Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Method of supporting sales and maintenance of steam traps and an aggregating system for use in that method.
Comments:
Sampling and interpolation were deemed to be standard techniques.
A comparison was performed on selected data, but the comparison was used to inform a business decision. Thus there was deemed to be no technical effect.
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Internet remote game server.
The gaming of the prior art did not include:
Comments:
It was concluded by the Board of Appeal that improving a player’s access to games and maintaining confidentiality of the player’s data in the player database were requirements to be met. In particular, a suitable technical problem was: how to improve the player’s access to games while maintaining confidentiality of the player’s data in the player database in terms of a technical solution using technical means.
The technical solution involving technical means as claimed was essentially determined to be letting the server for maintaining the player database communicate with a plurality of game outcome servers, with respective, different games. The server for maintaining the player database was arranged to be physically separate and located remote from the game outcome servers. The game outcome servers were not allowed direct access to the player database, such that confidentiality of the player database was maintained. Player access was improved by letting the player navigate to each game outcome server through a game access interface offering game links to game outcome server-supported games at the game outcome servers through a game access interface supported by the player management server and displayable by the identified client device and without the player having to register or log-on into the game outcome servers.
In the prior art the “player management server” did not communicate with a plurality of “game outcome servers”, nor did it support a game access interface accessible by the player offering game links to game outcome server-supported games at the game outcome servers, without the player having to register or log-on into the game outcome servers. In the prior art, the “player management server” merely maintained the player database and the server has direct access to the player database. Accordingly, the above technical solution involving technical means as claimed was not rendered obvious by the prior art.
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
The differences between the subject-matter of claim 1 and the disclosure of D1 are that the user interface of claim 1 includes information concerning at least two transactions associated with the user, instead of a single one, and that the user interface enables the user to input feedback information for the at least two transactions, instead of enabling the user only to enter feedback for a single transaction.
Comments:
In the board’s judgement, the non-technical features consist in the nature of the data which is stored in the network-based facility (“transactions”), included in the user interface (“transaction information”), and inputted by the user (“feedback information”). These non-technical features relate to the harvesting of feedback pertaining to transactions, representing essentially a commercial objective, therefore relating to unpatentable subject-matter as defined in Article 52(2)(c) EPC. Thus, these features do not contribute to any technical effect. According to the case law of the boards of appeal (see e.g. T 641/00), these features cannot support the presence of inventive step and are therefore to be disregarded in the assessment of inventive step.
The technical effect of these differences is that the user can input feedback information related to two transactions using a single interface.
The technical problem can thus be formulated, based on this technical effect, as how to improve the ease of use for the user of the feedback scheme.
The appellant has mainly argued that the alleged invention is in a technical field and that each step of claim 1 is a technical step and contributes to the solution of a technical problem. The board accepts that the alleged invention is in a technical field and agrees with the definition of the technical problem by the appellant. However in the board’s judgement the technical features of claim 1 do not contribute, in combination, to an inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 (see paragraph 3.3 above).
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Method and system for refreshing browser pages
The salient difference lies in the preliminary use of a set of functions which can modify a DOM directly. The term directly is not entirely clear, but the Board understands it to refer to functions which are, in some sense, relatively simple. When considering the whole set of functions available for modifying a DOM, some will certainly be computationally more straightforward and faster to apply, than others. The Board interprets the term directly as stipulating that the functions in the delta renderer are those which are relatively simple in this sense.
Comments:
The Board’s view is that this would have been obvious. A function’s complexity is one of the things the skilled person, a computer programmer, considers daily. She is aware that some functions are simpler and faster to apply than others. She would expect that working entirely with such functions would generally be faster than working with more complicated functions. Thus she would formulate the idea of first trying some simple functions. It is inherent in the concept of trying, that the simple functions may be insufficient. A programmer knows quite well that the set of things that can be done with a small set of functions may be strictly smaller than the set of things which can be done with more functions. It would follow naturally, that the fact that the delta renderer is insufficient must be indicated. That is all that the flag does in the main request. (See section 2.10.)
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Method for controlling subscriber accounts in connection with a pre-paid IN platform, and a pre-paid mediator
In the example of the invention set out from line 26 of page 6 to line 11 of page 7, the charging data are only generated once the service has started running. There is a distinction to be made between delivery of a service and, in this example, delivery of the SMS. Reception of a message at a mobile switching centre is part of the SMS service and an essential part of the delivery of that service. Nevertheless, the full SMS service is not delivered and it seems that claim 1 must be read such that the charging data are sent before the service is complete. (See section 3.4.)
According to D2, a running service is stopped once funds become insufficient, and this requires that charging data are sent before the service stops running. However, it is not quite clear that this is really the same thing as sending the data before service delivery, as stated in claim 1. The Board, then, tends to the view that this feature does provide novelty. (Section 3.5.)
Comments:
The effect of this feature, as argued by the appellant, is to prevent fraud, by which the Board understands that a user should not be allowed to use a service for which funds are not available. As it stands, this effect is not a technical one, and it is necessary to consider what the corresponding technical problem is. The Board notes that the sending of data before a particular time does not imply that the data is used by the recipient before that time; it is, however, a necessary condition for such use. The technical problem can, then, be formulated in this way: allow a check to be made, before service delivery, on whether sufficient funds are available. It would be obvious to the skilled person, faced with this problem, that she would have to provide for the charging data to be sent in time. The Board does not consider that this requires anything beyond the skilled person’s general technical knowledge. Nor, apparently, does the appellant, since the application does not provide more information on this feature than the statement that it is implemented (page 4, lines 19 – 22).
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Searching apparatus and a method of searching.
Novel Features:
(A) the images stored by the image storage means identify or are associated with commercial suppliers;
(B) the linking means links such images, i.e. images which identify or which are associated with commercial suppliers, with the corresponding text item to form listings (stored results entries) to display each text item and corresponding graphical image simultaneously;
(C) so that when the listings are displayed the user is enabled to readily identify a desired commercial supplier from the graphical image.
Comments:
The novel features, however, derive in a straightforward manner from an underlying concept which lacks technical character and does thus not provide a technical contribution to the prior art.
In fact, displaying logos of commercial suppliers in combination with information concerning products, services etc provided by such suppliers is a presentation of information which exclusively addresses the mental and cognitive activities of users. There is no direct causal relationship to the technical solution of a technical problem. Even if it is true that presenting information according to this concept enables the user to identify the desired supplier and the associated listings more easily and quickly than with the prior art system, this result would be entirely subjective depending on the mental furniture of the user.
As follows from decision T 1143/06, the manner how cognitive content is presented to the user may only contribute to the technical solution of a technical problem if the manner of presentation (exceptionally) shows a credible technical effect (see 5.4 of the Reasons of the decision). Non-technical features and aspects of an invention should not be given any weight in assessing inventive step. If they belong to the general framework in which the invention evolves, they may be used in formulating the relevant technical problem (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK, OJ EPO 2003, 352).
There has been no proof of any such technical effect of the present concept of presenting information, beyond the alleged advantages which concern the mental and cognitive activities of the user. The only credible technical effects result from the computer implementation of this concept.
This circumstance distinguishes the case from the decisions cited by the appellant in support of its arguments (see X. above). In all these decisions, the board concluded on the existence of a technical contribution over the prior art. The technical contribution resulted from overcoming physical limitations of the size and resolution of computer screens (T 643/00, T 928/03) and from the functions of a “new input device” conferring technical character (T 333/95). Neither one of the decisions derives the technical character of a feature or activity from the mental effort required or any similar effect; these are only secondary considerations. Moreover, in the context of inventive step, caution is required in applying old decisions concerning non-technical subject-matter like decision T 333/95 since the relevant case law has experienced some important development as explained in decision T 154/04 – Estimating sales activity/DUNS LICENSING ASSOCIATES, OJ EPO 2008, 46.
In the present case, the only relevant technical aspects of the invention are standard programming features for implementing the idea of displaying search results in connection with supplier logos on a computer system. The programming and implementation of this idea is obvious in the light of the prior art.
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Nappies with active elements.
Comments:
The Examining Division considered that there were two problems relating to the feature of the active graphic being placed in the interior of the article. The first problem related to the question of small amounts of urine being sufficient to activate the graphic. The second problem related to the necessity for the wearer to inspect the pants internally in order to see the signal. The first problem was considered to be linked to an unpredictable perception of the user and thus linked to a further feature which could not be controlled. The second problem was considered to be non-technical as it related to the use of the article.
The Board considers both problems to be linked to the general problem of improved assistance in toilet training. Although it may be unpredictable whether or not the individual wearer correctly uses the provided assistance, such use which is not claimed but rather an article which provides, by means of a technical feature (the active graphic disposed on an interior article surface) the possibility of such improved assistance. Hence, the application specifies an invention within the meaning of Article 52 EPC. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the further auxiliary requests. (See sections 2.4.1/2.4.2.)
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Versioning of elements in a configuration model
A method for defining a configuration model for a configurable product and for updating subcomponents thereof. As explained in the description, a “configuration model is generally some collection of … information that is needed to configure the product” (see p. 2, section 0003). The configuration model includes components, subcomponents, and elements which define characteristics of the product as for example prices, costs, colours etc (see p. 3, section 0011 ff.).
Comments:
Defining a configuration model and its components and subcomponents is thus a form of information modelling, which is, as such, not an invention for the purposes of Article 52(1) EPC (cf decision T 49/99 – Information modelling/INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS, not published; retrievable from URL: legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/ t990049eu1.pdf). The same holds for the management of information models during their life cycle. In general, abstract activities in the field of information management are per se not patentable, and to the extent that they do not interact with technical features to contribute to the technical solution of a technical problem they cannot establish novelty or inventive step (for a summary of the relevant case law, see the EPO-publication “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office”, sixth edition, European Patent Office, July 2010, chapter I.D.8.1.).
All features in claim 1, except for the general computer-implementation of the method, concern abstract processes of information management in the context of defining and updating a configuration model. In particular, setting versions of the model to an active or inactive state is primarily part of the abstract concept of managing the update process and not per se a genuine technical feature of the computer implementation.
The present application does not provide any specific information about the computer implementation of the method at all. Even from the drawings, no details of the implementation can be derived. Only from the acknowledgement of the background art and from general statements at the end of the application, starting with section 0067, can it be understood that the computer implementation is a possibility for carrying out the invention.
Considering that the application is confined to disclosing abstract concepts of information management rather than setting out a practical computer implementation, the Board concludes that a technical interpretation of the said features of the second auxiliary request would be inappropriate. The board judges that these features do not support inventive step.
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
Integrated multilingual browser
The claimed method is essentially characterised in that the source documents are automatically translated on-the-fly at the time the user requests access to the source documents (main request), or in that the web page retrieved is translated and cached on the web server before being sent to the user (auxiliary request).
Comments:
According to the claims as interpreted by the appellant, all web pages requested have been translated into the selected language before being sent to the user; this serves the aim to present to the user only the translated versions of web pages.
This aim and object of the invention is at best the result of balancing various mental preferences of the user but it is per se not a technical problem. Having the option of choosing between an original language and the preferred language might be felt as an inconvenience by one user but as an advantage by another. The invention brings about a mental simplification and subjective advantage for some users but it does not provide any objective advantage nor any technical advance in any field of technology. Such purely subjective preferences like any other non-technical aspects of an invention do not form a valid basis for a technical and inventive contribution over the prior art (for a summary of the practice of the EPO in dealing with non-technical subject matter, see for example the EPO-publication “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office”, sixth edition, European Patent Office, July 2010, chapter I.D.8.1).
The computer implementation of the claimed methods requires only minor changes to the machine translation system of document D7. In the W3-PENSÉE type 2 system (see figure 4), for example, only the step of sending the original data need be omitted (the box in the middle of the flow diagram); then the subsequent step shown in the right box at the bottom of the flow diagram (see document D7, figure 4) fully meets the aims of the present invention. These changes to the prior art system do not involve any inventive step.
It might be argued that in the type 2 system the web pages translated are cached but not in a cache on the web server. However, it is an obvious alternative to locate the translation cache at any appropriate place in the World Wide Web other than between Internet and client. Such an alternative arrangement is shown, for example, in document D7, figure 1 in connection with the WWW server type.
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
A computer-based system and method for detecting risks.
A specific object of the invention is to provide a computer-based system and method for detecting risks emerging in geographical areas without having to collect measurements of risk indicators in all of the geographical areas (A1 publication, paragraph [0004], last sentence).
Comments:
Side steps inventive step issues raised in examination by refusing application for lacking novelty over the prior art.
IP Chimp 