This decision concerns an invention related to group text communications between multiple devices, along with communication of associated data and automatic deletion of communications for improved data security. Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1959/20 (Ephemeral group chat/SNAP) of November 9, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.
Key takeaways
The feature of deleting all copies of a message after it has been read by all recipients is not based on technical considerations.
The invention
The subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision is summarized as follows in the decision:
“The invention concerns the automatic deletion of messages in group chats, for example in the context of social networks (paragraph [0016]). In particular, the goal is to implement an “ephemeral group chat”, that is, a chat whose messages are automatically deleted when a certain condition is met (for example, when a message has been viewed for a certain amount of time by all recipients, see paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0019]).”
Fig. 2A of EP 3 292 523 A1
-
Claim 1
Is it technical?
D1 (GB 2512140 ) was considered as the closest prior art:
The examining division refused the main request for lack of inventive step in view of “notoriously known mobile client/server systems used for exchanging messages” (referred to in the decision as D0). Documents D1, GB 2512140 and D2, US 2009/248751 were cited as examples thereof.
Board considers that D1 represents a better starting point for assessing inventive step.
Regarding the distinguishing features:
The following features are not regarded as disclosed by D1:
5) receiving, from the second client device, first monitoring information comprising first deletion trigger information;
6) receiving, from the third client device, second monitoring information comprising second deletion trigger information;
7) using the received first deletion trigger information and second deletion trigger information to identify when a deletion trigger associated with the first message has been met;
8) initiating, at said server computer, in response to identifying that the deletion trigger has been met, communications to the client devices associated with said at least three user accounts to implement deletion of the first message.
It was common ground during the oral proceedings that features 5) to 8) enable a coordination of the message deletion in ways not disclosed in the prior art.
The Board judges, however, that the feature of deleting all copies of a message after it has been read by all recipients is not based on technical considerations. Nor does it solve a technical problem. Rather, it is a non-technical requirement expressing a user’s wish or subjective preference. Indeed, the claim is even more general than this, as it does not specify the content of the deletion trigger information, or the corresponding event.
Following the established case law of the Boards of Appeal, non-technical features do not contribute to inventive step but may instead appear in the formulation of the technical problem, in particular as constraints or requirements to be achieved (see decision T 641/00 – “Two identities/COMVIK“, Headnotes 1 and 2).
Accordingly, the Board formulates the technical problem as how to implement the requirement of deleting all copies of a chat message based on the occurrence of an event in all client devices, such as the message having been read by all participants.
The appellant was of the opinion that
[…] even when taking the Board’s problem of implementing the requirements on the system of D1, the skilled person would have handled the deletion of messages on a device-by-device basis, since coordinating this at the central server would have gone against the very teaching of the document.
The Board did not find this argumentation convincing and
[…] recognises that the implementation of non-technical requirements on a technical prior art system might require modifications which, at first glance, appear non-obvious, as there is no technical reason for them in view of the prior art alone. However, since according to the principles of “Comvik” non-technical features cannot contribute to inventive step, the non-technical requirements must be seen as a given, and the skilled person implementing them must make the necessary modifications to the prior art.
As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step over D1. The same reasoning applies to the first and the second auxiliary request. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
More information
The decision can be found here: T 1959/20 (Ephemeral group chat/SNAP) of November 9, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.