This decision concerns an invention related to connecting and operating a closed circuit e-commerce entity. The first instance Examination Division refused the application alleging the difference between a closed circuit system and other e-commerce system is merely restricting access to a group of people, which is not technical. The Board agreed with the applicant that the system has additional components at an interface that reduces the server’s load and thus can support many kiosks without overwhelming the server, which is technical. Since none of the cited documents hinted the problem or the solution, the subject-matter was considered inventive. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1108/20 (Closed-circuit e-commerce entity for services and products/ Elbex Video ) of October 11, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.
Key takeaways
How to support a large number of kiosks without overwhelming the server is a technical problem
The invention
In a closed circuit e-commerce service, the user in a geographically closed area such as an apartment complex can access a terminal with a predefined interface where products from different providers are available and purchased within a closed system. This is different from an open e-commerce system where the user has to access different websites of each provider.
The present application relates to connecting and operating a closed-circuit e-commerce entity with a shopping terminal connected to a building server via internal communication lines.
-
Claim 1 of the Main Request
Is it patentable?
In the first instance, the Examining Division refused the application because the claimed subject-matter did not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC. In particular, the Division considered the only difference was that the e-commerce service was provided on a closed system, and since it merely restricted access to certain people, it was not technical.
The prior art D2 (US 2007/265935 A1), in simple terms, relates to a conventional network running an open e-commerce system where the user has to access different websites of each provider. The applicant disagreed with the assessment of the distinguishing features, and the Board then identified the distinguishing features over the closest prior art to identify the technical problem:
2.5 Hence the board holds that the differences between the subject-matter of claim 1 and that of document D2 reside in that:
(i) the e-commerce entity is a “closed circuit e-commerce entity“
(ii) the interface possesses a “CPU“
(iii) the interface possesses a memory for storing files comprising the “template organized touch portion”
(iv) the e-commerce entity allows for ordering not only products, but also “itemized services“
(v) the “communicating said completed order data” is “supervised by said central server“.
The Board then assessed if the distinguishing features solved a technical problem and if they were obvious to a skilled person:
3.1 In the decision under appeal, the examining division held that distinguishing feature (i) was a non-technical feature which did not solve a technical problem, only the non-technical problem of restricting access to a certain group of people. Since document D2 disclosed login accounts in paragraph [0096], the skilled person would have arrived at this distinguishing feature without employing any inventive skill.
3.2 The appellant submitted that the examining division’s interpretation of the term closed circuit was not correct. Furthermore, it was very clear that in accordance with the invention it was necessary to use specific hardware and/or software to be able to use the templated protocols of the invention.
3.3 In view of the appellant’s arguments, the board considers that the “CPU” mentioned in distinguishing feature (ii) can only be interpreted as relating to an additional CPU, i.e. in addition to the regular CPU that each server – including the server disclosed in document D2 – possesses. The same applies analogously to the “memory” mentioned in distinguishing feature (iii). In line with the description (lower half of page 55 and upper half of page 56), the board holds that distinguishing features (ii) and (iii) relate to the technical effect of supporting a large number of kiosks without overwhelming the server. The objective technical problem is how to support a large number of kiosks without overwhelming the server. This problem is solved by distinguishing features (ii) and (iii), since adding a CPU and a memory for processing kiosk requests at the interface reduces the load on the server CPU. However, neither this problem nor its solution are disclosed or hinted at in the prior art at hand.
Therefore, the Board decided that the subject-matter of claims involves an inventive step, and the application was allowed.
More information
You can read the full decision here: T 1108/20 (Closed-circuit e-commerce entity for services and products/ Elbex Video ) of October 11, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.