One thing I have been trying to do recently is to connect together a variety of information sources. This has inevitably involved Python.

Estonian Snake Pipe by Diego Delso, Wikimedia Commons, License CC-BY-SA 3.0

Estonian Snake Pipe by Diego Delso, Wikimedia Commons, License CC-BY-SA 3.0

Due to the Windows-centric nature of business software, I have also needed to setup Python on a Windows machine. Although setting up Python is easy on a Linux machine it is a little more involved for Windows (understatement). Here is how I did it.

  • First, download and install one of the Python Windows installers from here. As I am using several older modules I like to work with version 2.7 (the latest release is 2.7.8).
  • Second, if connecting to a Microsoft SQL database, install the Python ODBC module. I downloaded the 32-bit version for Python 2.7 from here.
  • Third, I want to install IPython as I find a notebook is the best way to experiment. This is a little long-winded. Download the script as described and found here. I downloaded into my Python directory. Next run the script from the directory (e.g. python Then add the Python scripts directory to your Environmental Variables as per here. Then install IPython using the command: easy_install ipython[all].
  • Fourth, download a Windows installer for Numpy and Pandas from here. I downloaded the 32-bit versions for Python 2.7. Run the installers.

Doing this I can now run a iPython notebook (via the command: ipython notebook – this will open a browser window for your default browser). I found Pandas gave me an error on the initial import as dateutil was missing – this was fixed by running the command: easy_install python-dateutil.

Now the aim is to connect the European Patent Office’s databases of patent and legal information to internal SQL databases and possibly external web-services such as the DueDil API



If you are looking for some data to help with marketing efforts Google Trends can be useful.

For example, you can play with terms to work out areas of rising interest and direct blog posts and tweets in that direction. It can also provide a guide to the terms non-professionals use.

For example, I work in intellectual property. In this field talking about “protecting ideas” would likely get you more interest/exposure than talking about protecting “innovations” or “inventions” or “patents” specifically.


Similarly, talking about “Brands” would likely get you more interest/exposure than talking about “Trademarks”.


Have a play and let me know if you come up with any interesting insights.



Claimed Subject Matter:

The alleged invention relates to a computer system and method for executing a point of sale transaction. In particular, the invention provides a point of sale terminal which is capable of receiving first price data from at least one item purchased by a customer and a server which receives both transaction data from the point of sale terminal and second price data pertaining to comparable competitor items from an update server so that the first and second price data can be compared and a voucher issued based on the comparison.

[This appears to be a patent application directed to Sainsbury’s Brand Match feature.]


The Hearing Officer found that the actual contribution of the invention related entirely to a method of doing business which, as it was brought about by a computer program, also related to a computer program, as such. The invention was therefore excluded by section 1(2) and the application was refused.

Section 22 shows the risk of using an argument that is not present in the specification; the Hearing Office was sceptical of an argument based around quality control / self-checking that appeared to have little basis in the application as filed. As we have seen with many Europe cases, basing an argument on advantages not described in the patent application rarely succeed.

The Applicant attempted to argue that a technical contribution lay in “the overall architecture of  the computer system with technical components which in themselves are known but connected in a different way” . However, on applying step 3 of the Aerotel/Macrossan test the Hearing Officer was firmly of the view that “the actual contribution relates entirely to a way of conducting business” (see 27). This is because the actual contribution was deemed to be “about: (i) comparing prices, which manifestly is a business issue, and (ii) issuing a voucher with “value” information on it, which is also wholly a business issue”.

Section 29 has useful comments on whether the computer program exclusion is avoided. It was argued that “it is the connectivity of the components of hardware that creates the overall architecture of the invention” and that the computer program “lies in the middle of the system” but does not make up the whole system. This was found to be initially persuasive. However, the Hearing Officer concluded that the ” connectivity is necessarily brought about by a computer program” and that therefore lies “entirely in the programming itself”.


T 2296/10

Claimed Subject Matter:

OFDM-transmitting apparatus and method, and OFDM-receiving apparatus and method.


This case provides an interesting consideration of technical prejudices.

The Appellant attempted to argue that technical prejudices of the company behind the closest prior art document (the BBC) meant that the claimed solution was not obvious.

The Board disagreed with the Appellant’s arguments stating (see 2.1.10):

In this regard, the board notes that, in general, cost considerations and technological preferences of a particular company (like the BBC in this case) cannot impose technical prejudices or uncertainties upon a technically skilled person such that he would be deterred from envisaging a technically sound and feasible solution for that reason alone. Otherwise, when analysing and interpreting the actual teaching of the closest prior art determined for the purpose of assessing inventive step according to the well-established “problem-solution approach”, internal experiences, beliefs, and preferences concerning technologies to be applied by the company from which that closest prior art originates would generally have to be taken into account. This would in turn mean that – to answer the question whether the skilled person starting out from the closest prior art would in fact arrive at the claimed solution – additional internal background information on the respective closest prior art (e.g. derived from witness statements from some employees as provided by the present appellant) would be necessary. In other words, the extent to which the notional skilled person in fact applies his skills in providing a solution to an objective technical problem would be unduly bound by such internal information (e.g. the expected infrastructure costs incurred by the BBC when proposing a change in its applied technology) at the filing date of an application instead of finding an appropriate solution to the objective problem posed. That would, however, definitely be incompatible with the problem-solution approach as generally applied.

Rather, the person skilled in a technical field (i.e. mobile communication networks in the present case) would try to seek a technical solution to an objective technical problem (i.e. choosing a certain pilot symbol pattern) under certain constraints (i.e. digital video distribution), starting with the closest prior art (i.e. document D1). However, based on the reasoning set out in points to , the board considers that said skilled person would arrive at the solution (i.e. using a DVB-T-based pilot symbol pattern) according to feature A) of claim 1 without exercising inventive skills.

[With thanks to Jake Loftus for help finding and reviewing these cases.]


T 1602/09

Claimed Subject Matter:

A  computer system for managing relationships between brokers and traders in a trading network.


The Appellant claimed that the invention solved a technical problem which arose in such systems, namely that a trader could not simply and easily control, i.e. prevent or permit, a computer terminal operated by a broker to send trading commands on behalf of the trader from the computer terminal via the network to the trading system.

The Appeal was dismissed by the Board.

The Board found that the problem formulation only made sense in the context of operations by a (non-technical) “active trader”, these being traders who wish to be able to supervise trade orders given to brokers. It was found that since the trading was computer-based the active trader would need to have access to the broker’s trading system. The skilled person was certainly aware that this made a log-on necessary. Equivalently, if the active trader for some reason was not logged on, the broker should not be allowed to trade. Ideally, the check should be automatic. These straight-forward considerations were deemed to lead directly to the subject-matter of claim 1.

[With thanks to Jake Loftus for help finding and reviewing these cases.]


T 1192/10

Claimed Subject Matter:

User interface with gesture recognition.

The subject-matter of claim 1 differed from the disclosure in the closest prior art document in that according to claim 1:

a) warning messages are output to the user instead of having only internal messages between different components,

b) a range of sampling periods, i.e. a period when the button is activated, is supervised,

c) a range of poses indicating ranges of pitch and roll angles of the input device with respect to the bottom plane on which the input device is positioned is supervised and

d) temporary button release when the button is deactivated and re-activated within a predetermined time causes another warning to the user.


Feature (a) of outputting warning messages to a user instead of internal messages between different components was deemed to be technical, solving the technical problem of how to provide feedback to the user about internal states or identified conditions of the device, but notoriously known.

However, features (b) of supervising a range of sampling periods and (d) providing temporary de-activation of a button were deemed to be technical features that provided an inventive step over the cited art. This set aside an earlier decision of the examining division.

The examining division had argued that although the actual implementation of the specific validation criteria involved a technically skilled person, the definition of the expected operation (e.g. what motions and durations of the input are expected) was rather business-based, according to the intended purpose of the device and to design choices. This argument was not accepted by the Board who concluded that, whatever the reason for the definition of a gesture might be, the underlying ranges, rolls and angles are of a technical nature.


T 0913/10

Claimed Subject Matter:

Encrypting data within a database system based on a defined system role (security administrator, database administrator, and user administrator).


The case provides an interesting discussion about the term “role”, e.g. as used in a computing sense e.g sysadmin, user, database admin.

The Board concluded that “that nothing in the claims or in the description can dispel the reasonable possibility that the definition of tasks to be distributed over three administrators is merely an organisational and hence non-technical issue, not­withstanding that it relates to a technical entity such as a database system”. The claims were then found to lack an inventive step based on this assumption.

[With thanks to Jake Loftus for help finding and reviewing these cases.]

The amazing @PatentSecretary has made my day by sending me a link on how to remove multiple authors from Track Changes Word documents.

This has been a pain for a while now. Firstly, Word sometimes suffers from bouts of multiple personality disorder, imagining me to be several individuals with the same name but with different Track Changes colours. Secondly, it is a pain when working in teams on a document for external use or review. It also doesn’t help that useful features are shuffled around with each version update of Word.

The advice itself comes from this very useful article by Shauna Kelly. The  bit about removing author information is set out below:

Q: I want to send my document outside the company. I want to leave tracked changes in the document, but I don’t want anyone to see who made the tracked changes or when they were made. How do I do that?

Word 2002 and earlier

In Word 2002 and earlier, you can’t. The author (or reviewer) information and the date information are permanently attached to the revision when the revision was tracked. You can’t change them, even in macro code.

Word 2003

In Word 2003, Tools > Options > Security. Tick the box “Remove personal information from file properties on save.” In spite of the name, this does more than just remove information in the file properties. If this box is ticked, Word removes the name of the author of a tracked change, and it removes the date and time that the change was made when you save your document. But it leaves the tracked change itself. All tracked changes and comments will be now attributed to an anonymous “Author”.

In Word 2007 and Word 2010

For one document at a time, you can remove the personal information about tracked changes. To do that:

  • In Word 2007: Round Office button > Prepare > Inspect Document > Inspect.
  • *In Word 2010: File > Info > Check for Issues > Inspect Document > Inspect.*

After the Inspector does its thing, you will see several ‘Remove All’ buttons.

  • The Remove All button for Comments, Revisions etc removes comments and accepts all tracked changes.
  • *The Remove All button for Document Properties and Personal Information just assigns the name “Author” to your tracked changes, and removes the date and time the tracked change. This is the one you need if you want to retain the tracked changes, but remove the author’s name and the date and time the tracked change was made.*

The Remove All button for Document Properties and Personal Information sets the ‘Remove personal information from file properties on save’ option for the document. So next time you save, your name will again be removed from tracked changes. If you don’t want that, then:

  • In Word 2010 do File > Info. In the ‘Prepare for Sharing’ section you will now see a note telling you that personal information will be removed on save. Click ‘Allow this information to be saved in your file’ to turn the setting off.
  • In Word 2007 and Word 2010 you can turn off this option in the Privacy Settings in the Trust Center. The option is greyed out and disabled unless (a) you have a document created in an earlier version of Word that used this setting or (b) you run the Document Inspector from the File (or Office Button) menu and choose to remove Document Properties and Personal Information.


T 1929/09

Claimed Subject Matter:

Server-side web summary generation and presentation.

Claim 1 specified: an Internet Portal, comprising an Internet-connected server and a portal software executing on the server, including a summary software agent, wherein the Portal maintains a list of Internet destinations specific for a subscriber, and the summary software agent accesses the Internet destinations, retrieves information according to pre-programmed criteria, and summarizes the retrieved information for delivery to the subscriber.


The underlying idea was to facilitate the life of a user who normally had to provide some personal information for accessing certain web pages. This was deemed at first instance to be a non-technical problem.

The Board agreed with the Appellant that improving the allocation of resources on the Internet and reducing connection time between servers or between a server and a workstation are, in principle, technical problems. However, the Board held that an information service tailored to the needs of a particular user and limited to user-defined Internet destinations is essentially a business scheme. Thus, the mere idea of providing such a service cannot be regarded as a contribution to the solution of a technical problem.

Claim 1 was broad and lacked technical detail on a specific implementation; as such any technical features therein were deemed to be obviously required. The background of the invention was cited to support this point.

[With thanks to Jake Loftus for help finding and reviewing these cases.]

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,844 other followers