Gateways, request generators, and request handlers as standard components: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a data integration system for automating the exchange of data between a heat sub-metering service provider and a real estate administrator in the context of utility billing for multi-apartment buildings. The key features at issue were the data integration components, namely gateways, a request generator, and a request handler, enabling automated push and pull requests between the two data systems. The Board of Appeal considered these features to be a standard computer implementation providing no technical effect beyond the mere automation of a previously manual information exchange.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0850/21 (Data integration system/ISTA) of 26 November 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to distributing data between a real estate administrator, who typically bills residents for services such as heating consumption in a multi-apartment building, and a heat sub-metering service provider who actually measures the consumption. Sub-metering is necessary because there is generally only one master meter for the whole building or property. The individual consumption for each apartment is calculated from heat cost allocation meters attached to heating radiators and parameters relating to the property and the apartments as a share of the total consumption. Typically, the administration of the sub-metering is outsourced to a sub-metering service provider, and both parties need to exchange information. In the prior art, this information was exchanged via post or e-mail and entered manually into respective computer systems, a process prone to error and with information not always up to date. Basing the heat cost allocation calculations on obsolete data about the apartments could lead to errors in the calculations for the whole building. The invention seeks to automate the exchange of information such that the real estate administrator data system can pull and push heat cost allocation related data from and to the heat sub-metering service provider data system. This ensures that the data relevant to the heat cost allocation is up to date in both systems, reducing human error. It also facilitates the interaction between the sub-metering service provider and several real estate administrators.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The division applied the well-established Comvik approach to assess the technical character of the claimed features. It identified the data integration features, specifically the gateways, the request generator, and the request handler, as standard means of automating a known manual process. The division argued that the effects cited by the appellant, namely improved reliability, availability, and accuracy of data, were known advantages of using a computer to automate a manual task. On this basis, the division concluded that it would have been obvious for the skilled person to automate the task of exchanging information between the sub-metering service provider and the real estate administrator, and that the claimed implementation was a straightforward computer automation of a known workflow. The ninth and tenth auxiliary requests were not admitted under Rule 137(3) EPC.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that the claimed invention provided a specific technical improvement by ensuring the reliability, availability, and accuracy of the exchanged data, resulting in a more accurate heat cost allocation calculation. The appellant further contended that the specific implementation of the data integration system, using gateways, request generators, and request handlers, ensured both data security and protection of personal information, which should be recognized as a technical contribution. During oral proceedings before the Board, the appellant also argued, somewhat contradictorily according to the Board, that the solution in claim 1 was not obvious since allowing the real estate administrator to push data into the sub-metering service provider database caused security issues that a skilled person would not have accepted. Additionally, the appellant argued that a proper discussion of inventive step starting from D5 had not taken place until the oral proceedings in appeal, justifying the filing of a new second auxiliary request at that stage. The appellant also requested reimbursement of the appeal fee, alleging that the examining division’s decision was insufficiently reasoned and that its right to be heard had been violated.

The Board’s analysis

Starting point for inventive step

The Board agreed with the appellant that D5 (EP 1971055 A2), which relates specifically to sub-metering and heat cost allocation, provided a better starting point for the inventive step analysis than D1 (US 2004/113810 A1), which the examining division had used. D5 essentially discloses the conventional sub-metering system as described in the introductory portion of the application, including heat cost allocation meters in apartments that can transmit data automatically.

Main request

1. The Board found that the distinguishing features over D5 (and the conventional sub-metering context) were limited to the data integration features: the gateways between the two computer systems, the request generator, and the request handler. The concepts of “pulling” cost allocation data and “pushing” property-related data already existed in the conventional (manual) workflow.
2. The Board considered that the implementation by means of gateways, a request generator, a request handler, and electronic push/pull requests constitutes a standard computer implementation. No technical effect could be derived beyond providing a computer automation of the information exchange between the two systems.
3. Regarding the appellant’s argument on data security, the Board held that there is nothing in the claimed implementation that makes the system more secure, and that the protection of privacy is not a technical effect. Regarding the argument that the skilled person would not have considered pushing data due to security risks, the Board noted that the invention merely accepts this foreseeable disadvantage rather than overcoming it, which does not involve an inventive step.
4. The Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Auxiliary requests

1. First auxiliary request (adding that the pushed data comprises data related to consumption units): The Board found that the known method of calculating heat cost allocations already used such data. Any improved accuracy was a mere consequence of automating the information exchange, which was considered obvious.
2. Second auxiliary request (filed during oral proceedings, adding automatic updating upon data change): Not admitted under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. The Board found no exceptional circumstances and noted the added features were already taken into account in the assessment of higher-ranking requests.
3. Third auxiliary request (adding a system of foreign data identifiers): The Board agreed with the examining division that this was a straightforward database implementation for identifying data across both systems.
4. Fourth auxiliary request (only a subset of RA data stored at SP): Considered motivated by administrative/privacy considerations rather than technical ones.
5. Fifth auxiliary request (request generator generates requests automatically): Already covered by the reasoning for the main request.
6. Sixth auxiliary request (adding data identifier maintenance requests): Data management was not considered a technical effect per se.
7. Seventh and ninth auxiliary requests (specifying cost allocation calculation and billing facilitation): The calculation of cost allocation was already known from the prior art.
8. Eighth auxiliary request (multiple groups of properties with different RA systems): Adapting the system to handle multiple real estate administrators was considered an obvious administrative choice with straightforward implementation.
9. Tenth and eleventh auxiliary requests: Not admitted under Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 as they had not been admitted by the examining division under Rule 137(3) EPC, and no error in discretion was demonstrated.

Reimbursement of appeal fee

The Board acknowledged some deficiencies in the decision under appeal but found none so serious as to warrant setting aside the decision and remitting to the examining division. The Board noted that the examining division provided a logical chain of reasons and applied the Comvik approach properly. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee was rejected.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Board found that all claims across the main request and auxiliary requests lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC. The core reasoning was that automating the known manual exchange of information between a heat sub-metering service provider and a real estate administrator by means of standard computer components (gateways, request generators, request handlers, push/pull requests) constitutes an obvious computer implementation. The claimed features provided no technical effect beyond the well-known benefits of computerization, namely increased speed, accuracy, and reduced human error. The additional features introduced in the auxiliary requests, including foreign data identifiers, data subsets for privacy, automatic request generation, and multi-administrator support, were each found to be either non-technical in nature or straightforward implementations that would have been obvious to the skilled person.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0850/21 (Data integration system/ISTA) of 26 November 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!