping of the implementation to the effect of the step and to examine whether the effect has any technical character, or whether it would be covered by what the business person would consider as part of the non-technical process. This is, in other words, the standard COMVIK approach where one looks at the effect of a feature in order to pose a technical problem, which might simply be the implementation of the feature, for which the above-mentioned mapping in the forward direction meant in G 1/19 applies.

Thus, looking at the feature of the “operating tags” in the present case, the effect, as mentioned above at point 2.15, is to define business conditions deter-mining whether a certain task shall be executed or not. This, of course, corresponds to a non-technical step of the workflow system, namely keeping track of the state of a process. Going forward again with the mapping in order to judge inventive step, the implementation is seen to be the use of “operating tags”, which even if escaping the “unspecified” classification must surely be “straight-forward”.

Furthermore, the Board cannot recognise that avoiding the folder data structure of D1, as argued by the appellant, represents a technical effect.

2.19 The present case is rather comparable to T 894/10, reasons, points 7 and 8, in which the present Board, in a different composition, held that all aspects of the idea of modelling and manipulating representations of a workflow are fundamentally non-technical, being essentially aspects of either a business method or an algorithm or both. […] Technical considerations only come into play when implementing the representation and rules.

Therefore, the Board decided that the appeal was dismissed, and the patent application was refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0279/21 (State-transition-controlled processing of objects/SWISS RE) of January 30, 2024, 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.

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Generating (and displaying) further new data by an evaluation or interpretation of measurements: non-technical

The decision is based on an examination appeal and relates to a method for analyzing and displaying glucose monitoring data. The Applicant argued that the technical effect did not lie in a mere “presentation of information” but in that “new data was generated”, thus providing an “improved analysis of glucose monitoring data for guidance of a patient or physician.”

However, the Board disagreed and noted that taking of a sample on the patient is an interaction with “physical reality” and generating new data as a consequence of this interaction may result in “measurements” of a technical nature. However, generating (and displaying) further data by an evaluation or interpretation of these measurements amounts to “measurements” generated merely by a cognitive or mathematical exercise that is inherently non-technical. Thus, the application was refused.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1741/22 (New medical data/ROCHE) of June 26, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05

Key takeaways

If the mere generation of “new data” were sufficient to contribute to the technical character of the invention, Article 52(2) and (3) EPC would contain meaningless limitations of patentable subject-matter, as e.g. mathematical methods are supposed to constantly generate “new data”.

A subset of “new data” that might have been relevant for assessing the contribution to the technical character of the invention in the context of the case at hand could have been a new “collection” of data practised on the human or animal body

It is generally acknowledged that measurements have technical character since they are based on an interaction with physical reality, such as the human or animal body.

Processing already measured and received continuous glucose monitoring data to generate and display further “new data”, in order to support a physician in their purely intellectual deductive decision phases of diagnosis and therapy. Such subsequent processing of certain measurement data collected from the human or animal body is “predominantly of a non-technical nature

A prerequisite for a “measurement” with technical character, within the meaning of the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, is an interaction with “physical reality” for the calculation of the physical state of an object, even if the measurement may be carried out indirectly, e.g. by means of measurements of another physical entity

Taking of a sample on the patient is an interaction with “physical reality” and generating new data as a consequence of this interaction may result in “measurements” of a technical nature. But generating (and displaying) further data by an evaluation or interpretation of these measurements amounts to “measurements” generated merely by a cognitive or mathematical exercise that is inherently non-technical.

The invention

The invention relates to a system and method for analyzing glucose monitoring data indicative of a glucose level in a bodily fluid which is sampled for a person over multiple days within a specified measurement period (e.g., 24 hours). It determines a plurality of minimum glucose values and/or a plurality of maximum glucose values for a selected group or each of the respective sample times. These signals are used to output and display a graphical representation of the glucose values, allowing better insights for patients and physicians.

Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 10 (itemisation of the features added by the board)

(a) A system for analysing glucose monitoring data indicative of a glucose level in a bodily fluid, comprising: an input device, a data processing device, an output device, a display device, and machine-readable instructions that are executed by the data processing device,

(b) [wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the data processing device to] receive continuous glucose monitoring data via the input device, the continuous glucose monitoring data indicating a glucose level sampled for a person in a bodily fluid at a plurality of sample times over a measurement time period in a continuous glucose level measurement, and comprising a plurality of continuous glucose profiles, each of the glucose profiles comprising a plurality of glucose values with a glucose value for each of the plurality of sample times over the measurement period, wherein the plurality of glucose profiles is determined on different days by sampling the glucose level on each day over the measurement period, wherein the measurement period is 24 hours;

(c) [wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the data processing device to] for the plurality of continuous glucose profiles, determine a plurality of minimum glucose values and/or a plurality of maximum glucose values for a selected group or each of the plurality of respective sample times

(d) [wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the data processing device to] provide first display signals representing the plurality of minimum glucose values and/or the plurality of maximum glucose values for the selected group or each of the plurality of respective sample times;

(e) [wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the data processing device to] output the first display signals via the output device to the display device; and display a first graphical representation according to the first display signals on the display device.

Is it patentable?

The Applicant argued that the distinguishing features were c and d, as follows

(c) [wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the data processing device to] for the plurality of continuous glucose profiles, determine a plurality of minimum glucose values and/or a plurality of maximum glucose values for a selected group or each of the plurality of respective sample times

(d) [wherein the machine-readable instructions cause the data processing device to] provide first display signals representing the plurality of minimum glucose values and/or the plurality of maximum glucose values for the selected group or each of the plurality of respective sample times;

And the applicant argued they were technical:

2.2 The appellants argued that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 over D1 were features (c) and (d), i.e. determining and displaying minimum/maximum glucose values. They stated that the technical effect of the distinguishing features was to provide an “improved analysis of glucose monitoring data”. In particular, “the plurality of minimum/maximum glucose values may correspond to medically relevant outlier values”, which “would otherwise be averaged out in the context of known methods employing percentiles as in D1”. They emphasised that the technical effect did not lie in a mere “presentation of information” but in that “new data was generated”. Accordingly, they formulated the objective technical problem as providing a system for “improved analysis of glucose monitoring data for guidance of a patient or physician”.

But the Board disagreed:

2.3 However, the board is not convinced that features (c) and (d) contribute to the technical character of the invention.

2.3.1 The appellants persistently emphasised, also at the oral proceedings before the board, that the invention generated “new data” from glucose monitoring data. However, if the mere generation of “new data” were sufficient to contribute to the technical character of the invention, Article 52(2) and (3) EPC would contain meaningless limitations of patentable subject-matter, as e.g. mathematical methods are supposed to constantly generate “new data”.

2.3.2 A subset of “new data” that might have been relevant for assessing the contribution to the technical character of the invention in the context of the case at hand could have been a new “collection” of data practised on the human or animal body. Here, the board uses the word “collection” within the same meaning as in G 1/04 referring to “(i) the examination phase [of a diagnostic method] involving the collection of data” (G 1/04, Reasons 5). More recent jurisprudence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal seems to prefer the word “measurement” (G 1/19, Reasons 85 and 99), which involves the calculation of the physical state of an object (i.e. a certain glucose level in a “bodily fluid” in the case at hand). As stated in G 1/19 (Reasons 99), it is generally acknowledged that measurements have technical character since they are based on an interaction with physical reality, such as the human or animal body (see G 1/04, Reasons 6.4.1).

2.3.3 In the case at hand, features (c) and (d) do not involve the actual measurement of the respective glucose level in a bodily fluid. Instead, they process already measured and received continuous glucose monitoring data to generate and display further “new data“, namely a plurality of minimum/maximum glucose values, in order to support a physician in their purely intellectual deductive decision phases of diagnosis and therapy. Such subsequent processing of certain measurement data collected from the human or animal body is “predominantly of a non-technical nature” (ibid.). Thus, it cannot contribute to the technical character of the invention.

2.3.4 This interpretation of the Convention and of the conclusions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal have also been adopted in earlier decisions of this board (see e.g. T 1091/17, Reasons 1.8; T 1910/20, Reasons 1 and 2; T 335/21, Reasons 1.2 and 1.3).

The Board also addressed the decision cited by the applicant T 2681/16:

2.3.5 However, at the oral proceedings before the board, the appellants referred to T 2681/16 and to the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO in support of their view. In particular, the appellants considered the case in T 2681/16 to be analogous to the case at hand. The competent board in that case dealt with distinguishing features related to an algorithm to process already acquired, i.e. measured, blood glucose data points. The board acknowledged that these features, when taken in isolation, were non-technical, and could support the presence of an inventive step only if they credibly contributed to producing a technical effect serving a technical purpose (Reasons 3.2.3). However, the board then accepted the technical effect alleged by the appellant (Reasons 3.2.4), namely “providing an overall measure of the glucose variability (i.e. equally sensitive to both hypo- and hyperglycemic events) and a prediction of glycemic events that were better than, or at least alternative to, those used in [the closest prior art]”. Whereas the board concluded that this technical effect was not achieved over the whole scope of the claim in a higher-ranking request (Reasons 3.2.5 ff.), it was satisfied that this effect was achieved over the whole scope of the claim in a lower-ranking request (Reasons 6.2.1).

2.3.6 This board is not in agreement with and therefore deviates from the interpretation of the Convention given in T 2681/16. According to Article 20(1) RPBA, should a board consider it necessary to deviate from an interpretation of the Convention given in an earlier decision of any Board, the grounds for this deviation shall be given, unless such grounds are in accordance with an earlier decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal according to Article 112(1) EPC. In particular, the board disagrees with the finding in T 2681/16 that providing an overall “measure” of the glucose variability and a prediction of glycemic events amounts to a technical effect. The board is well aware of the tendency of applicants to use the word “measure(ment)” liberally in order to give inventions the veneer of technicality. This is mainly because it is generally acknowledged in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that “measurements” have technical character. Admittedly, the applicants’ use may indeed well correspond to the meaning of the word in common parlance. However, a prerequisite for a “measurement” with technical character, within the meaning of the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, is an interaction with “physical reality” for the calculation of the physical state of an object, even if the measurement may be carried out indirectly, e.g. by means of measurements of another physical entity (see G 1/19, Reasons 99). In the present case and in the case underlying T 2681/16, where the “physical reality” is typically the “patient’s blood”, the interaction with the physical reality ends once blood glucose measurements are carried out, directly on the relevant physical entity “blood”, or indirectly e.g. on another bodily fluid. The provision of overall glucose variability and a prediction of glycemic events are mathematical steps or intellectual activities which take place in the absence of this interaction with the physical reality and are therefore not “measurements” in this sense. In other words, the taking of a sample on the patient is an interaction with “physical reality”. Generating new data as a consequence of this interaction may result in “measurements” of a technical nature. But generating (and displaying) further data by an evaluation or interpretation of these measurements (as done according to features (c) and (d) here) amounts to “measurements” generated merely by a cognitive or mathematical exercise that is inherently non-technical.

2.3.7 As to the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (in its applicable version of March 2022 and also in its current version of March 2024), section G-II, 3.3, which relates to the technical contribution of mathematical methods, lists

“providing a medical diagnosis by an automated system processing physiological measurements”

among “examples of technical contributions of a mathematical method”. As providing a “medical diagnosis” – whether done by a physician or by an automated system – is devoid of any technical character (see e.g. G 1/04, Reasons 5.3 and 6.3), this example is clearly erroneous. As there is no further explanation, let alone a reference to any case law, the board sees no reason to speculate on how the Guidelines came up with this example (cf. Article 20(2) RPBA).

2.4 In view of the above, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Therefore, the Board decided that the appeal was dismissed, and the patent application was refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1741/22 (New medical data/ROCHE) of June 26, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Accurate estimation of clinical parameter using two measured markers: technical

The decision is from an Opposition appeal. The invention relates to a method for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) for assessing animal kidney function. The Opponent filed an appeal alleging that the distinguishing feature—multiplying the two concentrations—is merely a mathematical operation, which is non-technical.

However, the Board agreed with the patentee and acknowledged that while the method involves a mathematical operation, it is applied to biological measurements (SDMA and sCr), which are technical data. The combination of these two biomarkers leads to an improvement in GFR estimation.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1423/22 (Renal disease/IDEXX) June 23, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.08.

Key takeaways

All of the features that contribute to that technical character, i.e. that solve a technical problem by providing a technical effect, are to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step, even if these features are non-technical per se.

Estimating the GFR, a clinical parameter relevant in renal diseases, based on measuring the blood concentrations of two markers (SDMA and sCr) is a technical problem

A non-technical calculation step can also contribute to solving a technical problem, together with other measurement steps.

The invention

The invention relates to a method for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR), which is crucial for assessing animal kidney function. The method involves measuring two biomarkers from blood samples: symmetrical dimethylarginine (SDMA) and creatinine (sCr). These concentrations are then multiplied, and the resulting product is compared to species-specific standard values to estimate GFR more accurately. This approach seeks to improve the precision of GFR estimation, which is important for diagnosing renal diseases in animals.

Claim 1 of Main Request (itemisation of the features added by the board)

A method for estimating glomerular filtration (GFR) rate in an animal subject, the method comprising:

measuring the concentration of free symmetrical dimethylarginine (SDMA) in a blood sample from the subject;

measuring the concentration of creatinine in a blood sample from the subject; and

comparing a value resulting from an equation comprising the product of the concentration of creatinine and the concentration of free SDMA to one or more standard values that correlate to glomerular filtration rate in the animal subject.

Is it patentable?

The Board identified the distinguishing features and comparison of technical and non-technical features as follows:

11. The claim concerns a method for estimating the GFR in an animal subject and comprises the technical steps of measuring the concentration of free SDMA and that of sCr in a blood sample from the subject (“step (i)” and “step (ii)”), and a step of “comparing a value resulting from an equation comprising the product of the concentration of creatinine and the concentration of SDMA to one or more standard values that correlate to glomerular filtration rate in the animal subject” (“step (iii)”).

12. Step (iii) of the claimed method hence relates to a mathematical operation (multiplication of two measured values together) and to a mental act (comparing the value of the resulting product to one or more standard values), i.e. is non-technical. The claim therefore consists of a mixture of technical and non-technical features…

14. Document D1 discloses measuring concentration levels of both sCr and SDMA in dogs and demonstrates their correlation with the GFR measured by iohexol clearance (see the figure and the second to fourth paragraphs). The document concludes that SDMA “correlates well with GFR … and might be a useful addition to sCr in the assessment of renal function” (see the last paragraph).

15. The claimed method differs from that proposed in document D1 in step (iii) (see point 11. above), i.e. in that a value resulting from an equation comprising the product of the sCr and SDMA concentration values is compared to one or more standard values that correlate to the GFR in the animal subject. This was not contested.

The Opponent argued that the distinguishing feature was not technical, an thus the subject-matter lacked inventive step.

16. However, the appellant contested that this distinguishing feature, which was non-technical, contributed to the technical character of the claimed method.

17. If a claimed invention consists of a mixture of technical and non-technical features, as is the case with the present claim 1 (see points 11. and 12. above), and has a technical character, i.e. solves a technical problem, all of the features that contribute to that technical character, i.e. that solve a technical problem by providing a technical effect, are to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step, even if these features are non-technical per se (T 641/00, Headnote 1, and Reasons 5 and 6; G 1/19, OJ EPO 2021, A77, Reasons 140).

18. The claimed method has a technical character as it solves the technical problem of estimating the GFR, a clinical parameter relevant in renal diseases, based on measuring the blood concentrations of two markers (SDMA and sCr). Step (iii), which is non-technical, contributes to solving this technical problem, together with measurement steps (i) and (ii), because the GFR estimated for an animal subject is determined by the recited calculation of a product of measured SDMA and sCr concentration values and a comparison of this product to one or more standard values that correlate to the GFR in the animal subject.

19. It is noted that the claim lacks an explicit link of step (iii) to the actual estimation of the GFR as it does not recite that by comparing the product of the sCr and SDMA concentration values to one or more standard values that correlate to the GFR in the animal subject the value of the correlated GFR is read out, and that this correlated GFR represents the GFR estimated for the animal subject. However, despite this deficiency, the skilled person immediately understands from the wording of the claim that the comparison to standard values, which correlate to a particular GFR, directly and necessarily leads to the estimation of the GFR in the animal subject for which the blood markers were measured. The missing explicit link of how the steps of the claimed method result in the estimation of the GFR can thus be implicitly understood from the method steps.

20. Indeed, if the claimed method were to be interpreted as nothing more than a mere comparison of the product of the measured sCr and SDMA concentration values to one or more standard values that correlate with the GFR in the animal subject, without linking this comparison to the estimated GFR in the animal subject, the purpose of the claimed method – estimating the GFR in an animal subject – would not be achieved.

21. However, since this purpose of the claimed method is expressed in the claim as a functional feature, not achieving this effect by the steps of the claimed method would result in a lack of sufficiency of disclosure. Yet no objection on sufficiency of disclosure was raised by the appellant (see also section II. above).

22. Contrary to the appellant’s view, step (iii) hence contributes, together with the technical steps (i) and (ii) of measuring the blood sCr and SDMA concentrations, to providing a method for estimating the clinical parameter GFR in an animal subject and hence contributes to the technical character of the claimed method.

The Board disagreed with the Opponent, and reasoned as follows:

23. According to the patent, the product of the concentration values of sCr and SDMA allows for an improved estimation of the GFR compared to either concentration value alone (see paragraphs [0143] and [0148], Examples 6 and 7, and Figures 7 and 11 of the patent). However, as document D1 already suggests measuring the concentration values of both sCr and SDMA for the assessment of renal function (see the last paragraph of document D1 and point 14. above), an improvement over the method proposed in document D1 cannot be acknowledged.

24. The objective technical problem is therefore the provision of an alternative method for estimating the GFR.

25. The appellant contested that the objective technical problem could be formulated in this manner. The claim required that the standard values must be obtained in the same (individual) animal subject for which the GFR was to be estimated by the same measurements and calculations, which resulted in a “circular mathematical reasoning”. According to the appellant, the objective technical problem was thus the provision of an alternative way of mathematically treating results obtained from measurements of blood samples from animal subjects.

26. The appellant’s claim construction cannot be followed however. The expression “standard values that correlate to glomerular filtration rate in the animal subject” defines that these values are applicable to the animal subject for which the GFR is to be estimated, but not that these standard values have to be determined, first, in the same (individual) animal subject.

Therefore, the Board decided that since none of the appellant’s arguments as to why the claimed method was obvious for the assessment of the inventive step were persuasive, the the Board rejected the appeal of the Opponent and maintained the patent as amended.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1423/22 (Renal disease/IDEXX) June 23, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.08.

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Displaying numbers to a user: non-technical

The decision relates to displaying numbers to a user, particularly with varying sizes or colors based on their values. The examining division rejected the application due to a lack of inventive step from a known tag cloud or data cloud. The applicant argued that dynamically adjusting display sizes based on the values improved usability by helping users quickly identify significant data points. The Board disagreed and noted that the feature related to non-technical information presentation methods and did not provide a technical solution.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 2319/22 (Displaying numbers to a user/BISSANTZ) from July 9, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

The effect of drawing users’ attention to certain content (on a screen or on another substrate such as paper) is not a technical effect but concerns an alleged effect relating to the user’s mind/attention

The manner of presenting information (the visual appearance), such as presenting the information in a specific tabular format, in a specific colour or in a chosen (font) size, relates to a presentation of information as such and usually does not achieve any technical effect.

If the claim is not limited by any features specifying that the claimed system is configured for a use of the displayed information, it is not credible that a technical effect relating to a technical application is achieved over the whole scope of the claim.

The invention

The application relates to a computer system comprising means for displaying numbers to a user. The way in which the numbers are displayed allows the user to quickly assess at least some of the displayed numbers even if a high number of data items are shown on the display.

Claim 1 of Main Request (itemisation of the features added by the board)

[A] “System comprising providing means for providing numbers to [sic] user,

[B] comprising display means for displaying said provided numbers, each number having a value,

[C] wherein the system furthermore comprises determination means which is adapted to calculate the size of the number dependent on said value and/or wherein the determination means is adapted to calculate the depth of the color of the number dependent on said value,

[D] wherein the determination means is further adapted to elect the size of the number the larger the larger the value of the number is and/or to elect the depth of the color the larger the value of the number is,

[E] and wherein the display means is adapted to display the number in the determined size and/or to display the color in the determined depth, characterized in that

[F] the numbers are embedded within a text or are located near a text and wherein the determination means are adapted to elect the size of the characters of the text as the size of the number having the smallest value; and

[G] wherein the determination means is adapted to determine the largest value and the smallest value of said numbers and to allocate a first determined size to the largest value and to allocate a second determined size to the smallest value, wherein the determination means is adapted to determine the interval between the second determined size and the first determined size and to determine all sizes within this interval on a linear basis.”

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division considered the subject matter obvious in view of document D5 (Tag cloud).

Document D5 is a Wikipedia article that discloses various visual representations of textual data on websites, such as keyword metadata (“tags”), and another example includes data clouds showing stock price movement, with the colour indicating positive or negative changes and the font size indicating percentage changes; see the reproduction below:

The Examinig division considered that the difference was only that the numbers were presented as such rather than by names representing them, which did not achieve a technical effect, but rather, it specified only a mere presentation of information which was non-technical.

The Applicant disagreed with the assessment and argued as follows:

2.3 The appellant disagreed with the examining division and argued that features C, D, F and G (see point VIII. above for the itemisation of the claim features) were the distinguishing features of claim 1. According to the appellant, these distinguishing features together achieved the technical effect that the system could display numbers (e.g. pertaining to an internal state of a device such as pressure, or an external state of a device such as speed) in a way that selectively drew the user’s attention to particularly relevant numbers (e.g. large pressure values or high speed values), allowing the user to operate the device (e.g. a control panel of a nuclear power plant or a cockpit of a plane) more safely and/or effectively on the basis of an improved information level. The invention was similar to that in the case on which decision T 643/00 was based, in which the manner of conveying information contributed to the solution of a technical problem since it enabled the user to perform their technical task (searching and retrieving images) more efficiently. In the current case the task was to search for values which are critical, e.g. in the context of a technical application.

Referring to the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, the appellant argued that it was irrelevant that the application documents as filed did not disclose explicitly and in detail an example of the invention being applied to e.g. a vehicle, as long as the person skilled in the art could “immediately grasp” that such a technical application was a “valid implementation” of the invention claimed (statement of grounds of appeal, page 15).

According to the appellant the objective technical problem was “to improve ergonomics in a human-machine interaction, e.g. of a user in front of a control panel, and to improve the quantity of information conveyed” (statement of grounds of appeal, page 17).

The skilled person could arrive at the claimed solution only through “independent, creative and hence inventive thinking” since document D5 explicitly taught away from displaying numbers at all, as these were “unhelpful tags” to be filtered out (see D5, page 4, last sentence; statement of grounds of appeal, pages 18 and 19).

The Board disagreed with the distinguishing features and considered that all these features were indeed disclosed, and the arguments can be summarized as follows:

Feature C: The Board considered that percentage changes are numerical values, so D5 inherently discloses calculating font size based on numbers.
Feature D: The Board noted that D5 adjusts font sizes based on numerical data, such as percentage changes, and the actual distinction is that the appellant’s invention displays numbers directly instead of using symbols.
Feature F: The Board found that D5’s use of tag clouds, which treats numbers as “unhelpful tags,” is not restricted to technical tasks, making the appellant’s argument irrelevant since their claim does not specify a technical use.
Feature G: The Board agreed that D5 calculates font sizes based on tag frequency but stated that in data clouds, it uses numerical values, like stock price changes, making this feature either disclosed or obvious from D5.

Therefore, the Board agreed with the Examining Division that the distinguishing feature was that the numbers were presented as such rather than by names (such as stock symbols) representing them, and thus the effect and the corresponding objective technical problem as formulated by the appellant cannot be recognised:

2.6 The board agrees with the examining division that the identified distinguishing feature does not achieve any technical effect. At best the effect, if any, may be that the attention of some users could be drawn to certain numbers (having a large display font size, for example) rather than to other numbers on the display. Given the generality of the claim wording, certain numbers may be displayed, for example, in a font size too small to be readable, meaning that the user’s attention will not be drawn to those unreadable numbers. In any case, the effect of drawing users’ attention to certain content (on a screen or on another substrate such as paper) is not a technical effect but concerns an alleged effect relating to the user’s mind/attention.

The appellant referred to decision T 1235/07, Reasons 11, which correctly states how the phrase “presentation of information” is to be interpreted. The responsible board argued that “parts of how the information, namely the form and way it is presented, may also be part of the presentation of information”. In other words, the manner of presenting information (the visual appearance), such as presenting the information in a specific tabular format (see Figures 1 to 12 of the current application), in a specific colour or in a chosen (font) size, relates to a presentation of information as such and usually does not achieve any technical effect.

Claim 1 of the main request does not specify any application context (providing e.g. a particular technical meaning to the data) or any interaction with the data displayed (feature E is limited to displaying data). For this reason alone, any arguments, such as improved ergonomics, relating to an actual or implied interaction with the displayed numbers are not convincing.

With regard to the main request, it is indeed “irrelevant that the application documents as filed did not explicitly and in detail disclose an example of the invention being applied to e.g. a vehicle”, since claim 1 is not limited to any application but rather is directed to a general system for visualising numbers.

In this context, the board notes that the established case law requires a technical effect over the whole scope of the claim (see e.g. decision G 1/19, points 82 to 84). Since claim 1 of the main request in hand is not limited by any features specifying that the claimed system is configured for a use of the displayed information, it is not credible that a technical effect relating to a technical application is achieved over the whole scope of the claim.

The Applicant also filed Auxiliary Requests, none of which were allowed. The amendments and the decision of the Board can be summarised as follows:

First Auxiliary Request: Added that numbers are “technical data.” However, the Board considered this was too abstract and didn’t contribute to a technical character or inventive step.
Second Auxiliary Request: Included input means for user input and recalculation of sizes. It was considered as an obvious implementation using known input methods without contributing to a technical effect.
Third Auxiliary Request: Specified that the providing means is a processor providing data from a database. This was considered obvious and did not contribute any technical effect.
Fourth Auxiliary Request: Included means to automatically assign units or abbreviations to numbers. This was considered as a straightforward automation of known formats without adding a technical effect.
Fifth Auxiliary Request: Combined earlier features but restricted the automatic assignment to “units and other abbreviations.” The feature was consider as not provide a technical effect, similar to previous requests.

Therefore, the Board refused the application.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2319/22 (Displaying numbers to a user/BISSANTZ) from July 9, 2024, 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.

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Routing reward messages based on a Bank Identification Number : non-technical

The decision relates to a reward system that uses prepaid gift cards. The examining division rejected the application, reasoning that a skilled programmer could implement the administrative method without involving an inventive step.

The applicant argued that the invention’s use of a non-bank BIN for routing transactions enhances security by stripping sensitive data before it reaches the card management server, preventing conflicts between different types of transactions, such as credit card and gift card transactions, within a single system. However, the Board disagreed, noting that the specific nature of the identifier is not technically relevant. Additionally, since the claim does not address the relationship between credit card and gift card transaction messages, no technical problem can be derived from the claim.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0021/21 (Gift card network/IMIDUS) of June 13, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Routing reward messages based on a Bank Identification Number (BIN) is not technical

The specific nature of the identifier – whether it be a BIN, a flag, or any other suitable identifier – is not relevant from a technical point of view and, therefore, cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The invention relates to a reward system that utilises prepaid gift cards. The primary advantage of the system is that customers can acquire a gift card from one of the participating merchants, such as at a point of sale (POS), and use it at any other participating merchant – see paragraph [0006] of the published application.

2. As shown in Figure 3, the user obtains and activates the gift card at POS station 301, located in store A. A gateway server (kernel) 309 transmits card-related data, such as activation data (“the transaction message being to activate a gift card and set an initial balance” in claim 1), from the POS to card management server 313, and sends a response message back.

3. The path between the gateway server and the card management server (“authorization route”) is established based on the card’s Bank Identification Number (BIN).

Claim 1 of Main Request

A Point-Of-Sale, POS, system, comprising:

a first POS device (207, 301) associated with a first merchant system to process a first sale transaction at a first point-of-sale, to process a first reward associated with the first sale transaction, and to monetize the first reward at the point of sale as a first gift card issued through the first POS device (207, 301),

wherein the first merchant system is part of a specified network and the first gift card is usable through other POS devices within the specified network;

the POS system having a first formatter module (303), running on a computer associated with the first POS device, and configured to receive gift card purchase data from the first POS device (207, 301) via a driver (307) and to use the gift card purchase data to build and send a transaction message to a gift card management server (313) of the specified network over an authorization route, the transaction message being to activate a gift card and set an initial balance;

a gateway kernel (309) on a gateway server of a gift card network, the gateway kernel configured to receive the transaction message and establish the authorization route based on a card Bank Identification Number, BIN, of the gift card, comprising a gift card message formatter (311) and another driver (312), the gateway server being connected to a credit card formatter;

the gift card management server being configured to send a response message to the gateway kernel (309); and

the gateway kernel (309) configured to match the transaction message and route the response message back to the originating POS station, being the first POS device

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division considered that the subject-matter was an obvious implementation of an administrative method for a skilled programmer in view of D2 (US 2008/0201224 A1). In particular:

5. The examining division held that claim 1 was not inventive over D2. They identified the following distinguishing features (see point 1.3.2.4 of the decision):

1. the system of D2 is adapted to perform the administrative method identified in section 1.3.2.2;

2. the routing function of the authorization system of D2 is implemented as part of a gateway kernel and based on a card bank identification number; the computer associated with the first POS device is configured to receive data from the first POS device via a driver; the authorization route comprises another driver.

The examining division concluded that the skilled person, a programmer, would implement the administrative method (distinguishing feature 1) without involving an inventive step, by making obvious implementation choices (distinguishing feature 2).

The Applicant argued that there were structural differences, which the Board did not accept as they were not derivable from the application. The Applicant then argued that creating a routing message was not obvious. The Board disagreed:

10. The Board notes that D2 discloses the concept of routing messages based on an identifier. For example, [0023] and [0042] make it clear that a primary account number (PAN) is used for routing credit card transactions to the appropriate card issuer. In [0062] and [0063], the use of a “reward identifier” is described, which indicates whether a message should be forwarded to the pooled rewards system or not.

The specific nature of the identifier – whether it be a BIN, a flag, or any other suitable identifier – is not relevant from a technical point of view and, therefore, cannot contribute to inventive step.

Finally, the Applicant formulated a technical problem and argued as follows:

11. In the appellant’s view, D2 offered an alternative solution to the problem posed, namely “how to deploy a gift card point of sale reward system for both credit card and gift card transactions whilst ensuring that these different types of transaction are separated and do not conflict with each other” (see statement of grounds of appeal, page 7, second paragraph). In D2, the BIN was only used for forwarding a credit card transaction to the correct credit card issuer once the reward flag was set. In contrast, forwarding a gift card transaction to the card management server based on a non-bank BIN was not obvious.

However, the Board did not agree with the applicant :

12. In the Board’s view, the above mentioned objective technical problem is not derivable from claim 1.

The claim merely defines sending a gift card transaction message from the POS to the gift card management server and receiving a reply message at the POS from the server. This does not involve sending a credit card transaction message and, consequently, does not address the relationship between credit card and gift card transaction messages.

The appellant’s argument that this was derivable from the feature “the gateway server being connected to a credit card formatter” is not convincing. The mere fact that the gateway server is connected to other components, such as a credit card formatter, says nothing about how these components are used in the transaction process.

Therefore, the Board refused the application.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0021/21 (Gift card network/IMIDUS) of June 13, 2024 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.

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Providing targeted fulfilment of phone protection plan: non-technical

The decision relates to providing targeted fulfilment of a phone protection plan. The examining division rejected the application as it was merely an obvious implementation of a commercial scheme for processing claims, focusing on business constraints rather than presenting a technical innovation.

The applicant argued that the system uses a predictive model, which enhances computational efficiency, thus providing rapid and accurate claim fulfilment. The Board disagreed and noted that if a model for claim fulfilment is set up in a unique manner that it is achieved faster, then this is a mere bonus effect of a business model. While. proper data selection may have an impact on and is important for prediction accuracy; it is, however, neither technical nor surprising. The fact that less data requires less processing power is an inevitable bonus effect resulting from the business-related calculations and, thus, cannot support an inventive step.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0905/21 (Providing targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device protection program/ASSURANT, INC) of May 27, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.0.

Key takeaways

If a model and an engine for claim fulfilment are set up in a unique manner, that claim fulfilment may be achieved faster, for example, in that the apparatus operates faster, then this is a mere bonus effect of a business model

A proper data selection may have an impact on and is important for prediction accuracy, which is, however, neither technical nor surprising. The fact that less data requires less processing power is an inevitable bonus effect resulting from the business related calculations and, thus, cannot support an inventive step

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns the provision of targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device protection plan, see [0001]. Wireless device protection plans or programs come in the form of insurance and warranty programs. They involve the payment of a premium by a user to cover for simple repairs or replacement of the insured device. These plans or programs include the ability to receive a replacement device of like kind and quality within a short period of time.

1.2 The invention addresses the issue that customer satis-faction is a key component in managing an effective wireless device protection program. It is desirable to provide improved mechanisms of providing fulfilment of claims in a wireless device protection program in order to have an increased likelihood of maintaining or improving customer satisfaction, see [0004].

1.3 The solution is the provision of a targeted fulfilment engine for execution of a predictive model that defines an aggregated weighted value that accounts for factors affecting multiple parties using a series of component weighted values. The model and apparatus increase the timeliness of the computer processing involved in the claim fulfilment process to meet the rigorous time requirements of claim fulfilment.

Claim 1 of Main Request (feature listing added by the board)

1. An apparatus comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the memory comprising instructions that cause the processor to configure the apparatus to:

receive claim information associated with a subscriber and a covered wireless device, the claim information indicative of a claim associated with a wireless device protection program; and

employ a predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfilment of the claim via a targeted fulfilment engine, the predictive model defining an aggregated weighted value for the plurality of options, the aggregated weighted value comprising:

a first component weighted value corresponding to a cost associated with each option of the plurality of options, the cost comprising a total cost to a provider of the wireless device protection program to provide each option;

a second component weighted value corresponding to a predicted benefit associated with each option of the plurality of options, the predicted benefit comprising a numeric indicator representing a desirability of each option to a wireless carrier, wherein the wireless carrier provides wireless service to the covered wireless device is not the provider of the wireless device protection program;

a third component weighted value corresponding to a functionality of the covered wireless device;

a fourth component weighted value corresponding to a functionality of a device with upgraded functionality relative to the covered wireless device; and

a fifth component weighted value corresponding to a predictive outcome of using each of the plurality of options to fulfil the claim, wherein the predictive outcome defines a likelihood of the subscriber expanding use of subscribed services in response to each option being used to fulfil the claim;

rank the plurality of options based at least in part on the aggregated weighted value of the plurality of options;

select a subset of the plurality of options based on the aggregated weighted value associated with each of the plurality of options;

present the selected subset for selection in an interface for selecting a claim fulfilment option; and

cause the claim to be fulfilled according to at least one of the plurality of options such that the predicted benefit associated with the at least one of the plurality of options is provided.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division considered that the subject-matter was an obvious implementation of a commercial scheme for processing user claims. In particular:

2.2 … The examining division argued that the fact that user claims have to be processed in a short period of time was a commercial constraint rather than a technical issue, see points 4.2, 4.3 and 6 of the impugned decision, and the provision of a model taking into account time constraints and other factors such as processing ability were not deemed to be technical solutions. Accuracy of fulfilment was understood as commercial accuracy and rigorous time requirements of a claim fulfilment was a business constraint.

The examining division further considered the use of an interface for presenting information to be notoriously known. Receiving information from a client terminal was seen to be well-known in the art and the reception of claim information in such a way was seen to be an obvious choice.

The Applicant argued that it was technical, for the following reasons:

2.3 The appellant contested the non-technical interpretation of the claimed scheme of processing user claims associated with a wireless device protection program. While greater customer loyalty might be a non-technical advantage of the invention, the appellant argued that they are a consequence of technical improvements of a reduced computer processing time and of the sharing of processing functions between multiple devices.

The appellant argued that claim 1 addresses the objective technical problem of how to provide rapid and accurate claim fulfilment, while maintaining a required level of complexity. The solution is a targeted fulfilment engine which is part of the operation of the apparatus itself, see [0024] of the patent application. It executes a unique predictive model. The unique model and apparatus increase the timeliness of the computer processing involved in the claim fulfilment process to meet the rigorous time requirements of a claim fulfilment. They make the apparatus operate more quickly.

The appellant thus considered that the manner in which the time limit is met relates to the actual behaviour of the computer system and is therefore technical. The claims require specific, in some instances, distinct apparatuses that improve the computational efficiency of the claimed apparatuses and systems by carrying out the steps of the claims.

However, the Board did not agree with the applicant :

2.4 The appellant’s arguments are not convincing. The application mentions time to correspond to the contract life remaining as part of the contractual commitment, see [0036] of the application. While [0044] and [0045] mention to reduce computation times for the fulfilment of a claim, which is achieved by the options manager, a part of the fulfilment engine (Figure 2), modifying predetermined options and by providing updated targeted fulfilment solutions or options for a subscriber. In this context, as explained in [0045], the rapidness or the time of fulfilment appears to depend on the type of customer, in other words, certain customers are selected for receiving claim fulfilment faster than others.

2.5 The Board therefore agrees with the examining division that time is – in this context – a mere business constraint. Furthermore, if a model and an engine for claim fulfilment are set up in a unique manner, that claim fulfilment may be achieved faster, for example, in that the apparatus operates faster, then this is a mere bonus effect of a business model.

Is any Auxiliary Request patentable?

As Auxiliary Request 1, the applicant added the step “receive a targeted fulfilment engine and a predictive model from at least one server via a data network” and reformulated the employment step in “employ the predictive model on the client terminal via the targeted fulfilment engine …”. The appellant argued that since the predictive model was performed at the client terminal without using significant computational processing power, it reduced the minimum processing power required by the client terminal, which was a technical problem. The Board did not agree with this argument:

3.3 The appellant’s arguments are not convincing.

The replacement of the term “apparatus” in claim 1 of the main request with the term “client terminal” does not lead to any surprising technical effect by operating the apparatus as a client terminal, or by simply naming it as such, and the appellant did not provide any new convincing arguments. It is well-known in the art that client terminals, such as mobile terminals, may have a limited battery life and may be provided with only minimum processing power, compared to stand-alone, wired computer systems.

As Auxiliary Request 2, the applicant added the step “prior to receiving claim information, calculate predetermined options for claim fulfilment for a subscriber”. This was said to provide the technical effect of “reducing computation times later on when a claim is initiated”.

3.7 The Board is not convinced by the appellant’s arguments. In T 1148/18, reasons, points 12 and 13, the Board, in a different composition, found that a proper data selection may have an impact on and is important for prediction accuracy, which is, however, neither technical nor surprising. The “data selection” in that case has the purpose of reducing the number of input variables which is comparable to the pre-calculation of the present invention. The Board shares the view expressed in T 1148/18, that the fact that less data requires less processing power is an inevitable bonus effect resulting from the business related calculations and, thus, cannot support an inventive step. The Board judges that this also applies to the pre-calculation of options according to present claim 1 and the effect of reduced processing power derived therefrom.

Therefore, the Board refused the application.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0905/21 (Providing targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device protection program/ASSURANT, INC) of May 27, 2024 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.

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Designing a geometrical three-dimensional modeled object by offloading specific tasks to the GPU : technical

The decision relates to an invention relating to designing a geometrical three-dimensional modeled object. The Examining Division considered the inputting a stroke on a screen plane was known, and neither the visualisation nor the repetition of the method steps with user-modified support achieved a further technical effect.

The applicant argued that computing resources were preserved for constructing the 3D-modelled object as GPU could be used for constructing the visualisation. The Board disagreed as the claim did not specify that GPU was used.

However, the Auxiliary Request (amended to indicate that certain steps were performed by the GPU) offloaded specific (simple and repetitive) tasks appropriate for the GPU and thus preserved the computing resources of a CPU or memory. Thus, the Board agreed it was technical.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1721/20 (Designing a geometrical three-dimensional modeled object/DASSAULT SYSTÈMES) of March 26, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07

Key takeaways

Constructing a different visualisation or presentation, for example, with construction’s steps towards a “ribbon-like” presentation (instead of a wireframe), is not a technical effect

How to achieve an efficient construction of a visualisation of a modelled object according to a desired geometric form is a technical problem

Offloading simple and repetitive tasks which is appropriate for the processing by a GPU contributed to preserving computing resources of the CPU and memory resources, and thus technical

The invention

Typically, a process such as designing a car includes a quick, rough sketch to capture the basic idea and then a more detailed, final drawing based on the sketch. The invention lets you draw and design 3D models directly on your computer without needing paper sketches first, making the process faster and more efficient. This is done by discretising and projecting the stroke into a set of points directly on a support in the three-dimensional scene, as well as constructing and visualising the 3D modelled object from these points and support.

Claim 1 of Main Request (feature listing added by the board)

A – Computer-implemented method for designing a three-dimensional modeled object that is an object without properties defined by mathematical equations, the three-dimensional object being created on a support by a stroke, the support being a surface in a three-dimensional scene, the method comprising:

B – user-interacting (S100) with a screen to activate pixels of the screen;- defining a stroke (S110) corresponding to the activated pixels of the screen;

C – discretizing the stroke (S120) into a set of points;

C1 – projecting the set of points (S130) onto atleast one support in the three-dimensional scene;

D – constructing the three-dimensional modeled object (S140) from the projected set of points and the said at least one support

D1 – by storing together in a file the positions of the projected set of points and data concerning the support;

E – constructing (S150) a visualization of the constructed three-dimensional modeled object by:

E1 – computing, for each point of the projected set of points, at least twooffset points (S153), an offset point being a point positioned on said at least one support and spaced from said each point; and

E2 – computing a surface (S155) delineated by the computed at least two offset points, the surface comprising the projected set of points;

F – displaying the constructed three-dimensional modeled object;

G – manipulating by the user the at least one support in the three-dimensional scene to create a second support that is a new support in the three-dimensional scene, another visualization of the three-dimensional modeled object being displayed in accordance with a new viewpoint; and

H – repeating the steps of the method with the second support in the three-dimensional scene.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division considered The Examining Division considered that inputting a stroke on a screen plane was known, and neither the visualisation nor the repetition of the method steps with user-modified support achieved a further technical effect.

The Board noted that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the main request over document D1 correspond to features C1, D, D1, E1 and E2, reproduced below:

C1 – projecting the set of points (S130) onto atleast one support in the three-dimensional scene;

D – constructing the three-dimensional modeled object (S140) from the projected set of points and the said at least one support

D1 – by storing together in a file the positions of the projected set of points and data concerning the support;

E1 – computing, for each point of the projected set of points, at least twooffset points (S153), an offset point being a point positioned on said at least one support and spaced from said each point; and

E2 – computing a surface (S155) delineated by the computed at least two offset points, the surface comprising the projected set of points;

Firstly, the Applicant argued that it was a new type of human-machine design:

11.1 The appellant argued that the distinguishing features interacted together and with the other method steps such that a new type of human-machine design interaction process was provided, having the ergonomic advantages of free-hand design, and the system’s responsiveness to the interactions was improved to provide fast visual feedback to the user during the design process of a 3D modelled object.

However, the Board considered the problem :

11.3 However, the board is of the opinion that the claimed invention does not have the aforementioned advantages over the method of document D1, which already provides the same type of ergonomic advantages of free-hand design of three-dimensional models with fast visual feedback during the design process.

Next, the applicant argued that it provided a reduced amount of computing resources for the construction of the 3D-modelled object:

11.5 The appellant argued that distinguishing feature D1 required storing data relative to pixels activated by the stroke. Feature D1 resulted in a reduced amount of computing resources needed for the construction of the 3D modelled object. Moreover, since computing resources did not limit the fluidity and flexibility of the user-machine design interaction, the ergonomics of the new user-machine interaction provided by the claimed invention was improved.

Again, the Board disagreed:

11.6 The board is not convinced that the amount of computing resources needed for the construction of the 3D modelled object is reduced compared with the system of document D1, for example. It is not apparent to the board in which sense the “pixel-based” construction of the 3D modelled object would be more “economical”, or how this would contribute to reducing the amount of computing resources needed for computing the visualisation when compared with document D1.

Finally, the Applicant argued that it provided visual feedback to the user during the design process while preserving computing resources:

1.7 The appellant argued that features E1 and E2 achieved the effect of providing visual feedback to the user during the design process while preserving computing resources. The construction of the visualisation used the stored data relative to the activated pixels to compute the offset points (reference was made to step S153 of Figure 1) and then a tessellation of the surface delineated by these offset points (reference was made to step S155 of Figure 1). This pixel-based construction further reduced the amount of computing resources needed for computing the visualisation in comparison to (the manipulation of) geometric modelled objects and a GPU could be used for constructing the visualisation (step S150), which again was enabled by the storing in step S140. As a result, the speed and fluidity, and thus the ergonomics, of the user-machine design interaction was improved, as lag or delay was reduced.

The Board did not find this argument convincing either:

11.8 The board does not find the appellant’s arguments convincing. Claim 1 does not specify that a GPU is used in the construction of the visualisation. Document D1 also provides visual feedback to the user during the design process (see, for example, Figure 3). The board further notes that claim 1 does not define a tessellation. The subject-matter of claim 1 merely comprises a step of “computing a surface delineated by the computed at least two offset points, the surface comprising the projected set of points” (see feature E2). This computation of the surface is not defined further in claim 1. The board is not convinced that the computation of the “surface delineated by the computed at least two offset points, the surface comprising the projected set of points” requires less computing resources than the system of document D1.

Therefore, it is not apparent from the subject-matter of claim 1 that lag or delay is reduced as compared to the method of document D1.

Therefore, the Board agreed with the Examining Division:

11.10 As stated by the examining division, the effect achieved by distinguishing features C1, D, E1 and E2 is to construct a different visualisation or presentation, for example with construction’s steps towards a “ribbon-like” presentation (instead of a wireframe, for example; see Figure 9 of the application), which is not a technical effect.

Is Auxiliary Request patentable?

The Applicant filed an Auxiliary Request with the following amendments:

Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that “coordinates of the support in the 3D scene” are stored (instead of “data concerning the support”) and in that it specifies in feature D1 that the position of the projected set of points and coordinates of the support in the 3D scene are stored in a CAD file, and in that steps E1 and E2 of computing offset points and a surface are performed by a GPU.

Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request (feature breakdown added by the board | Amendments in Bold)

A – Computer-implemented method for designing a three-dimensional modeled object that is an object without properties defined by mathematical equations, the three-dimensional object being created on a support by a stroke, the support being a surface in a three-dimensional scene, the method comprising:

B – user-interacting (S100) with a screen to activate pixels of the screen;- defining a stroke (S110) corresponding to the activated pixels of the screen;

C – discretizing the stroke (S120) into a set of points;

C1 – projecting the set of points (S130) onto atleast one support in the three-dimensional scene;

D – constructing the three-dimensional modeled object (S140) from the projected set of points and the said at least one support

D1 – by storing together in a CAD file the positions of the projected set of points and coordinates of the support in the 3D scene ~~data concerning the support~~;

E – constructing (S150) a visualization of the constructed three-dimensional modeled object by computing by a GPU:

E1 – ~~computing~~, at least two offset points (S153) for each point of the projected set of points, an offset point being a point positioned on said at least one support and spaced from said each point; and

E2 – ~~computing~~ a surface (S155) delineated by the computed at least two offset points, the surface comprising the projected set of points;

F – displaying the constructed three-dimensional modeled object;

G – manipulating by the user the at least one support in the three-dimensional scene to create a second support that is a new support in the three-dimensional scene, another visualization of the three-dimensional modeled object being displayed in accordance with a new viewpoint; and

H – repeating the steps of the method with the second support in the three-dimensional scene.

The Board acknowledged that the cited document did not disclose GPU in any phase of the generation and visualisation of the object model, but considered the feature of storing in a CAD file obvious.

The applicant argued that it :

14.6 With respect to the first auxiliary request, the appellant maintained essentially the same arguments it had made with respect to the main request (see points 11.1 and 11.2 above). The distinguishing features contributed to preserving computing resources of the CPU and memory resources. The enhanced responsiveness of the system improved the ergonomics in the context of the sketch-based design of claim 1, by providing immediate (real-time) visual feedback to the user.

..

14.8 As the appellant argued, document D1 states that while its mesh construction process takes place in real time, it causes a short pause (or “lag” in the wording of the appellant) of a few seconds when the model becomes complicated (see D1, section 6). The appellant noted that nothing in the section of document D1 entitled “Future Work” (see section 8 of D1) hinted at using the GPU to perform some parts of the construction or to change its mathematics. The construction of D1 used Delaunay triangulation, which was different from the construction of claim 1. In document D1, the steps of finding the chordal axis could not be performed by a GPU since that involved finding centroid points by solving a system of equations using inversion of matrices. It was not obvious to use a GPU to perform this type of computation.

14.9 The appellant argued that the CPU was the default computational unit of the computer. It was designed to handle any computation that the computer might have to perform. The GPU was designed to offload the computational burden on the CPU. It could not perform any computation, as the CPU could, but it could be used for some types of computation (typically “simple and repetitive tasks”), which offloaded the burden on the CPU (the appellant referred here to page 14, lines 21 to 28, of the application as filed). The GPU was faster than the CPU at these types of computation that the GPU could handle because it comprised more cores and parallelised the computations efficiently. Moreover, computing resources of the CPU were saved since the GPU could perform some of the computations in the claimed method, which was what the appellant meant by “less computing resources of the CPU being required”.

14.10 The board considers the problem to be solved by the distinguishing features as being “how to achieve an efficient construction of a visualisation of a modelled object according to a desired geometric form?”.

The Applicant then argued it was not obvious to provide a GPU for certain task:

14.12 The appellant argued that starting from document D1 the skilled person could, or even would, consider using a GPU since the use of a GPU was already known in the field of computer graphics . However, the generic mesh refinement of document D1 did not correspond to the specific computations of using offset points of features E1 and E2. Even if the skilled person had, in search for a solution to the objective technical problem, thought of consulting document D10 and of adding the solution disclosed in document D10 to the method of document D1, they would still not have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request. Starting from document D1, there was no reason to modify the computations. Document D1 used rounded strokes. None of the improvements presented in section 8 of document D1 related to solving the “lag” problem such that the visual feedback would be faster and improved. Furthermore, the other documents cited during examination proceedings, including D10, did not disclose the specific computations of features E1 and E2 of claim 1.

14.13 The board finds the appellant’s arguments regarding the offloading to the GPU of the simple and repetitive tasks of features E to E2 convincing. The board notes that step E1 consists in computing, for each point of the projected set of points, at least two offset points (S153), an offset point being a point positioned on the at least one support and spaced from said each point. The computation of the offset points for a projected set of points is simple. It is a task repeated for each projected set of points (which points, as argued by the appellant, can be ordered and labelled by indices). It might also be parallelised. Therefore, it is a specific task which is appropriate for the processing by a GPU. Therefore, the board is convinced that computing resources of a CPU or memory are preserved by the method of claim 1. As the appellant argued, features E, E1 and E2 are especially adapted for a GPU as they constitute simple repetitive tasks. None of the other cited documents describes the distinguishing features. Even if the skilled person starting from document D1 were to consider using a GPU, they would not have modified the model of document D1 in the particular manner of the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request.

Therefore, the Board agreed that the subject-matter of Auxiliary Request was inventive over the cited prior art.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1721/20 (Designing a geometrical three-dimensional modeled object/DASSAULT SYSTÈMES) of March 26, 2024 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.

* = Required field

Preston Richard

www.bardehle.com/de/team/richard-preston

Calculating reference noise/vibration from simulation or offline test: technical

The appeal stems from an Opposition against an invention relating to noise and vibration in wind turbines by using the processing unit that analysed detected noise/vibrations with reference characteristics from simulations and offline testing done using the generator’s rotational frequency and torque as input.

The Opponent argued that the processing unit was not sufficiently described, and using the specific input for simulation was obvious.

The Board agreed with the Patentee and noted that the gaps in disclosure would be filled using the common knowledge of the skilled person.

Calculating the reference characteristic of the noise/vibration component based on a simulation or offline test using a rotational frequency and the torque of the generator as input is considered technical. Since the prior art did not indicate that rotational frequency and torque are set, let alone used to calculate based on simulation or offline test, the subject-matter was considered inventive.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2048/21 of February 9, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.02

Key takeaways

The person skilled in the art would be able to fill these gaps in the disclosure of the patent taking into account the level of common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art. The common general knowledge of the skilled person includes profound knowledge of the implementation details of the control system and its components.

The relevant information [in the application] is normally limited to a schematic representation of the required processing blocks. Unless otherwise described, their technical implementation requires the use of standard components and/or algorithms, the existence and operation of which are fully known to the skilled person, and to which the skilled person can also make any necessary adaptations, at least within the limits of what is generally known to them.

Calculating the reference characteristic of the noise/vibration component based on a simulation or offline test using a rotational frequency and a torque of the generator as input is technical

The invention

This invention addresses the problem of noise and vibration in wind turbines, particularly those using permanent magnet synchronous generators (PMSG). Conventionally, this problem may be approached in the machine design phase. However, due to manufacturing limitations, a noise/vibration-free machine may not be possible. The invention provides a feedback control method with respect to the d-component of the current, allowing the drive to operate at reduced noise and vibration levels. The invention uses a noise/vibration detection module to measure the noise and vibrations in the wind turbine. A processing unit to analyse the detected noise/vibrations to understand their actual characteristics and compare them with reference characteristics. Finally, the reference determination module determines the reference noise/vibration characteristics from simulations and offline testing using the generator’s rotational frequency and torque as input.

”Claim

”]

[1.1] Arrangement (100,200,300,400) configured to determine a d-component (Idref, I*d) of a reference current in a dq coordinate system for reducing noise/vibration of a wind turbine (150), the arrangement characterized by:

[1.2] a noise/vibration determination module (419) configured to determine at least one noise/vibration component (421) of oscillations of at least one wind turbine component; and

[1.3] a processing block (402) configured to calculate a first type (407) of the d-component of the reference current based on the noise/vibration component (421) output by the noise/vibration determination module (419), wherein the processing block (402) comprises:

[1.3.1] a noise/vibration processing module (423) configured to obtain an actual characteristic (425) of at least one noise/vibration component of the determined at least one noise/vibration component;

[1.3.2] a reference determination module (427) configured to provide a reference characteristic (429) of the noise/vibration component; and

[1.3.3] a control module (437) configured to calculate the first type (407) of the d-component of the reference current based on a difference (433) between the actual characteristic (425) and the reference characteristic (429) of the noise/vibration component,

[1.3.2.1] wherein the reference determination module (427) is adapted to calculate the reference characteristic (429) of the noise/vibration component based on a simulation or offline test using a rotational frequency (mg) and a torque (Te) of the generator (161) as input.

Is it patentable?

The Opponent argued insufficiency of disclosure ( Art 83 EPC), particularly the information about the module for calculation of the reference current. The Board noted as follows:

1.9 The board further agrees with the appellant to the extent that the patent does not contain a detailed description of exactly which processes are carried out in the noise/vibration processing module 423 and how it is configured. The patent merely discloses in paragraph [0093] that “a suitable signal processing algorithm may be required”.

…

1.11 However, in the board’s view, the appellant’s conclusion that the person skilled in the art would not have been able to fill these gaps in the disclosure of the patent does not appropriately take into account the level of common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art as defined in point 1.8 above. The common general knowledge of the skilled person includes profound knowledge of the implementation details of the control system and its components, including those of the processing means required to make measured or estimated signals comparable with other types of signals (such as the reference characteristic 429), as well as technical details of the control module 437 that are necessarily implemented to calculate the Id current command 407 (first type of d-component) on the basis of a difference signal 433.

1.12 Furthermore, it is noted that the level of detail which the appellant has objected as being lacking in the patent is not normally found in patents or patent applications in this technical field. This understanding is also supported by the disclosure of documents E7 and E11. The relevant information is normally limited to a schematic representation of the required processing blocks. Unless otherwise described, their technical implementation requires the use of standard components and/or algorithms, the existence and operation of which are fully known to the skilled person, and to which the skilled person can also make any necessary adaptations, at least within the limits of what is generally known to them.

The patent contains nothing that could lead the skilled person to assume that the components required to carry out the invention and their configuration in the present case involve non-standard means which the skilled person does not know or cannot (re)configure.

1.13 Consequently, it can be reasonably assumed that the skilled person in the relevant technical field of the present invention is sufficiently familiar with the technical details required to implement the relevant processing components in practice…

The Board then addressed the objection to the lack of inventive step over document E11 (EP 2 552 012 A1):

3.2 The subject-matter of claim 1 at least differs from document E11 in feature 1.3.2.1, according to which the reference determination module is adapted to calculate the reference characteristic of the noise/vibration component based on a simulation or offline test using a rotational frequency and a torque of the generator as input.

3.7 The objective technical problem arising on the basis of document E11 and in the light of the distinguishing feature was identified by the appellant as the implementation of the “specified values” mentioned in paragraph [0071] of document E11.

The Opponent argued that the feature was disclosed in document D7 (EP 2 485 388 A1), which was rejected by the Board. Subsequently, the Opponent alleged it was obvious in view of the common general knowledge. However, the Board sided with the Patentee:

3.12 The board agrees with the respondent that paragraph [0071], in view of the use of “specified values” not equal to zero, alone cannot be considered as sufficient motivation for the skilled person to provide for a calculation of reference characteristics according to feature 1.3.2.1. In particular, the respondent has rightly argued that the “specified values” to be used according to paragraph [0071] in E11 could also simply be known to the skilled person in view of the design of the respective generator and set accordingly. There is therefore not even a clear hint in E11 for the skilled person to consider the rotational frequency and a torque to set the “specified values”, let alone to carry out a calculation based on simulation or offline test.

Furthermore, the multi-step considerations put forward by the appellant, which allegedly lead the skilled person to feature 1.3.2.1 on the basis of document E11 in combination with the common general knowledge of the skilled person, already demonstrate that it was not possible for the skilled person to arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 without further elaboration.

Moreover, the appellant’s argumentation is flawed by the fact that feature 1.3.2.1 does not claim a mere calculation of the reference characteristic “offline”, but by “offline test”, which is not the same thing. Thus, even if the reference characteristics (i.e. the non-zero “specified values” in paragraph [0071]) had been calculated offline, this does not mean that the skilled person would have calculated them on the basis of an offline test using the rotational frequency and torque of the generator.

Therefore, the Board agreed that the subject-matter was inventive over the cited document.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2048/21 of February 9, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.02

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Preston Richard

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request

Is it patentable?

Auxiliary Request

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 10 (itemisation of the features added by the board)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request (itemisation of the features added by the board)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request (itemisation of the features added by the board)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request (feature listing added by the board)

Is it patentable?

Is any Auxiliary Request patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 of Main Request (feature listing added by the board)

Is it patentable?

Is Auxiliary Request patentable?

Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request (feature breakdown added by the board | Amendments in Bold)

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

”Claim

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Latest Knowledge Base Entries