Case Law Review – T 2464/09

Case:

Claimed Subject Matter:

A system for automatically managing workflow, comprising:

a first computer arranged to receive an originating job request and job instructions from an authorized user, and to generate a job packet associated with-a digital file, wherein the digital file represents job input from the authorized user, and
a second computer for processing said job packet;

characterised in that the first computer is arranged to interpret said job instructions to provide in the job packet a job record that includes a set of computer-readable job processing requirements and the second computer is arranged to read and analyze the job processing requirements, to maintain respective scribe data for each of a plurality of scribes, the scribe data including a respective schedule data associated with each scribe and indicating when the respective scribe is to be available to work, and to automatically forward job step data to a remote computer associated with a selected scribe based on the corresponding schedule data.

Comments:

Underlying the system defined in claim 1 is a method of allocating work to workers.

A manager receives a job specification from a client and uses it to generate a “job packet” which he passes on to another manager. The second manager maintains data, including schedules, about “scribes” and forwards the job packet, or part of it, to particular scribes on the basis of their schedules. There is nothing technical in the underlying method.

It would have been obvious to the skilled person, seeking to automate that method, to use a network of computers. Once it had been decided to use such a network, it would have followed directly that the “job packet” would be associated with a digital file, that the data would be maintained on the second computer, which takes the role of the second manager, and that forwarding would be automatic.

The appellant has argued that account must be taken of the state of technology in 1998, without knowledge of the developments which have taken place since. The Board accepts that, but notes that the use of a network of computers in similar systems was known in 1998. D1 provides an example. The argument above relies only on the obviousness of using a network of computers, and not on any technical details beyond the abilities to store, process and communicate data.

Case Law Review – T 2090/08

Case:

T_2090/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Method and system for transferring or returning unused digital rights.

The independent claims of the main request differ from the disclosure of the prior art (D1) by the following features:

The procedure according to D1 requires manual user intervention to store the licence on a floppy disk and to install it on the second device, whereas the transfer procedure according to the claimed invention is automatic and runs under the control of the server. More specifically, the claimed procedure involves a request message from the first terminal to the server, identifying inter alia the second machine to which the rights object is to be transferred, and a response message from the server to the first terminal after succesful transfer of the rights object.
The system of D1 does not provide the first device with selection options when the transfer fails.
D1 does not disclose that a revoked license, i.e. the rights object, is deleted from the first terminal, let alone in response to a response message indicating successful transfer of the license.

Comments:

In the board’s judgment, differences 1)-3) solve the following problems:

Difference 1) makes the relicensing procedure of D1 more convenient for the end user by avoiding the need for a manual transfer of the license.
Difference 2) handles the possible failure of the relicensing procedure at the second terminal.
Difference 3) saves storage on the first machine by deleting a revoked license. The board considers that these problems arise naturally in the context of D1.

The board considers it obvious to provide a protocol according to which the first end user’s machine and the license clearing house, i.e. the server, communicate using a “request message” which, inter alia, identifies the “second machine” to the license clearing house, and wherein a “response message” is used which acknowledges this request to the first machine and confirms successful receipt of the license.

The problem to contain, control or reduce storage consumption is one that, in the board’s view, a person skilled in software development is always aware of. The board therefore deems obvious the idea that any unused data object – such as, in D1, a revoked license – should, at some point, be deleted from the end user’s machine. It is also obvious for the skilled person that the unused data object can be deleted as soon as possible or at later point in time. In order to choose between these alternatives the skilled person would have to assess the circumstances and weigh the requirements against each other, including, e.g., whether storage consumption is critical and whether it is likely that a deleted object may be needed again later (see point 5 above). In the board’s view, the skilled person would make this assessment and choice as a matter of routine and with out exercising an inventive step.

Case Law Review – T 0702/08

Case:

T_0702/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Process Monitoring.

The claim referred generally to “process objects” and “task objects”.

Comments:

On the facts the Board considered the term “object” to have a broad meaning encompassing the general concept of a “goal” or “objective” at an administrative management level; there was no unambiguous correlation between the described (business and process) “objects” and object-oriented programming. This suggests that a specific technical mapping between abstract concepts and their technical implementation needs to be set out in any description.

Case Law Review – T 1866/08

Case:

T_1866/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Approach for tracking data (Yahoo! Inc.)

A method for operating an intermediary computer to track data requested by a user from a source server over a network, wherein the source server is arranged to communicate with the intermediary computer via a first network communications link, and the intermediary computer is arranged to communicate with the user via a second network communications link, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:

receiving (206), at the intermediary computer (104), the requested data from the source server (102); and
supplying (212), via the second network communications link, the requested data from the intermediary computer to the user (106);

characterised in that the method comprises the intermediary computer performing the steps of:

determining (208) whether the requested data includes rights data that indicates an owner of rights to the requested data; and
if the data includes the rights data:
- (a) determining whether the source is associated with the owner of rights to the data; and
- (b) if the source is not associated with the owner of rights to the requested data, then the intermediary computer not allowing the requested data to be supplied to the user; and
- (c) if the source is associated with the owner of rights to the requested data, then the intermediary computer supplying the data to the user and recording (210) that the requested data was supplied.

Comments:

The examination decision under appeal states that the difference between the claimed invention and the cited art “merely” represents “the steps per formed by a data tracking and transmission system that implements rules about what to do with the traffic and registers th[ese] activities” and that the “task of tracking data traffic is a mere administrative task”.

In passing it is argued that these rules and tasks were well-known, for example from the “activity of a librarian registering incoming and outgoing books of the library”. The only technical features of claim 1 were merely “data transmission and data recording” and these were known from the prior art. The remaining features did not, so the argument, solve a technical problem but an administrative one, namely to “control the distribution of unauthorised data” which would belong to the non-technical “domain of the administration of property”. This difference, especially within the context of D1 which is already adapted to “[implement] rules driven by a detect ion event” (see again reasons 2.2), would amount to a mere automation of this administrative task, and if its performance were improved by the automation then only to the extent that any computer automation would cause such improvement, without any further technical effect. This difference could thus not establish an inventive step.

The board in the present appeal case takes a difference perspective on the invention.

The board concedes that the claimed invention has administrative aspects but considers that these cannot be stripped from the technical context in which they occur. The claimed invention relates to the “tracking” and delivery control of “data requested by a user from a source server over a network” in view of that source server. The board fails to see how this would be analogous to, let alone known from, the activity of a librarian “registering incoming and outgoing books of the library”, or why the skilled person trying to improve the system of D1, would turn to the activities of a librarian for help. The board also considers that the claimed invention goes beyond the mere implementation of a non-technical administrative task without any effect beyond the benefits of any computer automation (see decision under appeal, reasons 2.3, last sentence). Rather, in the board’s view, the effect of the invention over D1 is tied to a specifically technical situation, namely the request and download of data by a user over a network from a server, as is now clearly claimed. In this respect, the board agrees with the appellant in considering an automated, network-based mechanism to control and authorize the delivery of data as solving a technical problem (see grounds of appeal, point 3.16).

Case was remitted for further search as it was doubted whether the feature of delivery control was exhaustively searched:

Due to the fact that this feature was substantially less prominent in the claims of the originally examined application.
because the preamble of all claims by referring to “tracking data” rather than delivery control may have further detracted from the importance attached to this feature, and
because the examining division considered it to be of no technical relevance.

Case Law Review – T 1992/07

Case:

T_1992/07

Claimed Subject Matter:

Filtering of market information, wherein the filtering was used to provide a real-time trading status update.

In particular, a processor-implemented method of filtering market data generated at a market place, for providing real-time trading status information, the method comprising:

providing (620) a plurality of listings (222), each listing associated with a corresponding market place and traded at the associated market place;
providing (640) a set of filter criteria (224) suitable for filtering market data to determine the trading status information;
receiving (650) market data for at least one listing of the plurality of listings associated with a specific market place;
filtering (660) the received market data in accordance with the set of filter criteria to determine in real-time, whether trading of the at least one listing has been suspended or resumed at the specific market place; and
providing (680), in real-time, the status information (226) indicating whether trading of the at least one listing has been suspended or resumed at the specific market place.

Comments:

In this case, the data, processing and modified output data were considered to be “non-technical”; in particular, they were deemed to relate to financial and/or administrative aspects. The problem was thus deemed to be how to implement these non-technical aspects and the solution was deemed to be trivial. Even though the claim had a step of “filtering”, this did not relate to any technical process.

Data are “filtered” according to criteria (neither the filtering operations nor the criteria are well-defined in the claims), and as a consequence of the processing the received market data is broadcasted, but with supplemental information. This processing cannot be deducted alone from the wording of the claims, but corresponds to the description, p 4, penultimate para.. As the result of the processing is the provision/broadcasting of modified market data, this processing is considered essentially non-technical.

The processing as claimed also has an essentially non-technical aim, namely to assess and disseminate information about the trading status at market places of a plurality of listings. Following T 641/00, the objective technical problem can be formulated as finding a technical implementation of a system that achieves the non technical purpose (task) of assessing and disseminating information about trading statuses of a plurality of listings at market places.

In the Board’s view, the invention carries out non-technical (financial/administrative) processing on non-technical (financial) data. Since, according to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, these features cannot contribute to inventive step, the problem boils down to how to implement these aspects. As effectively established by the division, the implementation specified in the claim amounts to no more than the use of a conventional computer system, to receive, process and generate the desired data. This cannot involve an inventive step either.

The appellant argues that the step of filtering is technical because it is carried out by a processor. However, in the Board’s view this only establishes that the processor is a technical implementation, not that the filtering relates to any technical process. Similarly, the appellant discusses the technicality of a memory device and storing filter criteria. However, as the appellant admits these features are not claimed. The appellant also discusses the features of providing data, receiving data and providing real time status information. However, as with the filtering feature, this discussion attempts to establish an overall technical effect by virtue of the intrinsic technical nature of the implementation. As stated above, the only technical features of the solution are the use of a processor to receive, process and generate data. The prior art shows that these are conventional.

Case Law Review – T 1577/07

Case:

T_1577/07

Claimed Subject Matter:

Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs).

Differentiating features:

Clickable and activatable GUI items are linked to information available on a network, e.g. the World Wide Web.
A conflict between several users is solved by a specific rule (like a majority decision, a weighted majority decision or the result of a game, e.g. rock-paper-scissors play, see page 15, lines 11 to 33), instead of a first come first served rule like in the prior art.

Comments:

The rule was deemed to solve “a purely organisational problem, and not a technical one”. As such this distinguishing feature was found not to contribute to an inventive step and the claim was deemed obvious.

In particular, the recognition of the problem as such was found not to involve an inventive step and could not be put into the formulation of the problem without involving inadmissible hindsight.

The examining division did not contest that GUIs can in principle be technical, nor did it argue so. However, the second distinguishing feature is not technical. In principle, a technical solution to a non-technical problem can be inventive. But the solution to this organisational problem in claim 1 is merely described in terms of general functional means directly describing a (non-technical) problem, without any reference to more specific technical means. Hence the claimed generic solution did not contribute to an inventive step.

Case Law Review – T 505/09

Case:

T_0505/09

Claimed Subject Matter:

System, method, and computer program product for identifying code development errors.

Comments:

The invention related to a method for identifying defective program code. In this case, the board considered the extent of the common general knowledge. While certain testing techniques were agreed to form part of the common general knowledge, the board directed that further, and preferably written, evidence was required to demonstrate that certain knowledge was also well known in the specific field of software testing and debugging.

Case Law Review – T 1893/08

Case:

T 1893/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

A compiler system.

The subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of the prior art in the following features:

information on data definitions is in the form of a common language file represented in a different language to first and second source code languages;
the first source language has an import statement that imports a common language file; and
as part of said examination, determining if the statement is an import statement related to the common language file and, if so, reading the common language file into a symbol table by parsing the common language file and adding type and method information in metadata in the common language file to the symbol table.

Comments:

This case demonstrates that features of a compiler system may be seen as technical features. Information on data definitions was provided in the form of a common language file represented in a different language to first and second languages for compilation. The first language had an “import” statement that imported the common language file.

The board concluded that these features did provide an inventive step when compared to the cited art. In particular, the board considered that the cited art suggested a particular solution that differed from the claimed solution; as such the skilled person had no motivation to introduce the novel compiler features.

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.

Case Law Review – T 1741/08

Case:

T 1741/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Graphical user interface (GUI) layout – in particular a method of entering of data into a data processing system.

Claim 1 relates to a method of entering data in a data processing system using a particular GUI. The layout of this GUI comprises two horizontally aligned linear sequences of icons. The second sequence is displayed for a selected icon of the first sequence. The leading icon of the second sequence is vertically aligned with the selected icon of the first sequence. In addition, one or more data entry fields are separately displayed for a selected icon of the second sequence.

Comments:

This case provides useful guidance on the patentability of GUIs, in particular whether lowering the cognitive burden of a user leads to a technical effect. There is useful commentary on many key GUI cases.

The claims differed from the prior art by what was displayed on a screen, i.e. the differences consisted solely of particularities of the GUI layout.

In the decision, the board agreed that a particular interface layout could indeed shorten the searching of an inexperienced user for where or what data to enter where. As a result, less computer resources may be used.

However, this reduction in use was caused by the way the brain of the user perceives and processes the visual information given by a particular way of presenting information. This was deemed to the mental or psychological realm and could not provide a technical effect directly.

The board noted that not everything that supports a technical task has itself a technical character. For example, the advice to have a good night’s rest in order to make searching images more “efficient” would not have technical character. A chain of reasoning that held that the layout produces a psychological effect on the user and the user produces a technical effect on the computer was different from saying that the layout produces a technical effect on the computer.

The board also confirmed that in each of T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 333/95 a specific technical effect had been identified by the boards, which made these cases exceptional. In these exceptional cases, there was something other than the simple choice of what information to display and with what layout to display it, which meant that the displayed information could play a part in the assessment of inventive step.