This decision concerns an invention that relates to a blockchain generation apparatus and a blockchain generation method that generates blockchain data.
Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0767/21 (Blockchain generation method/NIPPON) of October 10, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.
Key takeaways
The invention
The subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision is summarized as follows in the decision:
2.1 The invention concerns the problem of preventing malicious agents taking control of a blockchain storing a digital currency, thereby being able to falsify transactions, such as spending the same coin twice – “double spending”.
Fig. 5 of EP 337 645 5 A1
-
Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request
Is it technical?
Regarding inventive step, the board chooses D6 as a starting point and consequently avoids discussing the technicality of blockchain technology:
3.5 The Board considers document D6, mentioned in the background art section of the application, as a more appropriate starting point. D6 not only discloses the conventional features of blockchain technology, disclosed in D1 and D2, but also the use of Proof of Stake (POS). This avoids an unnecessary discussion of these features’ technicality (cf. T 550/14 – Catastrophe relief/SWISS RE, reasons, point 3.5). This is particularly prudent where a prominent technology, such as blockchain, is involved and the outcome of such a technicality discussion may have far-reaching consequences for patentability.
It was established that claim 1 differs from D6 by following features:
– blend pattern containing (six) blocks necessary for approving a transaction including at least one of two conflicting parameter types, namely a number of cryptocurrency participants to whom a generating party has transferred coins and a number of coins saved by it.
– A block generation condition checker (125) configured to determine whether the generating party is qualified to generate a new blockchain data, based on the value of the identified parameter (fourth feature).
– An attempt to generate a new blockchain when the block generation condition checker (125) determines, based on the parameter type identified by the parameter calculator, that the generating party is qualified (fifth feature).
Subsequently, the Board and the appellant discuss whether this protocol has a technical character:
3.9 In the Board’s judgement it does not because it is a non-technical policy which is based on business and psychological considerations.
Argument 1 – Blockchain consensus protocol is inherently technical:
3.11 The appellant argued that the technical character of the protocol was inherent from the tamper-proof properties of the blockchain. These were such that one could have only developed the claimed protocol having previously understood their technical advantages, especially in terms of security. Without this understanding, the protocol’s development would have been impossible from the outset. If this argument were accepted, the situation here would be similar to that in T 2314/16 – Distributing rewards by assigning users to partial advertisement display areas/RAKUTEN, where in order to devise the concept of dividing a website advertisement area into clickable partial areas and allocating them to influencers, one must firstly understand how a website is constructed on the technical level.
The Board was not convinced by this argument:
3.13 […], the situation here is different from that in T 2314/16, supra. Rather, it resembles the scenario outlined in T 630/11 – Gaming Server/WATERLEAF under reason 11, where a reader who wants to give anon book, which is a technical artefact, as a gift or have a copy of it, is not concerned with technical issues, but rather formulates his desire in terms of the book as an art object.
Argument 2 – Blockchain consensus protocol is comparable to an electronic signature:
3.15 Nor is the Board persuaded by the argument that the claimed consensus protocol is comparable to an electronic signature scheme and therefore technical.
Digital signature schemes are not concerned with the semantics of transmitted information; they operate at bit level. As long as the sequence of bits, transmitted as an electronic message, was created by the signee and was not altered during a transmission, the transmitted content does not play any role. This is fundamentally different from the blockchain consensus protocols which operate at the semantic level and are concerned with ascertaining that the blockchain’s business content accurately reflects business reality over time.
In a final statement, the Board clarifies that:
3.16 The Board notes that while the claimed consensus protocol does not involve any technical considerations, this would probably not be true for all consensus protocols. For example, a PoW protocol taking into account specific hardware factors that make it ASIC resistant would be likely to have technical character (see T 1358/09 – Classification/BDGB ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE, reasons, point 5.5; T 2330/13 – Checking selection conditions/SAP, reasons, point 5.7.5).
As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
More information
The decision can be found here: T 0767/21 (Blockchain generation method/NIPPON) of October 10, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.