Author Archive

Simultaneously generating a winning outcome in game machines: non-technical

In this decision, relevant for gambling machine manufacturers, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent relating to simultaneously generating a winning outcome in game machines. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0941/17 of August 11, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

The choice of a specific game to be played is an administrative decision unrelated to any technical problems or considerations.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1 The claimed invention relates to a group of associated gaming devices, a method of operating them and an individual gaming device.

According to the application, it is desirable from time to time to have all the gaming devices in the group produce a winning outcome at the same time. Such an occurrence creates spontaneous enthusiasm with the players and draws attention to the gaming devices, increasing thus the chances that more users will start playing at those devices, increasing the profit of the devices’ owner.

2.2 For this to happen it is important that all the gaming devices generate a winning game outcome at the same time. …

2.3 The forced winning outcome is generated by a lottery drawer, irrespective of the game played at the machine. …

2.4 By using synchronised clocks and identical databases and pseudo-number generators in the associated gaming devices the simultaneous occurrence of the winning outcomes in all the devices can be achieved (see pages 1 to 3 of the published application).

Fig. 1 of WO 2013/045276 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A group of associated gaming devices (10) each having a lottery drawer (25) comprising a database (18) having a plurality of entries (30, 35), each database entry (35) containing a header (36) and one or more winning numbers associated with a predetermined time interval, and

a clock (19) for extracting the winning number or numbers from a database entry (35) of the database (18) for the time interval indicated by the clock (19), and a pseudo random number generator (20) for generating pseudo random numbers from a seed supplied as header (36) of the database entry (35) by the database (18) at the beginning of the time interval as identified by the clock (19), and

a comparator (22) for at least one receiving of the extracted winning number or numbers and at least one pseudo random number generated by the pseudo random generator (20), wherein the comparator (22) is adapted for generating a win signal when the extracted winning number and the generated pseudo random number match; and

wherein all of the associated gaming devices include identical databases (18) having the plurality of entries (30) and pseudo random number generators (20) whereby win signals are generated simultaneously in each of the group of associated gaming devices (10).

Is it technical?

At the appeal stage, the Board in charge as a first step assessed the distinguishing features over the closest prior art identified during examination:

3.3 Comparing claim 1 with D5, the features distinguishing the claimed group of associated gaming devices from D5 appear to relate to how the forced winning game outcome is generated.

In claim 1 there is a lottery drawer using a pseudo-random number generator and a comparator. A database contains entries with lists of winning numbers for a specific time interval, like 24 hours, for example. At predetermined times, a seed from the specific database entry is provided to the pseudo random number generator, which generates a pseudo random number. At the same time a winning number is drawn from the list of winning numbers of the database entry. The pseudo random number and the winning number are fed to the comparator and, when the two numbers much, a winning signal will be generated.

In D5 there is no information about how the winning outcome is achieved or what game it relates to.

However, the Board considered the solution provided by the distinguishing features (a lottery drawer) to be non-technical since they would only describe a lottery game:

3.4 The board considers that the use of a draw of a lottery as a way to generate a winning outcome does not address any technical problem. In the board’s view, the choice of a specific game to be played is an administrative decision unrelated to any technical problems or considerations.

3.7 The skilled person (a computer programmer, expert in gaming devices) would seek for a way to implement the winning event in the gaming devices of D5. The idea to use a lottery drawer and the rules of the “manipulated” lottery draw are not technical features and will be given to the skilled person for implementation in the associated gaming devices of D5. The skilled person would carry out this task in an obvious manner using only common general knowledge, especially since no details are provided in the application that would indicate particular technical problems to be solved or technical considerations to take into account in the implementation of the lottery drawer.

Against this assessment, the appellant argued as follows:

3.8 In its letter of 23 April 2021 the appellant put forward an argument related to the event list of D5. Making reference to paragraphs [0006] and [0007] of D5 the appellant argued that the event list in the gaming machines of D5 comprises a finite list of events to occur in specific points in time. When the point in time of the last event in the list is reached, the event list must be replaced.

In contrast to that, in the claimed invention the lottery drawer used entries from a database to create the winning events using a pseudo random number generator. The events in the database did not define a series of fixed points in time. Rather, the series of the sequential entries in the database would wrap around to the beginning when the end of the entries in the database was reached (see lines 30 and 31 on page 4 of the published application).

The use of draw of lottery in the claim, thus solved the technical problem of making the event list of D5 reusable so that the present event list need not be replaced by a new event list when its end is reached.

In response, the Board in charge explained that this line of argumentation would not relate to the claimed invention since the claim would only specify how a winning event is generated on the plurality of game devices at the same time and would thus be silent about reusing an event list. Furthermore, the arguments of the appellant would be technically incorrect:

Secondly, even if the appellant’s argument is taken into account, the board notes that it is not correct that the sequential entries (30) do not define fixed points in time. As it is explained in the application (see page 4, lines 17 to 21), the sequential entries (30) correspond to a predetermined time interval, like 24 hours, and with the setting of a first date for the first entry, they correspond to specific dates (see also Figure 3). Each entry 30 comprises a list of winning numbers to be drawn on the specific date (time interval).

Sine the additional features added to claim 1 according to the auxiliary requests were considered to be disclosed by the closest prior art document, the Board dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0941/17 of August 11, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy Yes, I consent to the collection, processing and use of my above-mentioned personal data for the purposes of processing my message and for the purposes of contacting me via email. The legal basis of the processing shall be formed by my consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR. The data will be deleted three months after expiry of the purpose, provided that longer retention periods are not required by law. I can revoke this consent with future effect at any time. I have taken note of the privacy statement and consent to it. With regard to the processing of my data, I am entitled to inalienable rights, information on which can be found in the privacy statement.

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Controlling an avatar: non-technical

In this decision, which might be interesting for game developers, the European Patent Office refused to grant a software patent on a method for controlling an avatar. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 3033/18 of August 2, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.04:

Key takeaways

A framework which only specifies game rules has to be considered as a purely abstract, mental construct that cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

3.1 The present invention relates to the control of an avatar (self-role in the words of the claim) having virtual action parts (limbs) in a virtual environment.

Fig. 2 of EP 2 674 204 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A man-machine interaction controlling method, wherein kinetic parts of the user are associated with the virtual action parts of the self-role, such that the kinetic part of the user and the associated virtual action part of the self-role are the same, the method comprises steps of:

1) creating the self-role in the virtual environment, wherein the self-role has more than one virtual action part;

2) associating kinetic parts of the user with the virtual action parts of the self-role, wherein the user is lying or sitting at the operating position;

3) setting enlarging proportion of an action range of different virtual action parts relative to action range of the kinetic parts of the user;

4) performing the actions by the user while sitting or lying at the operating position, and obtaining actions performed by the user while the user sits or lies at the operating position; and

5) enlarging the obtained actions according to the enlarging proportion so as to achieve virtual action of the self-role, and enabling the virtual action parts of the self-role to perform the virtual action according to the actions by the kinetic parts of the user, wherein while the self-role is not sitting nor lying during the virtual action in the virtual environment, movement morphology of the self-role is different and not similar with movement morphology of the user, and wherein the user’s part supported by the operation position is different from the self-role’s part supported by the virtual environment, and further the user remains at the operating position while performing the actions required for controlling the virtual action of the self-role.

Is it technical?

The present application was rejected by the Examining Division due to lack of inventive step. At the appeal stage, the appellant argued that the following two aspects are not disclosed by the closest prior art searched in the first instance:

1) wherein while the self-role is not sitting nor lying during the virtual action in the virtual environment, movement morphology of the self-role is different and not similar with movement morphology of the user, and wherein the user’s part supported by the operation position is different from the self-role’s part supported by the virtual environment, and further the user remains at the operating position while performing the micro-actions required for controlling the virtual action of the self-role and

2) an action range of the virtual action part of the self-role has a plurality of enlarging proportions at different times with respect to an action range of the associated kinetic part of the user (i.e., the same user part).

According to the appellant, each of the two aspects provides for a separate technical advantage:

The advantageous effect of the distinguishing feature 1 is that, since the user’s part supported in the operation position is different from the self-role’s part supported in the virtual environment, the invention does not require the direct mapping of the actions of the user to the actions of the self-role. Furthermore, the self-role is not bound by the virtual environment as the user is by their physical environment (see paragraph [0063] of the application, “the user can control the self-role perform a back bend action as shown in FIG. 3 while performing a punch action.”).

The distinguishing feature 2 has the advantageous effect that it presents more freedom for the user part when controlling the virtual self-role part.

The Board agreed in that the claimed subject-matter implies technical means required for performing the claimed method, e.g. means for obtaining the user’s action in the physical world which are then used for controlling the avatar. However, the Board in charge further explained that aspects as mentioned above relating to gaming rules could only serve the explicit purpose of playing a game. Hence, these aspects could only be considered an abstract, mental construct.

3.2 The Board considers (see T0336/07, reasons 3.3.1) game rules to form part of “[…] a regulatory framework agreed between players and concerning conduct, conventions and conditions that are meaningful only in a gaming context. It is normally so perceived by the players involved, and as serving the explicit purpose of playing a game. As such an agreed framework it is a purely abstract, mental construct, though the means for carrying out the game play in accordance with such a set may well be technical in nature”. Moreover, (see T0012/08, reasons 4.6) game rules “form the abstract formal structure of a game describing the interplay between player actions and the choices offered within the game.”

3.3 A set of game rules thus determines inter alia how game-play evolves from beginning to end in response to player actions and decisions and the goals to be achieved to conclude game-play.

Sine the claimed subject-matter is a mixture of technical and non-technical features, the Board applied the well-known COMVIK approach for assessing inventive step:

3.5 In dealing with such “mixed” inventions, the Board adopts the approach as set out in T1543/06 (Gameaccount), reasons 2.1-2.9, which is based foremost on T0641/00 (OJ EPO 2003, 352). Thus, only those features that contribute to technical character are to be taken into account when assessing inventive step.

As a next step, the Board determined the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the main request as follows:

4.3 Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 differs from D1 in respect of its features 3 and 5.

The first of these (feature 3), the Board summarises as:

– setting an enlarging proportion of virtual action parts to the user’s kinetic parts means setting the scaling factor by which a user’s performed action is to be scaled up on its avatar virtual action part.

The second of these (feature 5), the Board summarises as:

– Scaling up the obtained [user] actions by the enlarging proportion (scaling factor) to control the the self-role [avatar] in carrying out virtual actions.

– The self role [avatar] is neither sitting nor lying when performing.

– The movement morphology of the self-role is different from and not similar to the movement morphology of the user, and

– the user’s part supported by the operation position is different from the self-role’s part supported by the virtual environment (for example the seated real world user is supported by their buttocks, whereas the avatar is supported by the soles of its feet in the virtual game world, cf. published application paragraph [0059]).

– the user remains at the operating position while performing the actions required for controlling the virtual action of the self-role.

In the Board’s view, however, all the distinguishing features would only be governed by the rules of the game concerned. Specifically, scalling-up a real world movement performed by a user and mapping the movement to an avatar is only a convention of a game and thus cannot belong to a solution of a technical problem:

4.4.1 Taking a certain movement in the real world and scaling it up in the movement of an avatar will be perceived by the player as belonging to the framework and conventions of the game. They will know that, in the game context, when they wish the avatar to make a certain movement of its action part (for example a leg) in the virtual world, they need to move the corresponding part of their body (their leg) by a certain smaller amount in the real world. This scaling up of a real world movement in a game world is a typical game concept. For example, in a notorious joystick controlled game, a small joystick movement typically maps onto a much larger movement of an entity being controlled in the game world and the player understands this to be part of the convention of the game.

According to the Board, the problem to be solved could be formulated as follows:

4.6 This question is to be considered from the point of view of the skilled person – here a gaming software engineer – solving the objective technical problem of modifying D1’s man-machine interaction controlling method to implement the above rules.

Since this would be nothing more than a mere implementation of non-technical features of a game, the distinguishing features cannot contribute to inventive step.

Since similar objections would also apply to the auxiliary requests filed by the appellant, the Board dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 3033/18 of August 2, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Whitelist July to September 2021

In the 3rd quarter (July to September) of 2021, 4 positively decided cases were added to our knowledge base in which relevant aspects of the claimed-subject-matter were considered technical. For those who do not have the time to read all of our selected decision, in the following, we will briefly summarize these cases.

T 0200/19: Disambiguation of text with an upper and lower case

The application underlying this decision relates to a handheld device with a reduced QWERTY keyboard. Based on the user input, the device automatically detects whether it was the intention of the user to write a word with an upper case or lowercase letter.

At the end of the appeal stage, the Board in charge ruled that enhancing the efficiency of disambiguation of a user input provided via a reduced keyboard of a handheld device is technical.

T1790/17: Controlling the manufacture of a product

This decision relates to the area of business methods, and more particularly to product (re-)design. The Board in charge was of the opinion that redesigning a product based on user feedback is purely business-motivated and thus non-technical.

However, according to the Board in charge, controlling the manufacture of a product with improved process data is a patentable invention as it includes technical features.

This decision is an excellent example of how the first hurdle (patent eligibility) of the EPO’s two-hurdle (COMVIK) approach can be cleared.

T 2251/13: Projection surface with built-in track pad

This is one of the rare cases in which a business-related invention was considered technical (T 2251/13). In detail, the invention relates to an interactive food and/or drink ordering system that can be controlled by means of a track pad. The gist of the invention is to project a menu onto the restaurant table.

Specifically the usage of the above-mentioned track pad was considered to solve a technical problem with technical means.

T 1422/19: Determining visibility of content on web browser by indirect measurement

In the area of graphical user interfaces, one of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal ruled that estimating the size of a browser’s viewport from within a cross-domain iframe by indirect measurement is technical. According to the decision T 1422/19, this is because the claimed method measures “raw” information about a running web browser and processes this information to produce an estimate of a technically meaningful parameter.

Fear of missing out?

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Improving the classification of email content: non-technical

In this decision, the European Patent Office refused to grant a software patent on an efficient spam filter. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2147/16 of September 7, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

A further technical effect must be proven and specifically and sufficiently documented in the disclosure of the invention.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the invention of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1 The present invention has as object to provide an efficient spam filter. Spam messages present the inconvenience of “cluttering” the user’s email box, such that the user may easily overlook an important message in the flow of numerous spam messages. Spam messages take up a substantial volume of the email traffic. The share of spam includes more than 70% of global mail traffic. The spam messages accumulate in user mail boxes and take memory space and time to clean out (page 1, line 10ff of the description as filed).

2.2 Among the spam messages there are messages with computer viruses leading to harm of computer hardware/software and messages which lead to phishing resources that can be a cause of theft of passwords and personal data. Prior methods of spam detection, which typically involve grouping of messages by various criteria, often result in false positives, i.e., when the spam message ends up in the group of legitimate messages or when the legitimate message is grouped as spam.

To overcome these drawback, the application suggests a specific algorithm, inter alia including steps of hashing, clustering, weighting etc.

Fig. 1 of EP 2 811 441 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

(A) A computer-implemented method for classification of electronic messages being e-mail messages as spam or legitimate on a client mail server (200), the method comprising:

(B) receiving (510), by a computer processor (15) of the client mail server (200), all electronic messages (180) directed to different users who have email addresses registered on the client mail server (200);

(C) classifying (515) the received electronic messages (180) as legitimate or spam messages;

(D) identifying (535) unknown messages that could not be classified as legitimate or spam;

(E) obtaining (550) metadata (860) of the unknown messages,

(F) the metadata (860) including at least a set of hash sums (830) for an unknown message and an IP address of a sender of the unknown message;

(G) placing (553) the metadata (860) of the unknown messages into one cluster of a plurality of clusters forming a cluster index tree based on a degree of similarity between a newly-arrived set of hash-sums {h1; h2 … hk} from the metadata (860) and existing sets in the cluster index tree

(H) in accordance with: D = Sigma wj /k ,

(I) wherein the sum is formed over all weighting factors wj corresponding to hash sums in the cluster index tree that are matched by hash sums in the newly-arrived set {h1; h2 … hk};

(J) rating (590) each unknown message in accordance with a rating of the cluster where the metadata (860) of the unknown messages was assigned to,

(K) wherein the rating of the cluster is based, at least, on a number of similar hash sums (830) of unknown messages received from different IP addresses of message senders contained in said cluster; and

(L) classifying (560, 565) unknown messages as legitimate or spam based on message ratings.

Is it technical?

The first instance Examining Division refused the application due to the following reasons:

(a) a spam filter did not serve a technical purpose;

(b) it did not produce a relevant technical effect;

(c) it did not imply technical considerations.

Besides some minor inadmissible amendment and clarity issues, the Board in charge was mainly concerned with the assessment of technicality and inventive step. In this respect, the Board indicated that it agrees to the arguments provided by the Examining Division that the claimed method, particularly the distinguishing feature, lack technical character.

To defend its application, the appellant argued that the claimed method facilitated an improved performance of a computer and computer network and decreased on the end user computer the memory volume of the hard disk required for the legitimate electronic messages due to decreasing an amount of spam. Furthermore, the appellant stated that the method decreased a volume of the email traffic to the end user computer and that it decreased a load for the processor at the end user computer:

5.3.6 The Appellant argued that in the proposed algorithm rather than processing all received electronic messages on each individual user computing device, the invention used a client mail server. Design and implementation of innovative algorithms and data structures went beyond a particular mathematical formulation of the task of classifying electronic messages. The invention utilised a cluster rating system to obtain and analyse metadata of the unknown messages and classify these unknown messages using a cluster index tree data structure. The cluster rating was dynamically changing during the course of the filling of all clusters with various metadata of incoming electronic messages. The invention analysed mass messages sent by various sources over time and updated cluster ratings and therefore allowed to classify unknown messages more accurately. The method therefore facilitated an improved performance of a computer and computer network. Therefore, the method achieved the technical effects mentioned in section VIII above.

In response, the Board agreed to the appellants arguments in so far that the claimed algorithm may be optimized for the computer hardware and may thus have technical character. However, this would only be of speculative nature:

5.3.7 The Board agrees in so far with the arguments of the Appellant as the combination of comparing digital text content by similarity preserving hashing and dynamic cluster rating may be considered an algorithm optimised for the computer hardware and may have a technical contribution. However, this mere assumption is not sufficient. …

According to the Board, to be patentable, an algorithm must fulfill the following three criteria:

(a) the implementation of an algorithm in a method for filtering spam messages must have a proved further technical effect or specific technical considerations;

(b) such further technical effect must be specifically and sufficiently documented in the disclosure of the invention and be reflected in the claim wording;

(c) the algorithm must serve a technical purpose.

Concerning criterion (a), the Board stated that specific details as to how an algorithm is implemented in practice and how the load is reduced must be provided in order to give evidence that the algorithm has any further technical effect. However, the present application did not do so:

5.3.11 The present invention, page 19, lines 1 to 8, discloses that the cluster size has to be optimised in order to reduce the load on the computer. However, further details are not provided, for example, the range of the optimal cluster size, relevant parameters, the amount of memory saved or the ratio of increased speed.

With respect to criterion (b), the Board arrived at the conclusion that the application failed to provide any details how the alleged further technical effect is achieved:

5.3.14 However, the present invention does not provide sufficient and specific disclosure, such as parameters, how the algorithm is optimised for the computer, nor is this reflected in the claim wording.

5.3.15 The Board is of the opinion that any further technical effect has to be specified and sufficiently disclosed in the invention and that the claims must comprise the specific features which contribute to the further technical effect of the invention.

Finally, also the third criterion (c) was considered not to be fulfilled since the claimed method fails to serve a technical purpose:

5.3.18 The Board is of the opinion that, if the algorithm claimed in the present invention depends on the preferences of the user, the purpose of the claimed method may be considered non-technical. Spam filters in general need a human conditioning for training an algorithm which kind of emails should to be classified as spam messages and which kind of emails should be kept in the mail box. This depends on the individual user preferences, …

Against this background, the Board concluded as follows:

5.4.2 According to G 1/19 (reasons 121) algorithms first of all define (non-technical) constraints to be considered in the context of the COMVIK approach (T 0641/00). Depending on whether they contribute to any technical effect achieved by the claimed invention, they may or may not in fact be taken into account in the inventive step assessment.

5.5 Obviousness

5.5.1 As discussed above a special technical effect related to the algorithm as defined in the independent claim is not sufficiently documented in the present application and is not reflected in the claim wording. The claim therefore defines a mere implementation of an algorithm without any additional special technical effect. This mere implementation of an algorithm cannot be considered involving an inventive step.

At the end, the Board dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2147/16 of September 7, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Converting loyalty points based on a commonly used reference currency: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to payment cards, and more specifically to the conversion of loyalty points based on a commonly used reference currency, such as US Dollar. However, the EPO considered this non-technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2534/17 (Payment module/RAKUTEN) of May 10, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Features making no technical contribution to an invention can be legitimately incorporated into the formulation of the technical problem.

A technical effect has to be achieved over the entire scope of a claim.

If a technical effect is only a bonus effect, it cannot count towards inventive step.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention relates to a payment module, such as a smart card, storing pre-loaded electronic money which is used for purchasing goods or services (paragraph [0002] of the published application).

1.2 Known cards subtract a payment amount from the amount of electronic money stored on the card. If the stored amount is below the required amount, the payment fails. Even smart cards, storing electronic money of different currency types, such as Euro, Dollar, or Yen, cannot compensate a shortage of one of the currencies with the other currencies stored on the card ([0004]).

The invention seeks to solve this problem by using the total amount of electronic money of all available currencies on the card ([0005]).

1.3 The solution involves using a reference currency (“utility electronic value” in the claims). If payment in one currency (“electronic value”) is required, e.g. Euro, and the Euro balance on the card is insufficient, the deficit is taken from the reference currency. If, however, the balance of the reference currency is also insufficient, the reference currency is replenished from one or more of the remaining currencies (“electronic values”, Figure 9B and [0086] to [0096]).

1.4 This idea is implemented by a plurality of applications (or “apps”) on the card; one for each of the electronic values, and one for the utility electronic value.

Fig. 4 of WO2012/147969 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1 according to the sixth auxiliary request:

Claim 1 (sixth auxiliary request; numbering added by the Board)

A payment module (22), comprising:

[1] a plurality of balance change means for changing balances of a plurality of stored electronic values, respectively;

[2] storage means (32) for storing a balance of a utility electronic value, the utility electronic value being mutually exchangeable with the plurality of electronic values;

[3] first reload amount acquisition means (26) for acquiring a first reload amount required for deducting a required amount, which is specified in balance change information input for one electronic value of the plurality of stored electronic values from an electronic value payment terminal, from a balance of the one electronic value (40-1 … 40-N);

[4] second reload amount acquisition means (26) for acquiring a second reload amount required for deducting the acquired first reload amount from the balance of the utility electronic value (40U) stored in the storage means;

[5] first balance change information generation means (26) for generating, in order that a total amount of money deducted from balances of other electronic values of the plurality of stored electronic values (40-1 … 40-N) than the one electronic value equals the acquired second reload amount, at least one piece of balance change information for decreasing a balance of at least one electronic value of the other electronic values, respectively; and

[6] second balance change information generation means (26) for generating, when in response to the generated at least one piece of balance change information the balance of the corresponding at least one electronic value is changed by corresponding at least one of the plurality of balance change means, respectively, balance change information for increasing the balance of the utility electronic value (40U) by the second reload amount, decreasing the balance of the utility electronic value by the first reload amount, and increasing the balance of the one electronic value by the first reload amount in the storage means;

[7] wherein one of the plurality of balance change means corresponding to the one electronic value changes, in response to the balance change information generated by the second balance change information generation means and the balance change information input from the electronic value payment terminal, the balance of the one electronic value;

[8] wherein the storage means (32) comprises a plurality of electronic value apps (A-1,…,A-N) respectively corresponding to the plurality of electronic values and a utility electronic value app (UA) corresponding to a utility electronic value, and wherein payment with an electronic payment terminal is performed by means of an electronic value app;

[9] wherein each of the plurality of the electronic value apps (A-1,…,A-N) comprises storage areas for storing the balance of the electronic value, programs for processing of changing the balance, programs for processing of communicating with the utility electronic value, one of the plurality of balance change means, and an encryption key of the utility value;

[10] wherein the each of the plurality of storage areas of the electronic value apps (A-1,…,A-N) is encrypted by the encryption key of the electronic value;

[11] wherein the utility electronic value app (UA) includes the storage means (32), the first reload amount acquisition means (26), the second reload amount acquisition means (26), the first balance change information generation means (26), the second balance change information generation means (26), programs for processing of communication with the plurality of the electronic values, the encryption keys of the plurality of the electronic values and exchange ratios between the utility electronic value and each of the plurality of stored electronic values, the exchange ratios used to exchange one unit of the utility electronic value with one unit of each of the electronic values;

[12] wherein the storage areas of the utility electronic value app (UA) are encrypted by the encryption key of the utility electronic value;

[13] wherein the electronic value app of the one electronic value which is input the balance change information from the electronic value payment terminal is configured to communicate with the utility electronic value app when an authentication is executed based on the encryption key of the one electronic value;

[14] wherein the utility electronic value app is configured to communicate with an electronic value app when an authentication is executed based on the encryption key of the utility electronic value stored in the electronic value app storage area of the one electronic value;

[15] wherein the electronic value apps of the other electronic values are configured to communicate with the utility electronic value app when an authentication is executed based on the encryption keys of the other electronic values stored in the utility electronic value app storage area;

[16] wherein the payment module executes programs stored in the electronic value app storage area of the one electronic value, the utility electronic value app storage area, and the electronic value app storage areas of the other electronic values.

Is it patentable?

In the first instance, the Examination Division refused the application due to lack of inventive step and added subject-matter. To overcome these objections, the appellant filed seven auxiliary requests at the appeal stage.

Concerning the sixth auxiliary request, the appellant argued as follows:

The appellant argued that while the payment module of claim 1 was motivated by the business idea to use the total amount of money on a card for payment, it provided a non-obvious technical implementation of this idea. Contrary to the examining division’s view, the utility electronic value and the utility electronic value app achieved technical effects and, therefore, were not part of the business method, but of the technical solution that had to be examined for inventive step.

First of all, the Board in charge expressed that it considers the embodiment of Fig. 17 of prior art document D3 as the closest prior art to the claimed subject-matter:

3.4 However, D3 discloses a multi-electronic money card for different currencies, which can be used for payment (Figure 17, [0312], [0325]) and means for converting between them ([0320]). The Board considers this more specific teaching to be a good starting point for assessing inventive step.

Afterwards, the Board identified two distinguishing features:

3.8 Claim 1 therefore essentially differs in that:

i) the conversions between different electronic values are carried out via a utility electronic value, whose balance is stored in and updated by the utility value app UA (feature 2, and implementation in features 3 to 7);

ii) the app storage areas are encrypted using the same keys as those employed for the authentication (features 10 and 12).

Concerning difference ii), the Board considered the distinguishing feature to be an obvious measure applied by the skilled person:

3.14 Concerning difference ii), the Board is of the opinion that encrypting the apps’ storage areas does not achieve any surprising or advantageous technical effect, but merely serves its well-known purpose of protecting the stored data. The Board further considers that in view of the public key encryption scheme for mutually authenticating the apps suggested by D3 ([0115], [0186]), it would have been an obvious choice for the skilled person to use the already available public keys of the applications to also encrypt the data in their respective storage areas.

Therefore, difference ii) does not involve an inventive step.

With respect to difference i), the Board arrived at the conclusion that this feature lacks a technical character:

3.9 Concerning difference i), the Board agrees with the examining division that the idea of using a utility value for converting between currencies may arise purely from non-technical business-related considerations and cannot recognise any technical problem which might be solved by this feature. …

To counter this argument, the appellant explained that the claimed subject-matter would lead to a reduced amount of memory:

3.10 The appellant argued that the utility electronic value was conceived with the aim to reduce memory usage. When implementing the business idea of the invention, i.e. using the total amount of electronic money for payment, the straightforward solution would be to allow each app to replenish its account by directly communicating with the other apps. In this setting, each app would have to store the encryption keys of all other apps, which would result in a total of N(N-1) stored keys. By using the utility electronic value app, the invention needed to store only N keys.

3.11 The appellant also argued that the invention needed less memory for storing the exchange rates: it had to store only N exchange rates (between the utility electronic value and each of the electronic values), whereas D3 had to store exchange rates for all pairs of currencies.

However, the Board in charge did not follow these arguments and outlined that the claimed invention is only motivated by non-technical considerations. Notably, the Board further argued that any reduction in memory usage is merely a bonus effect, which does not count towards inventive step. Finally, the Board outlined that the alleged technical effect is not achieved over the entire scope of the claim:

As reasoned above (point 3.9), the Board does not consider that the idea of the utility electronic value is motivated by technical considerations. It follows that the necessary exchange rates between this value and the other currencies also do not contribute to the technical character of the invention. Any reduction in memory usage resulting from the exchange rates is merely a bonus effect, which does not count towards inventive step.

The Board also notes that this effect is not achieved over the entire scope of the claim. In the case of two currencies (i.e. N = 2), for instance, D3 would need to store a single exchange rate between the two currencies, whereas the invention would need to store two rates for exchanging between each of the two currencies and the utility electronic value.

Against this background, the Board concluded that the non-technical feature according to consideration i) could be used for formulating the technical problem. The solution to this problem would then have been obvious to the skilled person:

3.12 According to the COMVIK approach (T 641/00), features making no technical contribution to the invention can be legitimately incorporated into the formulation of the technical problem. In the present case the problem therefore is to implement the concept of the utility electronic value and use it for converting between electronic values within the payment module of D3.

The Board judges that it would have been an obvious choice for the skilled person to implement the utility value and the required exchanges within the data exchange application of D3 as this application already mediates currency exchanges. The skilled person would thereby have arrived at an arrangement falling within the scope of the utility electronic value app UA of claim 1 in a straightforward manner. The calculations involving the first and second reload amounts are a direct implementation of the non-technical decision about the policy for replenishing the various balances of the currencies. Therefore, difference i) does not involve an inventive step.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

You can read the whole decision here: T 2534/17 (Payment module/RAKUTEN) of May 10, 2021.

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Predicting future acquisitions: non-technical

This decision is interesting for shop operators and concerns predicting future acquisitions. However, the EPO considered this non-technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0977/17 (Storing electronic receipts/OTTO GROUP SOLUTION PROVIDER) of June 17, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

A technical problem must be derivable from the claim wording.

Business research activities are excluded per se from patentability.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

The invention concerns a method for systematic storing and analysing of electronic and printed payment certificates documenting purchases made by a user (see originally filed application, page 1, paragraph 1; page 7, paragraph 2).

A corresponding system according to Fig. 2 includes a central database 140 connected to a computer 110, such as a shop cash register equipped with a bar code scanner (page 10, lines 10 to 28). In a preparatory phase, the database registers the user and creates an account (page 2, lines 23 to 26). After the registration, the user is provided with an identification card comprising a unique bar code 120 (paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3).

When a user makes a purchase, the cash register creates a payment certificate and stores it locally (page 2, lines 14 to 18; page 9, lines 22 to 25). Then, the user is authenticated by scanning the bar code (page 9, lines 26 to 28) and if the authentication is successful, the cash register transmits the stored payment certificate to the central database over the Internet (page 10, lines 4 to 9). The database then stores the received payment certificate in association with the user’s account (page 2, lines 4 and 5).

In addition to collecting the electronic payment certificates, the invention enables information extracted from printed payment certificates to be input into the database. To this end, the invention uses a scanning device and optical character recognition (OCR) methods (page 7, lines 9 to 18).

The database includes a statistical application analysing data extracted from payment certificates assigned to the user’s account (page 5, lines 25 to 32) in order to predict future purchasing behaviour of the user (page 6, lines 26 to 32). This might include for example predicting the probability that the user will want to purchase a certain product or a price he will be willing to pay for it (paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7).

Fig. 2 of WO 2013/068378 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1 according to the main request:

Claim 1 (main request)

Method for processing an electronic payment certificate, comprising:

a) creating an electronic payment certificate

(150) in response to a payment for an acquisition

b) authenticating a user or an entity having

executed the payment,

c) transferring the electronic payment certificate

(150) to an account of the user in a database

(130) for further processing, and

d) predicting future acquisitions by a user and/or

parameters of future acquisitions by a user

based on previous acquisitions by the user and/or

parameters of previous acquisitions by the user,

wherein a scanning device is adapted to scan a printed payment certificate and extract information from the printed payment certificate for further processing of the information in the database.

Is it patentable?

In the first instance, the Examination Division refused the application due to lack of inventive step in view of prior art document D1.

According to the Board, claim 1 includes the following two distinguishing features:

2.1 … It is common ground that claim 1 differs from D1 by:

A) Predicting future acquisitions by a user and/or parameters of future acquisitions by a user based on previous acquisitions by the user and/or parameters of previous acquisitions by the user.

B) A scanning device adapted to scan a printed payment certificate and extract information from the printed payment certificate for further processing of the information in the database.

However, the Board in charge arrived at the conclusion that both features lack a technical character.

Concerning feature A, the Board reformulated the technical problem and argued that this problem is of non-technical nature:

2.2 Concerning feature A, the appellant argued that it solved the objective technical problem of how to select a product to be presented to a user and to adjust the timing and location of the presentation of the product to the user. The examining division formulated a similar problem.

However, the Board considers that this problem formulation is not correct. Firstly, it is not derivable from the claim, which does not mention presenting products to the user. Secondly, even assuming for the sake of argument that the claimed method predicts time and location at which a user is likely to make future purchases, this is in the Board’s view not a (further) technical effect counting towards an inventive step. Rather, using statistical methods to predict future purchases based on previous ones is a business research activity excluded per se from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC (cf. decision T 154/04, points 19 and 20 of the reasons).

Using the COMVIK approach (see decision T 641/00) this non-technical functionality cannot contribute to an inventive step and is instead given to the skilled person within the framework of the objective technical problem. Accordingly, the Board considers that the skilled person faces the objective technical problem of implementing feature A in the system of D1.

…

Concerning feature B, the Board once more arrived at the conclusion that no technical character is present since the feature would merely relate to considerations concerning cognitive business content:

2.4 However, the Board considers that none of the purported effects qualifies as a further technical effect counting towards an inventive step.

Firstly, the advantages of increased data accuracy and ease of analysis are not derivable from the original application which does not explain why paper certificates are used. The application does not mention the format and content of printed certificates.

Secondly, even assuming that using the printed certificates indeed provided the alleged advantages, the decision to use these certificates would be based on considerations concerning their cognitive business content. These are purely business considerations.

Hence, the Board judges that at the claimed level of detail the requirement to use printed certificates does not involve any technical considerations and constitutes non-technical business matter.

To defend claim 1, the appellant argued that the distinguishing features A and B would produce a synergistic technical effect based on technical considerations:

2.8 The appellant argued further that features A and B were functionally interdependent and it was not correct to analyse them separately. More specifically, inputting into prediction algorithms more accurate and complete data facilitated these algorithms’ operations. As a result, it was possible to use less sophisticated prediction software. This was a synergistic technical effect.

However, the Board in charge was not convinced and maintained its position as outlined above:

2.8 … However, the Board considers that the distinguishing features do not interact synergistically. Firstly, the alleged synergistic effect is not derivable from the original application (cf. point 2.4. above). Secondly, the claim covers the case in which electronic payment certificates make up a vast majority of all analysed certificates and the Board cannot see how using few printed certificates (say, one printed certificate versus one million electronic ones) could allow simplifying the prediction software. Thirdly, as set out above, predicting future acquisitions is a non-technical business activity. Improving this activity by basing the predictions on more accurate business data does not give rise to a technical effect which could provide a basis for the alleged synergy.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step.

You can read the whole decision here:T 0977/17 (Storing electronic receipts/OTTO GROUP SOLUTION PROVIDER) of June 17, 2021.

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Dynamically enabling customized web content: non-technical

This decision concerns dynamically enabling customized web content which was considered non-technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1632/18 (Dynamically enabling customized web content/LIVEPERSON) of May 21, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

A technical effect must be adequately supported by the claim wording.

The invention

The subject-matter of the European patent application underlying the present decision was summarized by the Board in charge as follows:

The invention

1. The application relates to generating customised web page content based on a visitor’s interactions with the web page, for example targeted advertising in web pages (description of the application as originally filed, paragraphs [0003], [0012], [0026], [0039], [0041], [0044], [0047]).

For example, a website provider of web page content can partner with a video company to incorporate video content such as advertisements into the website provider’s web pages without modifying the original Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) code of the web pages (description, paragraph [0043]). A web page visitor’s interactions with a website can be stored as a cookie (paragraphs [0045] to [0048]).

In one implementation, the content of a web page already includes a tag in HTML code that references (e.g. with a URL link) a JavaScript file (the “default tag code”) on a custom content server different from the website’s server (i.e. the general content server; paragraphs [0022], [0043]). The website provider can create rules that cause video content (i.e. the new content) to be downloaded from a custom content server and added into web page content using the tag. For example, the website provider can configure a rule so that (upon the occurrence of a condition) video code is uploaded to, and executed on, the visitor’s browser, resulting in the video content being integrated into web page content without the visitor having to navigate away from the web page (paragraph [0043]).

Fig. 1 of WO 2011/127049 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request - itemisation added by the board)

“[A] A computer-implemented method, comprising:

[B] storing a set of rules, at a custom content server, wherein a rule is associated with a condition, wherein a rule defines when to transmit customized webpage data, and wherein customized webpage data corresponds to an interaction with a webpage;

[C] receiving, at the custom content server, a request for a default tag code, wherein the request is associated with loading webpage data from a general content server on a computing device, wherein the webpage data includes original content data and a tag, wherein the tag is configured to facilitate communication between the computing device and the custom content server, wherein when the webpage data from the general content server is loaded on the computing device, the computing device displays a webpage corresponding to the original content data and the tag causes the request for the default tag code to be transmitted to the custom content server;

[D] transmitting the default tag code, wherein when the default tag code is received at the computing device, the default tag code is executed, wherein executing the default tag code generates a tag module that is stored in the computing device, wherein the default tag code includes instructions that configure the tag module to monitor an interaction with the webpage, and wherein the tag module is associated with a tag identifier;

[E] receiving behaviour data depicting interactions with the webpage, wherein the behaviour data is generated and appended to the tag identifier associated with the tag module when the tag module detects an interaction;

[F] selecting a rule from the stored set of rules, wherein selecting includes using the tag identifier, and wherein the rule defines customized webpage data;

[G] determining, based on the received behaviour data, whether the behavior data appended to the tag identifier satisfies the condition associated with the rule; and

[H] transmitting the customized webpage data when the condition associated with the rule has been satisfied.”

Is it patentable?

The Board in charge identified three distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D1:

2.5 The claimed invention thus differs from the method of document D1 in the following distinguishing features:

DF1 The rules and the web page data are stored on different servers (custom content server and general content server), and the (client) computing device communicates with both servers.

DF2 The web page requested from the general content server contains a tag configured to facilitate communication between the computing device and the custom content server, the tag causing a request for the default tag code to be transmitted to the custom content server, which then receives that request.

DF3 The tag module is associated with an identifier to which the behaviour data (of the user’s interaction) is appended and which is used for selecting a rule from the set of rules stored on the custom content server.

In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant argued the technical effect and the objective technical problem to be solved as follows:

2.6 … the technical effect was that it was simpler to install and maintain customisation of web page content. Thus, an objective technical problem to be solved could be formulated as how to provide a method for dynamically customising web page content which is simpler to install and maintain.

However, in the written proceedings, the Board in charge did not agree and formulated the technical problem underlying the present application in a different way which is in accordance with what is described in the description:

1.6.1 … Consequently, the board finds that the claimed method solves the more specific problem (see paragraphs [0043] and [0044] of the description) of how to allow a third party company (such as an advertising company) to customise the behaviour of a website (as known from document D1) for each individual visitor by incorporating third party content into web page content of a website provider.

In the written reply to the Board’s communication, the appellant reformulated the technical problem and argued that the distinguishing features provide the technical effect of reducing the load of the general content server:

2.7 In its written reply to the board’s communication, the appellant argued that the distinguishing features provided the technical effect of reducing the load of the general content server.

Again, the Board did not agree due to the following two reasons:

2.8 In the circumstances of the present case, the board does not recognise the alleged effect of load reduction as a technical effect. Firstly, there is no disclosure in the application as filed regarding this effect. Secondly, the board does not consider that moving processing tasks from the general content server to the custom content server in order to bring a task under the administrative control of a third party which controls the custom content server, as in the present case, can be regarded as a technical consideration.

During the oral hearing, the appellant once more reformulated the technical problem:

2.10 The appellant then reformulated the problem, during the oral proceedings, as “how to implement a scalable computer system in which a content provider can incorporate customised web page content into general web page content of different web page providers”.

In the hearing, the Board expressed that a solution to this problem is not reflected by the claim wording:

2.10.1 As discussed at the oral proceedings, the board does not find any support for scalability with respect to customers in the wording of claim 1 …

As a result, the Board was not convinced that the distinguishing features contribute to a technical effect or are based on further technical considerations. Hence, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of inventive step in view of D1.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1632/18 (Dynamically enabling customized web content/LIVEPERSON) of May 21, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Simulation of weldments: non-technical

This decision concerns the simulation of weldments. However, the simulation was considered non-technical by the EPO, specifically in light of the decision G1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2594/ 17 () of May 20, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

This is one of the first decisions referring to the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/19 regarding computer-implemented simulations.

For the purposes of assessing inventive step of a computer-implemented simulation, it is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process.

The invention

The subject-matter of the European patent application underlying the present decision was summarized by the Board in charge as follows:

2. The claimed invention

The claimed invention relates to a system and a method for carrying out virtual (computer-simulated) testing and inspection of virtual (computer-simulated) weldments.

The claimed system renders 3D images of virtual weldments. The virtual weldments are generated using a virtual reality arc welding system, which is described in detail in the application.

The system carries out a series of computer-simulated tests on the rendered virtual weldments. These computer simulated tests correspond to tests carried out in “real-life” weldments in order to assess their quality and identify possible defects. The system renders animations of such tests and displays the virtual weldment after the test. The user can then inspect the tested virtual weldment by moving the image around in a display.

The system is conceived for a training context in which trainees generate virtual weldments, which are then tested and the result of the test can be used as criterion for passing or failing an examination.

Fig. 2 of WO 2012/137060 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request)

A system (100) for the virtual testing and inspecting of a virtual weldment, said system (100) comprising:

a programmable processor-based subsystem (110) operable to execute coded instructions, said coded instructions including:

a rendering engine configured to render at least one of a three-dimensional (3D) virtual weldment (2200) before simulated testing, a 3D animation of a virtual weldment (2200) under simulated testing, and a 3D virtual weldment (2200) after simulated testing, and

an analysis engine configured to perform simulated testing of a 3D virtual weldment (2200), and further configured to perform inspection of at least one of a 3D virtual weldment (2200) before simulated testing, a 3D animation of a virtual weldment (2200) under simulated testing, and a 3D virtual weldment (2200) after simulated testing for at least one of pass/fail conditions and defect/discontinuity characteristics;

at least one display device (140, 150) operatively connected to said programmable processor-based subsystem (110) for displaying at least one of a 3D virtual weldment (2200) before simulated testing, a 3D animation of a virtual weldment (2200) under simulated testing, and a 3D virtual weldment (2200) after simulated testing; and

a user interface (130) operatively connected to said programmable processor-based subsystem (110) and configured for at least manipulating an orientation of at least one of a 3D virtual weldment (2200) before simulated testing, a 3D animation of a virtual weldment (2200) under simulated testing, and a 3D virtual weldment (2200) after simulated testing on said at least one display device (140, 150),

wherein said simulated testing includes at least one of simulated destructive testing and simulated non-destructive testing of the virtual weldment.

Is it patentable?

The Board in charge considered the claimed system to be a general purpose personal computer configured to execute virtual testing and inspection of virtual weldments. Hence, a common computer was considered as a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step:

3.1.3 The board concludes from the above that the claimed system is a general purpose personal computer configured to execute virtual testing and inspection of virtual weldments.

3.1.4 The board considers thus a notoriously well-known, general purpose, personal computer to be a suitable starting point for the skilled person.

On the differences over the closest prior art and on the underlying technical problem, the Board commented as follows:

3.2 Differences and technical problem

3.2.1 Compared to such a notoriously well-known personal computer, the claimed system differs in that it can (“is operable to”) execute coded instructions including a rendering engine configured to render a 3D virtual weldment and an analysis engine configured to perform simulated testing and inspection of the 3D virtual weldment for pass/fail conditions and/or defect/discontinuity characteristics. In addition, the display device can display the 3D images of the weldment and the user interface allows the user to move the displayed images around (“manipulating an orientation”).

In essence, the claimed system renders a 3D image, which can also be an animated 3D image (of a virtual weldment) and processes this image by simulating testing and inspection of the virtual 3D weldment. It then displays the processed image and allows the user to move it around.

Importantly, the Board in charge stated that the claimed subject-matter (as well as the application as a whole) only refers to the testing of virtual weldments and not to “real life” weldments:

3.2.2 As a first point the board notes that the claimed system carries out computer-simulated testing and inspection of a virtual weldment, i.e. of a computer-simulated weldment and not of a physical, i.e. “real life”, weldment.

3.2.3 Moreover, the claimed system does not simulate such tests carried out on a “real life” weldment. In other words, there is no particular “real life” weldment that needs to be tested (and inspected) and instead of carrying out “real life” tests on it, computer-simulated tests are carried out on a computer-simulated virtual representation of that particular “real life” weldment. As the application describes, only a virtual weldment is generated, mainly for training purposes, and without any link to a particular “real life” weldment.

As such, the the claimed system would only refer to image processing which is a non-technical task as conformed by a plurality of decisions of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal:

3.2.5 In the board’s opinion, therefore, the claimed system carries out image processing. Images of weldments are rendered, manipulated and displayed. That the images represent weldments or that the manipulations represent testing and/or inspection of those weldments is, in the general manner claimed and described in the application, the result of the cognitive content (information) of the displayed images. It is the user who perceives the images as weldments and the manipulation of those images as testing and/or inspection. Such cognitive information (“what” is displayed) is not related to any technical problem or technical constraints. This applies also to the type of tests (e.g. destructive or non-destructive) the system is able to simulate.

It is established case law that the cognitive content of a displayed image (“what” is displayed) is in principle not a technical feature (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 9th Edition, July 2019, I.A.2.6).

Against these finding, the appellant argued inter alia as follows:

Making reference to paragraph [0043] of the application, the appellant pointed out that simulated weldments generated using the VRAW system could be used beyond training. Such a simulated weldment could be integrated in a simulated bridge and the testing could involve simulations of the bridge over time in order to estimate whether the quality of the weldment would influence the life time of the bridge. In analogy to the reasoning of the decision T 625/11, where the deciding board had concluded that a simulation of a nuclear reactor was technical, the features relating to the simulation of the testing of the weldment were also to be seen as technical.

However, according to the Board in charge, the appellant’s arguments would not be in line with the decision G1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

3.2.10 Secondly, regarding the technical character of the simulation, the board notes that the decision referred to by the appellant was cited in decision G1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA)(see point 109 of the reasons), which relates to computer-implemented simulations. In G1/19 the EBoA concluded that, for the purposes of assessing inventive step of a computer-implemented simulation, it is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process (see e.g. points 1 and 2 of the Headnote).

Hence, even if the computer-simulated testing of the virtual weldment were to be carried out within a computer-simulated simulation of a bridge (the bridge having incontestably sufficient technical character), this would not have any influence on the board’s assessment of inventive step of the features of the claimed invention. Moreover, the board points out that in the system of claim 1 of the Main Request there is no mention of nor any suggestion to such a type of testing at all but only of testing used for training purposes, as the reference to the determination of a pass/fail condition indicates.

Hence, the Board considered the distinguishing features as not technical:

3.2.11 Summarising, the claimed system differs from a notoriously well-known general purpose computer in that it is configured to display images of virtual weldments, of virtual testing of those virtual weldments, and of the results of the virtual testing on those virtual weldments. It can also determine a pass/fail condition based on those results.

These differences relate only to the cognitive content of the images and the board does not consider them to be technical features (see point 3.2.5 above).

As a result, the Board ignored the distinguishing features for assessing inventive step and thus considered the claimed subject-matter to be rendered-obvious. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2594/ 17 () of May 20, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Managing media in a network: non-technical

This decision concerns a media management application. However, the effect produced by said application was considered non-technical by the EPO. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2950/18 (Managing media in a network) of May 5, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.07:

Key takeaways

Features that only relate to the presentation of information in an intuitive way are generally considered non-technical and therefore cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

The subject-matter of the European patent application underlying the present decision was summarized by the Board in charge as follows:

2. The invention

The application relates to utilising a media management application to manage, control and/or render media from a collection of digital media files in a network. The proposed invention allows a user to browse, search, manage or render content from multiple servers in the network. The user may view a visual representation of active media connections between the available servers and the available rendering devices connected to the network (description as published, page 1, lines 8 to 18).

Figure 6 illustrates a connections sub-view of a media management application disclosed in the application and is further described in the description, page 37, line 8, to page 39, line 30. The connections sub-view displays a graphic representation of media flowing between the servers and the rendering devices. The user may interact with this graphic representation to control the media flow between devices.

Fig. 2 of WO 2009/123694 A2

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request - labeling A, B ... added by the Board)

[A] A method for managing media in a network (10), wherein a first terminal (30), a first rendering device (21), a second rendering device (22), a first server (11) and a second server (12) are connected to the network (10), and further wherein the first server (11) stores a first plurality of media files, wherein the second server (12) stores a second plurality of media files, and further wherein the first server (11) and the second server (12) are different servers, wherein the first rendering device (21) and the second rendering device (22) are different rendering devices, the method comprising the steps of:

[B] displaying (810) a first list of icons which represent available servers connected to the network (10) and accessible through the network (10), wherein the first list of icons includes a first icon (461) which corresponds to the first server (11) and a second icon (462) which corresponds to the second server (12);

[C] displaying (810) a second list of icons which represent available rendering devices connected to the network (10) and accessible through the network (10), wherein the second list of icons includes a third icon (464) which corresponds to the first rendering device (21) and a fourth icon (465) which corresponds to the second rendering device (22), and further wherein the first terminal (30) displays the first list of icons and the second list of icons simultaneously;

[D] selecting the third icon (464) using the first terminal (30);

[E] transmitting a first media file of the first plurality of media files from the first server (11) to the first rendering device (21), wherein the first media file was selected from a search result, wherein the first media file is transmitted in response to selection of the third icon (464);

[F] displaying a graphic representation which connects the first icon (461) to the third icon (464), wherein the graphic representation indicates transmission of the first media file from the first server (11) to the first rendering device (21); and

[G] rendering the first media file on the first rendering device (21).

Is it patentable?

At the end of the examination phase, the examining division rejected the present application due to lack of inventive step. In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant argues as follows:

3.4.1 In its statement of grounds of appeal (page 4, second paragraph), the appellant essentially agrees that the distinguishing features over document D1 relate to the graphic representation displaying a first list of icons according to feature B and a second list of items that is, according to the last part of feature C, displayed as icons simultaneously with the first list of icons and wherein a connection between an icon of the first and the second list of icons indicates the selected transmission of a media file from a server to a destination (feature F of claim 1).

…

3.5 In its statement of grounds of appeal (last paragraph of page 4, first paragraph of page 5), the appellant submitted that the display of a graphic representation as specified in claim 1 provided users with feedback on their selection of the rendering device to which the media file is to be transmitted. Displaying graphic indications provided a representation of media flowing between the servers and the rendering devices (see description, page 37, lines 27 to 29) and allowed a user to monitor how media was transmitted between devices. This made it easier for the user to track transmission of media, envision a functional picture of the network, and manage and/or troubleshoot the network (see description, page 6, lines 10 to 21).

According to the appellant, the objective technical problem could be considered to be how to enable the user to more effectively and efficiently manage media transmissions in the network (statement of grounds, page 5, third full paragraph).

However, the Board in charge did not follow the appellant’s line of argumentation because it considered the distinguishing feature over the cited prior art as non-technical:

3.6 The board considers that the distinguishing features do not contribute to solving a technical problem. It agrees with the examining division that the particular manner of presenting the network and the transmission (displaying two lists of icons representing servers and rendering devices simultaneously and displaying connections between servers and rendering devices) concern aspects that are directed to graphical representations of information in a manner particularly appealing to some users (“intuitive”). The board considers that these particular aspects concern merely the manner in which the information is presented and do not contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention.

Hence, the Board ignored the non-technical feature for assessing inventive step and arrived at the result that the subject-matter as claimed is rendered-obvious by the cited prior art. Thus, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2950/18 (Managing media in a network) of May 5, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

www.bardehle.com/team/detail/heckeler-patrick.html

Ensuring data integrity, facilitating centralized control of logistics plants and improving data exchange to other logistics plants: non-technical

This decision concerns a data exchange system in the area of logistics. However, none of the effects produced by said system were considered technical by the EPO. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2522/16 () of March 25, 2021 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Pure business-related aspects cannot establish technicality.

The invention

The subject-matter of the European patent application underlying the present decision was summarized by the Board in charge as follows:

2. The application

The application is directed at a virtual manufacturing network (VMN). The manufacturing processes of multiple geographically separated logistics plants are to be controlled and monitored (paragraph [30] of the published application), for instance in view of stringent regulation associated with pharmaceutical and processed food products (paragraphs [1] and [2] of the published application). For example, the application aims at improving and identifying alternatives to the cumbersome manual processes employed to compile batch records during production (paragraph [3] of the published application).

The ultimate aim of the invention is an improved business administration process, in particular involving rules and regulations for pharmaceutical products (see further paragraphs [4] to [6] of the published application).

For this purpose, information selected according to predefined criteria is kept consistent across different logistics plants. Data selected according to predefined criteria is copied, in a distributed or networked computer system, between local computers and a central computer, these computers being connected to each other through interfaces.

Fig. 2 of EP 2 199 960 A1

Here is how the invention was defined in claim 1:

Claim 1 (main request - labeling f1, f2 ... added by the Board)

A data exchange system (108) comprising:

f1 a logistics plant synchronization interface (210) operable to connect to multiple logistics plants (110, 112, 114);

f2 a virtual hub interface (212) operable to connect to a centralized manufacturing collaboration hub (104) that implements a virtual manufacturing network for the multiple logistics plants (110, 112, 114); and

f3 a memory (208) comprising:

a material master views definition (214) specifying a material master view identifier (216) for a logistics plant material master view (218, 220), a virtual manufacturing network relevance identifier (222) for the material master view identifier (216), and a logistic plant data copy flag (224) for the material master view identifier (216), wherein the material master views definition (214) is shared with the multiple logistics plants (110, 112, 114) for facilitating a mirroring operation (228);

f4 a data exchange module (226) operable to:

analyze the virtual manufacturing network relevance identifier (222) to determine whether the logistics plant material master view (218, 220) is relevant; and when the logistics plant material master view (218, 220) is relevant, analyze the logistic plant data copy flag (224) to determine when to initiate the mirroring operation (228), the mirroring operation (228) comprising synchronization of data in the logistics plant material master view (218, 220) and received through the logistics plant synchronization interface (210) from an originating logistics plant from among the multiple logistics plants (110, 112, 114), with a mirrored material master view (232) for the logistics plant material master view (218, 220) in the virtual manufacturing network through the virtual hub interface (212); and

f5 a data conversion specifier (234) operable to direct the data exchange module (226) to implement a specified data conversion during the mirroring operation (228), wherein the conversion is performed according to rules defined in the data exchange module (226); and

f6 a processor (206) operable to execute the data exchange module (226).

Is it patentable?

Against the rejection of the first instance examining division, the appellant argued as follows:

Care should be taken when distinguishing between non-technical and technical features according to the Comvik approach as set out in T 0641/00, in line with the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal.

For instance, for a feature to be technical, it was sufficient that it was based on technical considerations, as discussed in T 0769/92. Although this decision dated from before the Comvik decision, it had not been invalidated in the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s opinion G 03/08. Instead, it had been endorsed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its recent decision G 01/19 under point 126 and thus still applied.

An application to the present case would result in recognizing that, while the content of the rules defined in the claims reflected business needs, their implementation by means of the data structure defined in feature f3, including technical aspects like a “copy flag”, was based on technical considerations.

In more detail, the appellant was of the opinion that the the subject-matter of claim 1 provides a technical effect and solves a technical problem:

… Instead, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request, directed to a data exchange system and further defined by features f1 to f6, achieved the effects of

i) ensuring data integrity in the sense of data consistency across different locations in a networked information system as defined in features f1 and f2 in real time,

ii) facilitating centralized control of logistics plants by the data structure and its functionalities defined in feature f3 and illustrated in Table 7 and paragraphs [75] and [76] of the published application,

iii) improving data exchange to other logistics plants by mirroring and converting relevant data according to features f4 and f5.

Effects i) to iii) were technical and the corresponding features of claim 1 of the main request had thus to be taken into account for assessing inventive step.

In view of technical effects i), ii) and iii) the objective technical problem to be solved by the skilled person starting from a networked information system could then be formulated as

– how to enable an efficient data exchange with improved data integrity within a heterogeneous networked information system.

However, the Board in charge takes a different position and considered none of these effects technical:

3.2.1 Effect i), data consistency

A process for achieving consistency of manufacturing information across different locations does per se not solve a technical problem, but merely fulfills a business administration aim.

…

3.3 Effect ii), centralized control

The centralized control of plants mentioned in the application (see paragraph [30]) does not relate to any technical industrial control system at production process level in the form of, e. g., a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system or a distributed control system (DCS). …

Such a centralized specification is, however, a necessary part of the administrative process to achieve the business administration aim of keeping certain manufacturing information consistent.

…

3.4 Effect iii), efficient data exchange by mirroring and converting relevant data

The “data conversion specifier” referred to in feature f5 relates to specifying which data are to be converted upon synchronization, or, in the words of the description, when being “copied” (see Table 8). The conversion may be as basic as leaving the data unchanged or transforming it to a blank data entry in accordance with the administrative needs. The “data conversion specifier” has therefore a similar functionality as the “material master views definition” and hence represents, like the latter, pure business matter.

Against this background, the Board in charge concluded as follows:

3.5 Conclusion concerning technical effects / closest state of the art

In line with the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal mentioned by the appellant, it follows from the above that the technical aspects of effects i) to iii) referred to by the appellant do not go beyond commonly known effects arising whenever a conventional networked information system is used to receive, store, process and send data. The Board is not aware of any other technical effects provided by the features of claim 1 of the main request, either.

A conventional networked information systems as generally known at the filing date of the present application may therefore be regarded as representing the closest state of the art, in line with point 2.6 of the contested decision.

…

3.6 Inventive step

The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request differs from such a conventional networked information system only by aspects relating to an administrative information exchange process which do not provide a technical effect, as set out by the Examining Division (see points 2.3.1 to 2.3.10 of the Reasons).

Since the distinguishing aspects represent pure business matter, they can be included in a non-technical requirement specification given to the technically skilled person in line with what was set out in T 1463/11 (see point 13 of the Reasons).

Thus, it is not appropriate to formulate the objective technical problem as suggested by the appellant. Instead, the objective technical problem can be formulated as how to implement the administrative information exchange process as defined by the Examining Division in points 2.3.1 to 2.3.10 of the Reasons of the contested decision on a generally known conventional networked information system.

Such an implementation would have been a straightforward task for the technically skilled person.

Hence, the Board arrived at the result that the subject-matter as claimed lacks inventive step and thus dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2522/16 () of March 25, 2021

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field

Patrick Heckeler

Patrick is a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He specializes in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

T 0200/19: Disambiguation of text with an upper and lower case

T1790/17: Controlling the manufacture of a product

T 2251/13: Projection surface with built-in track pad

T 1422/19: Determining visibility of content on web browser by indirect measurement

Fear of missing out?

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (sixth auxiliary request; numbering added by the Board)

Is it patentable?

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request - itemisation added by the board)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request - labeling A, B ... added by the Board)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop

Key takeaways

The invention

Claim 1 (main request - labeling f1, f2 ... added by the Board)

Is it patentable?

More information

Stay in the loop