Author Archive

Concurrent event recognition on user interface: technical

The invention relates to recognizing events performed on the user interface. This was performed using concurrent processing, which was considered obvious by the Examining Division.

The applicant argued that the feature accelerates event recognition in general. While the Board disagreed with such a general effect, the Board accepted that the feature does provide a technical effect, namely, allowing views to recognize user input events comprised of sub-events, which is not in that view. 

The board accepts the technical effect that concurrency provides a degree of flexibility in handling the mentioned conflicts between objects within a hierarchy and allows for a speed up at least in certain situations. Furthermore, even though this speed-up is not achieved for all possible scenarios in question, the Board acknowledges that the skilled person would understand the options and limits of concurrency. Thus, the subject-matter was considered inventive.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1644/20 (Event recognition/APPLE) of April 11, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

To allow views to recognise user input events comprised by sub-events, not in that view, is a technical effect, as this adds new functionality to the user interface.

Concurrency provides a degree of flexibility in handling the mentioned conflicts between objects within a hierarchy, and allows for a speed up at least in certain situations. The board accepts this as a technical effect. Moreover, even though this speed up is not achieved for all possible scenarios in question, the board considers that the skilled person would understand the options and limits of concurrency.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

2.2 The application relates to recognising user interface “events” comprising one or more “sub-events” in an electronic device. The user interface can comprise a display and/or input devices such as a touch-sensitive surface. In the case of a touch-sensitive display , an event can be a touch-based gesture. The device may recognise a set of touch-based gestures, such as a tap, double tap, swipe, pinch or “depinch”. A gesture, being an event, com­pri­ses sub-events. For instance, the “tap” gesture starts with a “finger down” sub-event.

2.3 The invention concerns an application including a view hierarchy. The lowest (finest) view in the hierarchy is that in which a user input sub-event, such as a “finger down” sub-event (see above), is detected. This “hit view” then determines which views are to be “actively involved” in recognising the sub-events. Each view is associated with software including one or more “event recognizers”, each having an event definition based on one or more sub-events. When an event recogniser detects an event, an event handler specifies an action for a target and sends the action to the target.

2.4 Figure 3A illustrates a view hierarchy consisting of an outermost view (302) encompassing the entire user inter­face and including subordinate views (search results panel 304, search text field 306 and home row 310). Subordinate views, for instance the search results panel (304), may themselves contain subordinate views; see subordinate view 305 “Maps view” for each search result.

2.5 A touch sub-event 301-1 is processed by outermost view 302 and, depending on its location, the subordinate views that it lies in, such as search results panel 304 and maps view 305, shown in figure 3A as 301-2 and 301-3. Hence the “actively involved” views of the touch sub-event (dotted circles 301-1, 301-2 and 301-3) shown in figure 3A include the views outermost view 302, search results panel 304 and maps view 305.

2.6 Figures 3B and 3C illustrate methods and structures related to event recognisers, the claims being directed to the case in figure 3B in which event handlers are associated with particular views within a hierarchy of views. The hit view determination module (314) establishes whether a sub-event has taken place within one or more views  and, if so, identi­fies the lowest view in the view hierarchy as the “hit-view”. The “actively involved” views receive not only the first sub-event but also all following ones related to the same touch source, even if the gesture leaves the hit view. For each of the actively involved views, one or more gesture recognisers, as illustrated in figures 4A, 4B and 5A to 5C (see [84-105]), use a state machine to identify a predefined sequence of sub-events to recognise a gesture such as a “scrolling event”.

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

The closest prior art (D1 -US 5 627 959 A) relates to displaying graphic objects on a screen and using a mouse to control a pointer on the screen to manipulate the objects, and the distinguishing feature was identified as follows:

6.3 The board finds that, in view of the above analysis, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from the disclosure of D1 in the following steps:

a. the hit view establishes multiple views in the view hierarchy as actively involved views in which the first sub-event is detected, wherein the actively involved views comprise the hit view;

b. delivering a respective sub-event of the input event to input event recognizers for each view of the multiple actively involved views within the view hierarchy and

c. at the input event recognizers for the actively involved views in the view hierarchy, concurrently processing the respective sub-event prior to concurrently processing a next sub-event in the sequence of sub-events of the input event at the input event recognizers for each actively involved view in the view hierarchy.

The applicant initially argued for a general technical effect, which the Board disagreed to:

6.4 Regarding the effect of these difference features, the board is not convinced that they accelerate event recognition in general. Concurrent processing, as opposed to parallel processing, cannot speed up the overall execution of all tasks. Notably if one uses non-parallel hardware, the overall execution time cannot improve if one carries out the individual tasks in an interleaved manner. One might achieve a speed increase in the situation in which the overall computation requires only some of the individual tasks to complete. For example, if, once the first (or the first few) event recogniser has recognised a series of sub-events as an event, all other recognisers were terminated. The board also notes that the invention does not change the variety of sub-event sequences that can be recognised. The ABO in D1 can recognise sub-events, and, in the same way, each recogniser in claim 1 can recognise an event comprising a single sub-event.

However, the Board agreed that the feature does have a different technical effect:

6.5 The board finds however that the difference features do have a technical effect, namely to allow views to recognise user input events comprised by sub-events not in that view. For instance, a scrolling event (see figure 5A) in the maps view (305) in figure 3A can be recognised by a recogniser of the search results panel view (304). This adds a new functionality to the user interface, since the maps view cannot itself scroll, but the search results panel view (304), being a list, can.

The Board then considered that the feature was not obvious to the skilled person starting from the closest prior art:

6.6 In the system of D1, it may happen that two objects above each other in the hierarchy are both able to process a mouse event. If the user intends to interact with one of these objects via a sequence of mouse events, it may happen that another object covers it and receives the mouse events against the user’s wishes. The board considers that this situation is undesirable and also that the user would recognise this situation as undesirable. Addressing this shortcoming of D1 would therefore have been obvious. The board considers that the skilled person would have addressed the problem of avoiding the problem that it is difficult, even impossible at times, for the user to interact with objects higher up in the hierarchy – or, equivalently, more in the background of the user interface.

6.7 The board sees several ways of approaching this problem. One is to instruct the user to always interact with a visible part of the object of interest. Another would be to define the events in such a way that there is no ambiguity as to which event is addressed to which object. Both may not be possible for practical reasons. Yet another option seems to be to send a sequence of events to the event recognisers of several or all objects covering one another. This choice already differs substantially from the solution proposed in D1. And it still lacks the claimed concurrent execution of event handlers. This concurrency however provides a degree of flexibility in handling the mentioned conflicts between objects within a hierarchy, and allows for a speed up at least in certain situations. The board accepts this as a technical effect. Moreover, even though this speed up is not achieved for all possible scenarios in question – in particular event definitions and conflict resolution “policies” – the board considers that the skilled person would understand the options and limits of concurrency.

6.8 The board agrees with the applicant that D1 contains no hint of a plurality of objects processing and possibly recognising user input sub-events concurrently, as set out in difference features “a” to “c” above.

6.9 The board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request involves an inventive step in view of the disclosure of D1.

Therefore, the Board agreed that the subject-matter was inventive over the cited document and remitted the application to the first instance for further examination.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1644/20 (Event recognition/APPLE) of April 11, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Training distilled machine learning models: non-technical

The invention relates to machine learning models such as deep neural networks. This is an interesting decision, as it involves the interplay between showing technical effect and the requirement for sufficient disclosure.

The Examining Division considered that the technical effect of the training distilled model cannot be acknowledged.  The applicant argued that the feature provide classification result using fewer resources. The Board disagreed with the applicant.

While the distilled model has reduced the storage or computational requirements of a machine learning model, it is insufficient, by itself, to establish a technical effect, as one also has to consider the performance of the “reduced” learning model. The Board found that it was not credible in general that any model with fewer parameters can be as accurate as the more complex one it is meant to replace. While it appeared possible, the application lacked any information in that regard. Thus, the subject-matter was considered not inventive.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1425/21 (Distilled Machine Learning Models/Google) from February 07, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Features defining the distilled model and its training, as a difference to a known cumbersome learning model, are mathematical methods that cannot be taken into account for inventive step unless they contribute in a causal manner to a tech­nical effect.

The distilled model has reduced memory requirements when compared to the cumbersome model. However, a reduction in storage or computational requirements of a machine learning model is insufficient, by itself, to establish a technical effect. One also has to consider the performance of the “reduced” learning model.

It is not credible in general that any model with fewer parameters can be as accurate as the more complex one it is meant to replace.

Technical effect cannot be acknowledged over the whole scope of the claim, i.e., for all sets of smaller and larger models, as a smaller model that uses fewer resources, cannot be said to produce the same results, as many smaller models will, in fact, be considerably worse.

In principle, it appears possible to argue that the smaller model represents a “good” trade-off between resource requirements and accuracy, i.e that the smaller model may be less accurate but have (predic­tably) smaller resource requirements. However, the application lacks any information in that regard.

 The person skilled in the art must be able to carry out the invention over the whole scope of the claim, i.e. for any classification task and given larger model.

The claims cannot be construed as excluding instan­ces that turn out not to work. Thus, the argument that a skilled person will exclude non-working embodiments that do not fall under the scope of the claim cannot succeed.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application relates to machine learning models such as deep neural networks. It proposes to approximate “cumbersome” machine learning models with “distilled” machine learning models which require less computation and/or memory when deployed. For instance the distilled model may be a neural network with fewer layers or fewer parameters. The cumbersome model may be an ensemble classifier, possibly combining full classifiers with specialist classifiers. The distilled model is trained on a “plurality of training inputs” and the associated outputs of the cumbersome model, so as to “generate outputs that are not significantly less accurate than outputs generated by the cumbersome machine learning model” (page 1).

1.1 The training procedure aims at minimizing the differences between the “soft outputs” of the distilled model and those of the cumbersome model on the given training inputs, e.g. through backpropagation (page 6).

1.2 The soft outputs represent a class probability obtained according to a form of the softmax equation using a “temperature” parameter T, which is set higher during training than during subsequent use (see description page 4, see claim 1 of all requests).

Fig.1 of EP 3557491 A1

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division agreed that it had two distinguishing features:

(a) the second machine learning model (distilled machine learning model) has fewer parameters than the first machine learning model (cumbersome machine learning model) such that generating output from the second machine learning model requires less memory than generating output from the first machine learning model; and

(b) the second machine learning model is trained based upon a soft score satisfying a particular form as set out in claim 1.

However, the Examining Division was of the opinion that these two differences did not provide a technical effect.

4.1 The training procedure based on a particular form of softmax was “not based on technical considerations as regards the functioning of the one or more computers” and did not serve a technical purpose (14.3).

4.2 Although it accepted that the distilled model required less storage, it argued that a technical effect could not be acknowledged on that basis because

(a) the claim allowed for both learning machines to co-exist on the same computer (14.4 and 14.5),

(b) no technical details of the device, on which the second machine learning model may run, were specified (14.4, but also 18.2).

The applicant disagreed, and in the appeal, argued as follows:

7. The goal of the claimed invention was to provide classi­fication results using fewer resources: the smaller “distilled” model should classify as well as the larger “cumbersome” model. The claim itself did not cover any pair of learning models but it did define structural and functional limitations on them.

7.1 The learning models were limited structurally, as their outputs were obtained in a specific manner, namely as “soft outputs”. These did not single out one class but represented a set of probability values for the different classes.

7.2 The learning models were also limited functionally,as the smaller model was claimed to output soft scores that “matched” those of the smaller one.

8. The process of training the smaller model on the basis of the outputs of the larger one transferred knowledge from the larger to the smaller model. That knowledge was the classification capability of the larger model, not its specific way of fitting the data. Therefore, the second, smaller, model, needed not be as complex as the first one, as it only needed to be able to produce equivalent output scores.

8.1 This transfer was enabled by the way the temperature parameter of the soft score outputs was set. It was larger during training than in use, so as to allow for learning, but to produce sharp results when used. This concept worked in principle for any types of models.

In the preliminary opinion, the Board alleged a lack of sufficiency of disclosure, which was also relevant in the interpretation of claim feature, to which the applicant argued as follows:

9. The Appellant also stated that the invention was made in an extremely fast moving field in which specific details of the models and their parameters would quickly be out of date. Accordingly, indicating such details and parameters was not useful and should not be required in a patent application.

9.1 The skilled person in this field was highly skilled, had an extensive knowledge of available architectures and types of networks, and would be able to select the most suitable ones for the task at hand. The skilled person would also know, in view of the task at hand, which precision was required, i.e. when the outputs could be said to “match”.

9.2 The Appellant acknowledged that the skilled person had to carry out some, but not an unreasonable number of experiments to select appropriate models. According to T 312/88, reasons 3.3, a small number of routine expe­ri­ments was not an undue burden on the skilled person and not detrimental for patentability (albeit, in that case, with respect to sufficiency of disclosure).

10. The Appellant also argued that pairs of models which were unsuitable for the task were not within the scope of the claim, because the claims were limited to models with matching outputs. Accordingly, all models which were covered by the claim provided the technical effect.

11. The Appellant stated that, according to established case law of the boards of appeal, for a method of the type claimed, i.e. a computer implemented mathematical method, a technical effect could be acknowledged either because the method was applied to solve a specific technical problem, or because its implementation had to be considered technical. The latter was the case here. The claimed method provided for reduced memory use with “matching” (i.e. the same or equivalent) classification results, so that a technical effect was present.

12. The invention was defined by the specific form of the output – soft scores with temperature parameter – and the way the temperature parameter was used to obtain a reduced model with equivalent classification abilities. It was therefore justified to seek protection without a limitation to any specific learning models or application contexts.

The Board disagreed with the applicant and considered that the features were not

16. The Board notes that the features differentiating the invention from D1, or even the entire set of features defining the distilled model and its training, as a difference to a known cumbersome learning model, are mathematical methods which cannot, under the estab­lished case law of the boards of appeal (the “COMVIK” approach), be taken into account for inventive step unless they contribute in a causal manner to a tech­nical effect.

17. It accepts that the distilled model has reduced memory requirements when compared to the cumbersome model; after all this is expressly claimed. However, a reduction in storage or computational requirements of a machine learning model is insufficient, by itself, to establish a technical effect. One also has to consider the performance of the “reduced” learning model (see decision T 702/20, reasons 14.1, from this same Board).

18. It is not credible in general that any model with fewer parameters can be as accurate as the more complex one it is meant to replace. For example, the complexity or architecture of the reduced model may be insufficient or inadequate for the given problem.

19. The Board disagrees with the Appellant’s counter-argument that the invention (by “knowledge transfer” see point 8 above) reliably ensures that any given smaller network can provide the same accuracy as the given larger one. The input and output complexity is the same for both networks. Hence, also the smaller network must be complex enough to be able to model the input-output relationship (see e.g. D1, section 4.3, for a discussion on accuracy and complexity of approximating classifiers of a single type).

19.1 The Board also does not see that the temperature-based training process ensures that the smaller model has an equivalent accuracy. It is not clear how exactly the temperature must be first set (for both models), and then varied, and what accuracy may be expected. The application simply does not discuss this.

19.2 Since, in the Board’s view, the claim does not imply a step of selecting or obtaining a smaller model, but simply defines one as a given, the Appellant’s arguments relating to trial and error are not pertinent (and even if they were, they would not succeed, see below).

20. The Board concludes therefore that the technical effect advanced by the Appellant (see point 11 above) cannot be acknowledged over the whole scope of the claim, i.e. for all sets of smaller and larger models. The second model may use fewer resources, but it cannot be said to produce the same results and many smaller models will, in fact, be considerably worse.

20.1 In principle, it appears possible to argue that the smaller model represents a “good” trade-off between resource requirements and accuracy, i.e that the smaller model may be less accurate but have (predic­tably) smaller resource requirements. However, the application lacks any information in that regard.

20.2 Since no technical effect can be acknowledged, claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step.

Finally, the Board noted that the argument of the applicant could not be accepted, because if they were, the application was not sufficiently disclosed for skilled person to carry out practice over the full scope:

21. As discussed with the Appellant during the oral proceedings, the Appellant’s interpretation of the claim would give rise to an objection under Article 83 EPC. This objection, on which this decision does not rely, is presented here for the sake of argument.

22. Were the Board to adopt the interpretation of the Appellant, and assume that the claim implies a step of selecting a suitable smaller model, the Board disagrees with the argument that the skilled person would be able to provide smaller networks with reduced memory needs and equivalent accuracy with only “few routine tests” for all classification tasks.

23. The application itself does not guide the skilled person towards an understanding as to which distilled models might replace which cumbersome models, and how accurate they might be in comparison. No examples of pairs of cumbersome and distilled learning models are provided, nor are any results showing the performance of the distilled models.

23.1 While the skilled person might be aware of the various architectures and types of networks available from common general knowledge, the number of these possi­bi­lities is quite large. For each of them, downsizing can be done in different ways, by reducing the number of layers, of neurons, of weights etc., and each of these in various ways.

23.2 The trial-and-error process would also have to keep an eye on the desired trade-off between size and accuracy as already discussed above, which is not a simple endeavour. The performance of machine learning models is not easily predictable and can vary considerably according to the task at hand (see e.g. again D1).

24. Further, the Board does not see that the temperature-based training process as claimed simplifies the trial-and-error process. As already stated, the application simply does not discuss how exactly the temperature must be set and varied and what accuracy gains, if any, may be expected.

25. The Board further notes that the person skilled in the art must be able to carry out the invention over the whole scope of the claim, i.e. in principle for any classification task and given larger model. The claims cannot be, a priori, be construed as excluding instan­ces which (e.g. after trial and error) turn out not to work (see T 748/19 reasons 13 to 13.2). Thus the argu­ment of the Appellant that non-working embodiments do not fall under the scope of the claim cannot succeed.

25.1 The Board is therefore of the opinion that the appli­cation does not sufficiently teach how to carry out in practice the claimed invention. It rather only sketches out an idea whose implementation over the full scope of the claim requires a separate research program.

Therefore, the Board rejected the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1425/21 (Distilled Machine Learning Models/Google) from February 07, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Redistributing workload between active servers upon network change: technical

The invention relates to the load distribution mechanism in a distributed database system. The Examining Division alleged that the invention lacked an inventive step as the implementation was a normal design option, and it was unclear what technical problem had been solved.

The applicant argued that it was possible to redistribute workload between active servers upon network change. The Board agreed with the applicant and considered that a skilled person would not arrive at the claimed invention by solving the problem of routing work. However, as the cited document was directed to localised load redistribution, which is conceptually the opposite of the claimed invention, the Board remitted the case for further examination.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0928/19 (Load distribution/NOKIA) from March 14, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Redistributing workload between the active servers upon a network change is a technical effect.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application relates to a load distribution mechanism in a distributed database system using front-end servers and back-end servers, the front-end servers to route requests for specific data items to the back-end server storing the requested item. For routing, the front-end servers use a lookup table with entries of the form pair, the key being the hash of the query search key, and the value the corresponding data address (description page 1, background section).

2. The application addresses in particular the problem of front-end server failures, or of server addition. These events are likely to result in less evenly distributed system load and also, for the former case, losses of data (pages 2 and 3).

2.1 The application proposes to split the lookup table between the set of active servers according to a partitioning table – e.g. by splitting the hash values in equal ranges. One of the active servers acts as a master server which, upon a change in the number of servers, recalculates the partitioning table, i.e. the ranges of hash values, and sends it to all other active servers (pages 5, 6 and 9). The servers communicate with each other to transfer the needed lookup entries in accordance with the new partitioning table.

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it lacked inventive steps in document D1 (US 2005/114862 A1), as the implementation was a normal design option, and it was unclear what technical problem had been solved.

The Board acknowledged that the claimed invention aimed to achieve a technical effect, provided all the essential features were included in the claim:

7. The Board expressed the preliminary view that the claimed invention achieved its technical effect of redistributing workload between the active servers upon a network change only by collaboration between the master server and all other active servers. Separately claiming the partial methods to be carried out on either of them would therefore lack essential features, Article 84 EPC. An independent claim should thus comprise all the steps of re-calculating the first (partitioning) look-up table at the master server and generating the new modified partition of the second (data) lookup table at each (not only at one) of the active servers, as essential features of the invention.

In view of the amended claim, the Board identified the distinguishing features as follows:

12. To summarise, D1 discloses two main alternative approa­ches, a centralised and a decentralised approach, both using a set of active servers sharing the workload. In the decentralised approach there is no centralised look up table, whereas in the centralised one there is one, kept on one server. A master server may be said to be present, temporarily, during the redistribution of the workload.

13. An essential difference between the claimed invention and D1, whichever the approach considered, is the use of a, otherwise well-known (see DA1), front-end/back-end server architecture, where the front-end servers route the “work” to the appropriate servers. Such architecture is normally employed to ease and simplify routing to the servers doing the work, i.e. the back-end servers.

13.1 The decentralised approach in D1 has its own, specifically developed, routing mechanism (see 8.4 above). The Board does not see that front-end servers fit into this in any obvious way.

13.2 In the centralised approach, the skilled person might find problematic that the map function, i.e. the partitioning table as claimed, is stored only on one server, which might become overloaded. It might then appear obvious to add a layer of front-end servers, notwithstanding the fact that D1 itself has another solution to this problem, namely the aforementioned decentralised approach. But even if front-end servers were added, the skilled person would apply the teaching of D1 concerning the work redistribution, in particular that concerning table repartitioning by a temporary master server, to the active servers according to D1, which are effectively back-end servers.

13.3 So the Board does not see that the skilled person would arrive at the claimed invention by solving the problem of routing work to the active servers of D1.

Finally, the Board agreed with the applicant that it was not obvious to arrive at the subject-matter of the claim:

16. The Board acknowledges that the skilled person starting from D1, in order to arrive at the claimed invention in the manner considered would have to make a few crucial decisions.

16.1 First, the skilled person would have to decide to apply the teaching of D1 to front-end servers. Notably however, the function of the active servers of D1 is to process the workload itself, the servers thus appearing rather as back-end servers.

16.2 Second, if there were problems with having one table on one server only, the skilled person would have to decide not to use the local decentralised approach which is expressly disclosed in D1 and which the skilled person would be inclined to prefer.

16.3 And third, even if the skilled person were to deviate from the express disclosure of D1 and not use the local decentralised approach, the skilled person would still need to decide to distribute the partitioning table to all front-end servers.

17. Reconsidering the facts of the case, and in particular the teachings of D1, in view of the above, the Board follows the Appellant and comes to the conclusion that the skilled person could have arrived at the invention as laid out above, but that it cannot be asserted that he or she would have.

The Board considered the subject-matter was inventive over document D1. However, the Board considered that the cited document related to localised load distribution, which was the opposite of the claimed invention. Therefore, it was possible that more relevant prior art may exist. Therefore, the Board remitted the case to the Examining Division for further search.

More information

You can read the full decision here:T 0928/19 (Load distribution/NOKIA) from March 14, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Managing cached search result: technical

The invention relates to managing pre-computed search results. The Examining Division alleged that the invention lacked an inventive step as it saw no technical problem that was solved over the prior art.

However, the applicant argued that distinguishing features achieved the technical effect of more efficient utilization of the computation resources in that the computational resources were more likely used to re-compute actually invalid pre-computed search results than valid pre-computed search results.

The Board noted that a more accurate estimation of the current validity probabilities of cached search results leads to an improved trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute/update cached search results and the actual validity of the cached search results. Improved caching mechanism, in principle represents a technical effect.

While there can be no general guarantee that a specific unexpected event also has a significant effect on the validity of the search results, it is not unreasonable to assume that the effect of an unexpected event in different shares is similar to the effect of past unexpected events and is therefore reflected in the measured correlation over time. The board therefore has no sound reason to doubt that, on average, the distinguishing features do improve the accuracy of the validity probabilities

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0576/21 (Managing pre-computed search results/AMADEUS) from November 21, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

Improving the trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute pre-computed search results and the actual validity of the pre-computed search results is a technical problem.

Improved caching mechanism, in principle represents a technical effect.

While there can be no general guarantee that a specific unexpected event also has a significant effect on the validity of the search results, it is not unreasonable to assume that the effect of an unexpected event in different shares is similar to the effect of past unexpected events and is therefore reflected in the measured correlation over time. The board therefore has no sound reason to doubt that, on average, the distinguishing features do improve the accuracy of the validity probabilities.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application

1.1 The background section of the application, on page 1, lines 11 to 17, explains that maintaining a cache of pre-computed search results which can be returned in response to search queries helps to shorten query response times. Since the data which forms the basis for the pre-computation of the search results changes over time, the cached pre-computed search result may get outdated and therefore have to be regularly updated by re-computing them (see also page 6, lines 12 to 22).

1.2 Since computational resources are generally limited, only a selected number of the pre-computed search results can be re-computed within a certain period of time (page 6, lines 24 to 29). Typically, update strategies for selecting the search results to be updated are based on probabilistic models for estimating the current validity probability of the pre-computed search results (page 7, lines 8 to 20).

1.3 The invention aims to improve the estimated validity probabilities by adjusting them when an “unexpected or unpredictable” event is detected which is not accounted for in the probability model (page 7, line 33, to page 8, line 16).

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it lacked inventive steps in document D1 (WO 2013/160721 A1), and the problem to be solved referred to a non-technical decision.  The Board identified the distinguishing feature as follows:

5.5 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of document D1 in that:

– the pre-computed search results are subdivided into a plurality of shares of related pre-computed search results having identical or similar validity trends;

– the re-computation controller derives an instantaneous validity rate λ^D for a share D from the two latest re-computations of the pre-computed search results included in the share D;

– when the instantaneous validity rate for the share D exceeds the validity trend for a pre-computed search result i in the share by a given extent, the re-computation controller decreases the validity probabilities associated with the pre-computed search results in a correlated second share D’ by an amount which depends on the difference between the instantaneous validity rate for the share D and the validity trend for the pre-computed search result i,

– where the shares D and D’ are correlated if the correlation coefficient of the instantaneous validity trends λ^D and λ^D’ over time exceeds a given threshold.

These distinguishing features relate to the estimation of the validity probabilities indicating whether pre-computed results may be outdated and thereby to the determination of the pre-computed results with lower validity probabilities which are to be re-computed before pre-computed results with higher validity probabilities.

With respect to technical effect, the Board agreed with the appellant as follows

5.6 The appellant argued that the distinguishing features achieved the technical effect of a more efficient utilisation of the computation resources in that the computational resources were more likely used to re-compute actually invalid pre-computed search results than valid pre-computed search results. If the instantaneous validity rate in share D suddenly dropped, for example due to an unexpected event that was not reflected in the probabilistic model represented by the validity trends of the pre-computed search results, it was likely that the instantaneous validity rate in the correlated share D’ showed the same behaviour. This meant that the current validity probabilities of the pre-computed search results in share D’ were too high and should be reduced.

5.7 The board accepts that a more accurate estimation of the current validity probabilities of pre-computed (i.e. cached) search results leads to an improved trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute/update cached search results and the actual validity of the cached search results because the strategy used to decide which cached search result to update next will take its decision on the basis of more accurate information. The board further accepts that such an improved caching mechanism in principle represents a technical effect (cf. decisions T 117/10, Reasons 4; T 729/21, Reasons 9.4).

5.8 In its communication the board expressed doubt, however, that the distinguishing features did indeed result in a better estimation of the validity probabilities of the pre-computed search results in the share D’, in particular because claim 1 of the then main request did not define what it meant for pre-computed search results to be “related” and for shares to be “correlated”.

Present claim 1 overcomes these concerns by specifying that related pre-computed search results have identical or similar validity trends and that shares are correlated if the development over time of the past values of their instantaneous validity rates show a sufficient correlation.

5.9 The board notes that there can be no general guarantee that a specific unexpected event which causes a drop of the instantaneous validity rate for a share D by invalidating a significant number of its pre-computed search results also has a significant effect on the validity of the pre-computed search results in a correlated share D’. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to assume that the effect of an unexpected event on the validity of pre-computed search results in different shares is similar to the effect of past unexpected events and is therefore reflected in the measured correlation over time between the instantaneous invalidity rates calculated for different shares. The board therefore has no sound reason to doubt that, on average, the distinguishing features do improve the accuracy of the validity probabilities.

5.10 Hence, the board accepts that the distinguishing features solve the technical problem of improving the trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute pre-computed search results and the actual validity of the pre-computed search results.

The Board considered the subject-matter was inventive. Therefore, the case is remitted with the order to grant a patent.

More information

You can read the full decision here:T 0576/21 (Managing pre-computed search results/AMADEUS) from November 21, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Automatic association of medical elements: technical

The invention relates to the administration of medication, with interesting aspects of technical subject-matter and method of treatment (Art. 53(c) EPC – Exception to patentability subject matter)

The Examining Division alleged that the invention lacked an inventive step as it saw no technical problem that was solved over the prior art. In addition, it expressed doubts about the allowability of selecting a medication concerning Article 53(c) EPC.

However, the Board noted that enabling the clinician/caregiver to choose the correct medication from a plurality of medications is a technical effect and solves the technical problem such that the “five rights” are still ensured in the presence of a plurality of medications. And since selecting a medication only concerns operating the medical device such that human handling errors are avoided, it has no functional link to the effects of the (unclaimed kind of) medication on the body of the patient. Thus, it is not a method of treatment that forms a barrier to patentability (Art 53(c) EPC).

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 3124/19 (Automatic association of medical elements/CAREFUSION) from December 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

Enabling the clinician/caregiver to choose the correct medication from a plurality of medications is a technical effect and solves the technical problem of how to improve such that the “five rights” are still ensured in the presence of a plurality of medications.

Selecting a medication for a patient can have a therapeutic effect only if the selection is performed taking into account the kind of illness to be treated, in the sense that a medication is selected that has, for that kind of illness, a known, beneficial effect on the body of the patient.

However, selecting a medication only concerns operating the medical device such that human handling errors are avoided has no functional link to the effects of the (unclaimed kind of) medication on the body of the patient. Thus, it is not a method of treatment that forms a barrier to patentability (Art 53(c) EPC).

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

The application and the invention relate to providing an improved automated process to ensure the “five rights” of medication administration (right patient, right time, right medication, right route of administration, right dose) in a hospital (see paragraph [0002] of the description). In particular, the time-consuming steps of manually scanning bar codes to identify, e.g., the patient, the caregiver and the medication can be eliminated using a real-time locating system (paragraphs [0003] to [0006].

  • Claim 1 (sole request - labeling added by the Board)

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it saw no technical problem that was solved over the prior art. In addition, it expressed doubts about the allowability of selecting a medication concerning Article 53(c) EPC. According to the Decision, the prior art document D2 (US 2004/019464 A1) was summarised as follows:

2. The relevant prior art

D2 discloses a patient care system. Although not explicitly mentioned as such, ensuring the “five rights” of medication administration is one of the aims of D2 (see paragraph [0055]). The disclosed system involves identifiers of clinicians, patients, medications and medical devices (see paragraph [0052]). The embodiments described in detail use bar code scanning for identification purposes, but D2 also refers to the use of RFID (see paragraphs [0022] and [0066]), that is to a real-time locating system.

The Board then considered D2 as the closest prior art and identified that it failed to disclose how a particular medication is selected when more than one medication is detected. Based on this, the Board formulated the problem as follows:

5.4 Technical effect / objective technical problem

When RFID is used to identify objects, more than one object of the same type may in the range of the system and consequently be detected. This may, in principle, also happen in a hospital where medications are to be detected by RFID. The technical effect of the distinguishing features is thus that the clinician/caregiver is enabled to choose the correct medication in such a situation. The objective technical problem might then be formulated as how to improve the system of D2 such that the “five rights” are still ensured in the presence of a plurality of medications.

Then, the Board assessed if it was obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the solution starting from document D2.

5.5 Obviousness

5.5.1 In its detailed embodiments, D2 refers to bar code scanning. With this technology, a plurality of medications present at the treatment location would not be a problem, because only one of them would be bar code scanned by the clinician. When the bar code scanning referred to in the detailed embodiments of D2 is to be replaced by its alternative RFID suggested in paragraphs [0022] and [0066] of D2, the skilled person would normally consider to use an RFID system with a similar range as bar code scanning, that is a few centimetres (using e.g. an NFC system). In that case, the above-mentioned problem would not arise, either.

It is thus likely that the skilled person, starting from D2, would not come across the issue addressed by the distinguishing features.

The skilled person, starting from D2, would thus probably not even consider that the above-mentioned problem needs to be solved.

…

5.5.3 The board thus concludes that the skilled person, starting from D2, would first of all not be aware that the objective technical problem defined above was to be solved at all. Further, even if it was aware of that problem and tried to solve it, it would arrive at a different solution than the one presented in claim 1.

Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is inventive in view of D2 and the common general knowledge. Since D1 does not refer to medications at all, it has no relevance for the assessment of inventive step.

Finally, the Board addressed the doubt expressed by the Division if such a method would be considered a method of treatment and thus fall under the exception to patentability:

6. Exceptions to patentability – Article 53(c) EPC

The examining division expressed “considerable doubt” as to whether the step of selecting a medication constituted medical treatment and thus formed a barrier to patentability.

The board is of the opinion that selecting a medication for a patient can have a therapeutic effect only if the selection is performed taking into account the kind of illness to be treated, in the sense that a medication is selected that has, for that kind of illness, a known, beneficial effect on the body of the patient.

In the present case, however, the kind of illness does not play a role. Instead, the purpose of the claimed selection step is to make sure that a medication is administered that was previously chosen as appropriate, in a step preceding and therefore not being part of the claimed method.

That is, in the present case, the step of selecting a medication only concerns operating the medical device such that human handling errors are avoided. It has no functional link to the effects of the (unclaimed kind of) medication on the body of the patient (see section 4.3.2 of the Reasons for the Decision of decision G1/07).

The board therefore believes that in the present case, the step of selecting a medication (features e4) and e4′)) does not form a barrier to patentability of the independent claims, contrary to the remark of the examining division.

The Board considered the invention solved a technical problem and that Article 53(c) EPC also does not apply. Therefore, the case is remitted with the order to grant a patent.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 3124/19 (Automatic association of medical elements/CAREFUSION) from December 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Accessing cookies from different domains: technical

The invention relates to monitoring media and determining media impressions using distributed demographic information.

The Examining Division refused the application, alleging that accessing cookies from different domains was considered administrative in nature and the problem was circumvented by means of administrative steps. 

However, the Board noted that accessing cookies from different domains is a technical issue, and the technical solution is circumventing a browser restriction, which is itself a technical feature. Since no documents were cited, the Board remitted the examination back to the Division for further examination.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0072/20 (Accessing cookies from different Internet domains/NIELSEN) from November 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Accessing cookies from different domains is a technical issue.

The technical solution is circumventing a browser restriction, which is itself a technical feature albeit possibly implementing a non-technical policy. This is not the same as circumventing a technical problem by modifying a non-technical scheme.

The invention

The invention addresses monitoring users’ access to online media content and linking this information with demographics in proprietary databases like Facebook.

The main challenge is the “same origin” policy in web browsers, which restricts access to cookies set by different Internet domains. This policy hinders the ability of an impression monitor system (IMS) and a database proprietor to access each other’s cookies for linking monitoring information with demographic data.

The invention solves this problem by using a “cookie reporter” on the client device. This reporter, provided by an audience measurement entity associated with the IMS, detects a login event to the database provider’s service and sends a dummy request to the IMS. This request prompts the IMS to set a cookie on the client device, which, along with the database proprietor’s cookie, is sent back to the proprietor for linking.

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it was considered obvious over a general-purpose computer, for the following reasons:

4.1 The examining division considered that the features relating to accessing cookies from different domains were administrative in nature.

The problem of “how to combine information extracted from cookies respectively associated to different domains, when one of the domains is not accessible to the entity setting a cookie in a different domain due to existing protocols” was said to be circumvented by means of administrative steps as in T 258/03 – Auction method/HITACHI and T 931/95 – Controlling pension benefits system/PBS PARTNERSHIP.

The Board disagreed with this assessment and noted as follows:

4.2 The Board, however, takes the view that accessing cookies from different domains is a technical issue and that the invention in claims 1 and 10 provides a technical solution to this issue. This technical solution is circumventing a browser restriction, which is itself a technical feature albeit possibly implementing a non-technical policy. This is not the same as circumventing a technical problem by modifying a non-technical scheme as in T 258/03.

However, the Board noted that the Examining Division did not cite any document, as the features were considered non-technical and only searched within the classification of business methods.

The Board considered the feature was technical and also covered computer security and web systems. Thus, remitted it to the Examining Division for further search.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0072/20 (Accessing cookies from different Internet domains/NIELSEN) from November 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Haptic output setting with dynamic customization: technical

The invention relates to the haptic output setting on a device.  The Examining Division refused the application as it was considered non-technical. The applicant argued that the user was able to dynamically increase the importance of the alerts linked to some predefined events, thus having a technical effect.

The Board agreed with the applicant and noted that the salience of an alert clearly defined its prominence. Thus, it offered an efficient level of customization for the user, enabling them to control the salience of alerts without adversely affecting the usage of the device.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1988/21 (Haptic output setting/APPLE) November 15, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

The technical effect of allowing the user to be able to dynamically increase the importance of the alerts linked to some predefined events by switching the alert salience setting from “off” to “on,” for instance, with a binary touch key. 

Offering an efficient level of customization for the user, enabling them to control the salience of alerts without adversely affecting the usage of the device, solves the technical problem of providing a more sophisticated alert system 

The invention

The invention relates to methods and apparatus to organize a plurality of haptic output variations into a cohesive semantic framework that uses various information about the alert condition and trigger, application context, and other conditions to provide a haptic output system that shares characteristics between related events.  An event class or application class provides the basis for a corresponding haptic output. Whether an alert-salience setting is on provides the basis for adding an increased salience haptic output to the standard haptic output for the alert. Haptics provide for branding of the associated application class, application, and/or context.

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it considered the features over D5 (US 2011/053577 A1) to be non-technical.

The Board first identified the distinguishing features as follows:

1. Prior art

D5 was regarded as the closest prior art in oral proceedings and discloses a method for generating haptic outputs on a mobile device when communication data is received. The haptic outputs are selected from a database and are dependent on the type of communication data received. Figure 4 shows an example of such a database, wherein the haptic outputs are characterized by their time pattern, in seconds, which are dependent on the type of communication data received, e.g. “phone call”, “E-mail”, “SMS”, etc. The patterns of Figure 4 may be customised, i.e. set, by the user, as disclosed in paragraphs [0048] and [0067].

2. The events associated with alerts including haptic outputs as defined in claim 1 can be read onto the different communication types shown in Figure 4 of D5. The differences between the subject-matter of claim 1 and the disclosure of D5 are that:

– the events are divided into two types: the first type of events is affected by an alert-salience setting of the device, whereas the second type of events is not affected by this setting,

– when the alert salience setting has an “on” value, the alerts of the first type of events have an increased salience, whereas when the alert salience setting has an “off” value, the alerts of the first type of events have no increased salience.

The Board then agreed with the applicant that the features were clear and had a technical effect:

3. The board agrees with the appellant that the salience of an alert clearly defines the prominence, the importance, or the quality of being noticeable of the alert. When the alert is provided by a haptic generator as in claim 1, the salience of the alert may be expressed through the magnitude, frequency of repetition, and/or duration of the haptic output.

4. The appellant plausibly argued that the technical effect of the distinguishing features is that the user was able to dynamically increase the importance of the alerts linked to some predefined events, by switching the alert salience setting from “off” to “on”, for instance with a binary touch key as illustrated in Figure 27. Events which were regarded as important by the user were first classified in the first type so that the user could temporarily increase the salience of their associated haptic output alerts if desired. This was important for users with sensory impairments which, in some circumstances, cannot hear audible alerts or have reduced sensitivity to haptic output alerts (see paragraph [0492]). By contrast, the device of D5 stored a single haptic output pattern for each event type (see “communication type” in the table of Figure 4) so that, if the user desired to temporarily have an increased salience of the alerts for some event types, they had to re-customise the haptic outputs for these event types, i.e. they had to modify the stored table of Figure 4. Moreover, not providing an alert salience setting possibility for the second type of events in claim 1 saved device resources.

5. The board thus agrees with the appellant that the distinguishing features offer an efficient level of customisation for the user, enabling them to control the salience of alerts without adversely affecting the usage of the device. The objective technical problem can thus be defined as how to provide a more sophisticated alert system than that disclosed in D5.

The skilled person would have found no motivation in D5 to implement a binary selection by a user of an alert salience, in addition to the customised alert settings shown in Figure 4. In particular, suggesting that the skilled person might have implemented a toggle between two different stored tables, depending on the desired salience for some events, would be based on hindsight.

6. For these reasons, the board holds that the subject-matter of claim 1, and of corresponding independent claims 11 and 13, involves an inventive step over the disclosure of D5 (Article 56 EPC). Claims 2 to 10, 12 and 14 are dependent claims and, as such, also meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

Therefore, the Board found the subject-matter of the claim does not involve an inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1988/21 (Haptic output setting/APPLE) November 15, 2023, 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.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Neural network based machine translation: non-technical

The invention relates to relates to a neural-network-based machine translation.  The Examining division refused the application as it considered improving machine translation was not technical and that the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning and training for a linguistic is a non-technical purpose.

The applicant relied on T 1177/97 (Translation natural languages/SYSTRAN) and argued that a computerized translation process requires technical considerations and thus provides a technical aspect.

However, the Board agreed with the Division and considered the translation of text from a source language to a target language is a matter of linguistics and not a technical effect. Therefore, merely finding a computer algorithm to implement an automated translation process does not render the resulting computer program technical.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1903/20 (Rare-word processing/GOOGLE) October 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

The translation of text from a source language to a target language is a matter of linguistics and not a technical effect. This is so even if the computer program includes algorithmic aspects which are not directly based on linguistic concepts.

Merely finding a computer algorithm to implement an automated translation process does not render the resulting computer program technical.

The invention

The Board described the invention as follows:

1.1 The application relates to neural-network-based machine translation (NMT). An NMT system includes a neural network that maps a source sentence in one natural language to a target sentence in a different natural language (see page 1, first paragraph, of the published application).

1.2 According to the background section of the application, a major limitation of current NMT systems is their reliance on a fixed and modest-size vocabulary, which results in poor translation performance on sentences with many rare words.

2. The invention as defined by claim 1

2.1 Claim 1 is directed to a “computer-implemented translation system for translating natural language text from a source sentence in a source language to a target sentence in a target language”.

2.2 The system includes a “neural network translation model”.

In the light of claim 1 as a whole, the board understands that the translation model is used to translate a source sentence to a target sentence (as confirmed by page 6, lines 14 and 15, of the description). The model has been trained to insert “pointer tokens” in the target sentence, where each pointer token identifies a word in the source sentence that was not recognised by the translation model.

2.3 The system further includes “translation instructions” and a word dictionary.

The translation instructions replace each pointer token in a target sentence emitted by the translation model with a word in the target language by using the word dictionary to map the unrecognised word in the source sentence to a word in the target language.

2.4 Claim 1 also mentions “null unknown tokens”, which can be present in an emitted target sentence and which are “tokens that do not identify any source word in the source sentence”.

Fig. 1 of WO 2016 065327 A1

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it considered improving machine translation was not technical and that the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning and training for a linguistic is a non-technical purpose.

The Board agreed with the Division and decided as follows:

3.1 As confirmed on page 6, lines 4 to 7, of the description of the application, the claimed translation system can be implemented as a computer program running on a computer. Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from a notorious general-purpose computer in features defining a computer program providing the functionality described in point 2. above. Such features contribute to inventive step only to the extent that they interact with the technical subject-matter of the claim to provide a technical effect.

3.2 In the present case, the board is unable to identify a technical effect achieved by the distinguishing features. In particular, the translation of text from a source language to a target language is a matter of linguistics and not a technical effect. This is so even if the computer program includes algorithmic aspects which are not directly based on linguistic concepts.

3.3 Citing a passage from decision T 1177/97, Reasons 3, the appellant argued that a computerised translation process was a technical application and conferred technical character to non-technical aspects. The board does not agree.

3.3.1 The passage cited by the appellant states that “[i]mplementing a function on a computer system always involves, at least implicitly, technical considerations and means in substance that the functionality of a technical system is increased” and adds that “[t]he implementation of the information and methods related to linguistics as a computerized translation process similarly requires technical considerations and thus provides a technical aspect to per se non-technical things such as dictionaries, word matching or to translating compound expressions into a corresponding meaning”.

3.3.2 In opinion G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, Reasons 13.5, the Enlarged Board pointed out that “although it may be said that all computer programming involves technical considerations since it is concerned with defining a method which can be carried out by a machine, that in itself is not enough to demonstrate that the program which results from the programming has technical character; the programmer must have had technical considerations beyond ‘merely’ finding a computer algorithm to carry out some procedure“.

Hence, merely finding a computer algorithm to implement an automated translation process does not render the resulting computer program technical (see also decisions T 598/14, Reasons 2.3, and T 2825/19, Reasons 5.3 and 5.4). The features of claim 1 indeed define the program merely in terms of a (high-level) algorithm.

3.4 In view of the above, the board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacks an inventive step over a notorious general purpose computer (Article 56 EPC).

Therefore, the Board found the subject-matter of the claim does not involve an inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1903/20 (Rare-word processing/GOOGLE) October 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Secure mobile payment method: technical

The invention relates to relates to a mobile payment method. The Examining Division assessed the distinguishing features separately, implying that no synergistic effect was present and refused the application

The Board agreed with the Appellant and considered that features together contribute to synergistic technical effect increasing transaction security, and and should not be assessed separately. Since the skilled person had no indication to modify and arrive at the claimed method, it was considered inventive

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision  T 2426/19 of October 11, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

How to increase transaction security is a technical problem

Increasing transaction security by hindering any manipulation by/at the POS terminal is a technical effect

The invention

The invention relates to a mobile payment method involving a transaction device communicating with a payment device and institution server and aims to provide secure transactions. According to the invention, the server generates a barcode and sends it to the POS terminal, ensuring that the transaction details received by the mobile device match those sent by the POS terminal. The mobile device then transmits the transaction details received via the barcode to the server, and the server compares them to those received from the POS terminal. Only after a positive outcome of the comparison can the mobile device generate and transmit a payment request, enhancing transaction security.

  • Method Claim 1 (numbering by the Board)

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application alleging that the claimed subject-matter did not involve an inventive step, as the distinguishing feature were considered.

The Board identified the following as the distinguishing features:

3.2 Differences

The subject-matter of claim 1 differs thus from the method of D1 in that

– the server generates a barcode (and not the POS terminal) according to the received transaction details from the POS terminal and sends it back to the POS terminal (feature (c)),

– the mobile device transmits to the server the transaction details (and not only the identifier) obtained when decoding the scanned barcode (part of feature (e)),

– the server compares the transaction details received from the POS terminal and those received from the mobile device and only if they correspond, the mobile device is enabled to generate the payment request and the payment transaction can be completed (feature (f) and part of feature (g)).

In the first instance, the Examining Division assessed the distinguishing features separately, implying that no synergistic effect was present. However, the Board agreed with the applicant when assessing the technical effect:

3.3 Technical effect and technical problem

3.3.1 In the decision under appeal, the examining division assessed the distinguishing features separately, implying that no synergistic effect was present. It went on to conclude that each one them was obvious for the skilled person (see points 1.2 to 1.10.1 of the Reasons for the decision).

3.3.2 The board, however, agrees with the appellant that the distinguishing features provide together a synergistic technical effect and should not be assessed separately.

3.3.3 Generating the barcode according to the transaction details at/by the server and transmitting it back to the POS terminal, ensure that the transaction details which the mobile device receives by scanning the barcode provided by the POS terminal are the same as those which the POS terminal sent to the server. The possibility for the POS server to transmit different transaction details to the server and to the mobile device is thus eliminated.

3.3.4 The examining division argued that this operation did not exclude the possibility that the POS terminal decoded the barcode from the server, modified the transaction details and generated the barcode again, so that the mobile device would receive different/manipulated transaction details (see point 1.10.1 of the Reasons for the impugned decision).

The board agrees to this point. However, according to the following steps of the claimed method, the mobile device transmits the transaction details received from the POS terminal via the barcode to the server and the server compares the transaction details received from the mobile device to those received from the POS terminal.

If a manipulation by/at the POS terminal occurred, the barcode presented to and scanned by the mobile device would not be the same as the barcode transmitted from the server to the POS terminal. Therefore, the transaction details received at the mobile device and sent to the server would not be the same as those sent to the server from the POS terminal. The comparison at the server would show this difference because the transaction details compared at the server would not be the same (they would not “conform” in the terminology of the claims) and so the payment transaction would not be carried out.

Hence, these features together contribute to increasing transaction security by hindering any manipulation by/at the POS terminal.

3.3.5 It is also to be noted that according to the claimed method, only after a positive outcome of the comparison of the payment information at the server is the mobile device enabled to generate and transmit a payment request. This step also contributes to the increased transaction security, as no payment information of the user is transmitted to the server before the integrity of the transaction details is verified.

3.3.6 In the board’s opinion, therefore, the distinguishing features combine together to provide the technical effect of increased transaction security. If follows that the skilled person starting from D1 would be faced with the technical problem of how to increase transaction security.

The Board then assessed if it was obvious to the skilled person:

3.4 Solution, obviousness

3.4.1 In the board’s opinion there is no indication or suggestion in D1 for the skilled person faced with the above identified technical problem to modify the described payment procedure and to arrive at the claimed method without exercising any inventive skills. For example, there is no disclosure in D1 of comparing the received payment information from the mobile device to that received from the POS terminal at the server and the board sees no incentive to introduce any such comparison in any obvious way.

Therefore, the Board found the subject-matter of the claim involves an inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here:T 2426/19 of October 11, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Efficiently obtain a unique identifier of a virtual machine: technical

The invention relates to method for determining a virtual machine migration. The Examining Division refused the application, as it considered no objective technical problem was credibly solved.

The Board agreed with the Appellant and considered that at least one of the distinguishing features provided the effect that a unique identifier of a virtual machine is obtained efficiently. Since the skilled person had no hint, or without hindsight would not obtain the unique identifier as claimed, the subject matter of the claim involves an inventive step

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision  T 1573/21 (DETERMINING VIRTUAL MACHINE DRIFTING / Huawei)  of August 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

How to efficiently obtain a unique identifier of a virtual machine is a technical problem

The invention

The invention was defined by the Board as follows:

The current application pertains to a method for determining a virtual machine migration. On a host machine, a client component obtains a unique identifier of a virtual machine from an Address Resolution Protocol, ARP, packet from the virtual machine. The client component determines if this identifier exists in a local record stored on the host machine. If the identifier does not exist in the local record, it is added to the record and sent to a server in a packet, together with the address of the host machine. This packet enables the server to determine if the virtual machine was migrated: this is the case if the identifier exists in a record on the server, but is associated with the address of a different host machine.

Fig. 2A of EP 2 866 393 A1

  • Method Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division considered there were distinguishing features, as follows:

3.2 According to the decision under appeal, D1 did not disclose the following two features of claim 1:

(a) the server determines that the virtual machine is migrated when the unique identifier of the virtual machine exists in a record of the server and the address of the host machine carried in the packet is different from a host machine address corresponding to the unique identifier of the virtual machine in the record of the server

(b) the unique identifier of the virtual machine is obtained by either intercepting or receiving an Address Resolution Protocol, ARP, packet carrying the unique identifier of the virtual machine from the virtual machine on the host machine.

However, the Division considered that no technical problem was solved by the invention, and thus was not inventive.

3.4 The examining division argued that no objective technical problem was credibly solved over the scope of claim 1 and made a reference to a “case when a virtual machine which was previously located on the client is again migrated back to that client, this client won’t send a packet to the server since the local record is still present as it doesn’t get deleted when a virtual machine is migrated to another server. Therefore, the correct detection of a migration is not consistently achieved and thus a proper definition of a technical effect (which goes beyond the well-known technical effects of data exchange in a network) provided by the differing features is not possible”.

The board notes that this objection in the decision under appeal relates to distinguishing feature (a) only. It is not necessary to take a position on it because distinguishing feature (b) establishes an inventive step, as explained below.

3.5 The technical effect caused by feature (b) is that a unique identifier of a virtual machine is obtained efficiently (see paragraph 62 of the description of the application in suit).

3.6 The objective technical problem to be solved is accordingly “how to efficiently obtain a unique identifier of a virtual machine“.

Based on the above analysis, the Board assessed if it was obvious to the skilled person:

3.7 Faced with this problem, the skilled person would not receive any hint from document D1 to intercept or receive an ARP packet and to obtain a unique identifier from the packet. Firstly, D1 discloses in paragraph 123 that an identifier of a new virtual machine is sent to a firewall coordinator, but does not specify how such identifier is to be obtained.

Secondly, ARP packets, as such, are generally known. However, it is not apparent how a skilled person, without resorting to hindsight, would specifically select an ARP packet as a source for a unique identifier of a virtual machine.

Therefore, the Board found the subject-matter of the claim involves an inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1573/21 (DETERMINING VIRTUAL MACHINE DRIFTING / Huawei)  of August 30, 2023, 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.

Privacy policy
* = Required field