Case Law Review – T 1996/07

Case:

T 1996/07

Claimed Subject Matter:

Processing character information.

The invention differs from the prior art essentially by the following features:

    • [text] conversion candidates are stored in relation to time information representative of a predetermined period (timeband) in a 24 hour day;
    • a time recording part records and outputs conversion time information representative of a time of conversion, in the 24-hour day, of the conversion object into said one or more conversion candidates; and
    • the time information and the conversion time information are used for converting the conversion object into the one or more conversion candidates such that a conversion candidate, the predetermined timeband of which corresponds to the time of conversion, is displayed as a supreme conversion candidate.

For example, in the morning, if the user typed “G”, “Good morning” may be displayed as opposed to “Good night”.

Comments:

In the decision it was determined that an alleged technical advantage relied upon a specific language habit of a user.

As it would not be correct to specify features that defined a prospective user’s cultural background, the technical problem needed to be reformulated to relate solely to objective technical effects or objective technical properties of the invention as claimed.

When the problem was so formulated the invention was found to be obvious over the prior art.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s