Case Law Review – T 506/08

Case:

T 0506/08 [In German but Google translate does a reasonable job – use Chrome for translation “in the browser”.]

Claimed Subject Matter:

An online auction – in particular a method and apparatus for performing an electronic auction, in a communication network.

Comments:

The underlying technical problem relates to the performance bottleneck of the communication network and the networked computer. This is not resolved with the new auction only evaded (side-stepped) administratively. The circumvention of a technical problem using a business process step does not provide a technical means (T 258/03-HITACHI).

The overall purpose of the technical implementation of the computer auction is automation and thus faster and easier handling. However, this is the usual purpose of any technical computer-based automation. It therefore justifies no patent exceptionalism in favour of a particular type of business methods (auction). The economically motivated desire to protect business methods against imitators is not a sufficient criterion for access to patent protection.

An implementation of an extension of the deadline may include technical aspects (timing, comparison) but requires no inventive contribution. This is implicitly acknowledged by the application, which leaves the details of implementation to the skilled reader. The technical aspects of the application are only implied and assumed to be expert knowledge; only the rules for the implementation of the intended auction are presented in detail and explicitly.

Overall, the claimed method solves no technical problem in a technically inventive manner. It therefore does not fulfil the requirements of inventive step.

Case Law Review – T 1798/07

Case:

T 1798/07

Claimed Subject Matter:

Arrangement and method for tele-commerce with client profiles (payment processing).

Comments:

A technical problem was considered to be “how to technically implement an underlying business method”. The solution to this problem was taken to be obvious when compared with a number of networked standard general-purpose computers.

A feature of the technical implementation of the underlying business method that was taken into consideration was the use of pre-stored client profile data, which enhanced the speed of a transaction. This capability ensured that the client need not repeatedly enter data. However, such a feature was deemed to be well-known in the art.

Case Law Review – T 313/10

Case:

T 0313/10

Claimed Subject Matter:

Matching items with items in a table.

Comments:

This case confirms that one indication of technical character is that the method has an overall technical effect, such as controlling some physical process. On the facts, the claimed invention was found to provide either an abstract data-processing effect or, taking into account the specific embodiment of matching books and compact discs, an effect in the field of business. Neither of these effects was deemed to indicate technical character.

The board did indicate though that that, based on T 424/03 or T 1351/04, a technical effect may arise from “functional data structures”. For example, an index may have technical character as it controls a computer by directing it to a certain memory location. However on the facts of the present case, the indexes in the claim were well-known or “generic”.

Case Law Review – T 629/11

Case:

T 629/11

Claimed Subject Matter:

Personalization of data services.

The invention concerns the presentation of information in an Internet browser, and the management of the information and the way it is presented, so as to evoke a desired response in the user.

Comments:

The method as claimed was deemed prima facie not excluded from patentability because it modified “Internet browser pages”.

However, the underlying method was deemed to be a means of manipulating information and its presentation, in order to affect the perceptions or behaviour of users.

As such the underlying method was not technical. Instead, it was more appropriately classified as a form of applied psychology, and the field of application might be, for example, advertising or education. As such, being non-technical, it could not contribute to inventive step. Any remaining technical features related simply to the provision of information on an Internet browser page, which was well-known.

Case Law Review – T 700/07

Case:

T 0700/07

Claimed Subject Matter:

Global Electronic Trading System.

The claimed invention in this case comprised a computer network consisting of trader terminals, a central server, and a communications network, each with particular properties.

Comments:

The board stated that, rather than decide whether the invention was a superior trading system to any previously known system, they were concerned with whether a technical realisation in terms of terminals and server was obvious.

In the reasoning it was submitted that there may be two ways in which a skilled person might arrive at a particular technical implementation of a non-technical system:

they might start from a specification of the non-technical system and seek a technical realisation; or
alternatively they might start from some prior art technical realisation of a similar technical system and modify it.

If either of those paths would have been obvious at the priority date, there would have been no inventive step.

The central server in the claim was argued by the appellant to provide a technical effect by reducing network traffic. However, the board disagreed. They submitted that the non-technical trading system required a central agent. This constraint would be given to the skilled person, for example as a “requirements specification”. It would then be obvious for the skilled person to implement the said central agent using a central server. Even if there was shown to be less communication between traders, this was seen as a property of a non-technical arrangement, rather than a technical property associated with a technical implementation.

Case Law Review – T 2171/08

Case:

T 2171/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Redundancy-free multi-purpose data (UBS).

The invention relates to aspects in context with updating a data base that is jointly used by two or more different processing mechanisms on the basis of multi-dimensional data sets. A network component performing this task includes a master data base for storing master data including static data and a multi-dimensional generic data template having predefined data fields relating to elementary information determined by the data input requirements of the different processing mechanisms. An interface is provided for receiving accounting-related data sets from a plurality of individual sub-systems. Processing resources having access to the master data base generate for each accounting-related data set one or more associated multi-dimensional data sets by deriving elementary information included in the accounting-related data set and in static data associated with the accounting-related data set and by writing the derived elementary information in corresponding data fields of the data template. On the basis of the elementary information contained in the one or more multi-dimensional data sets an elementary data base that is jointly used by the different processing mechanisms to generate report data sets is updated.

Comments:

In this case the board appeared to acknowledge that a network component for transforming accounting-related data sets may be adapted to process static data in such a way as to provide a technical effect of reducing network traffic.

However, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the invention was not sufficiently disclosed to allow the skilled person to implement the static data in a manner that allowed for the effect.

Hence, it is recommended to set out clearly the technical implementation behind any technical effects that may be relied upon.

Case Law Review – T 531/09

Case:

T 531/09

Claimed Subject Matter:

Checkpoint Simulation.

The invention concerns the simulation of a security checkpoint. It could be the sort of familiar security checkpoint used at airports, but is not limited to that. The simulation is carried out by computer.

Tasks at the checkpoint are modelled as probabilistic events, each taking a certain time to perform, which may depend on what happens in preceding tasks. Two of the tasks simulated involve technical equipment, namely a walk-through metal detector and (possibly) an x-ray device.

Comments:

The appellant referred to T 1227/05, which is discussed in the linked case law review. However, the board concluded that simulation of a checkpoint was not inherently technical.

Even though the probabilistic equations referred to technical devices (e.g. metal detectors and x-rays), these devices were modelled no differently from other non-technical tasks such as the queuing of people. Hence, their inclusion did not contribute to a technical character.

Case Law Review – T 1366/08

Case:

T 1366/08

Claimed Subject Matter:

Electronic signatures.

The scheme was found to differ from notorious common knowledge in commerce only by being adapted to modern technology in the form of electronic (e-) commerce and presenting a copy of a contract to a bank as evidence that payment is due.

Comments:

Partial problems were considered. The first problem was deemed to be how to implement a business scheme on a computer network. It was found to be obvious as it simply involved applying well-known technical means as equivalents of a manual paper process. The second problem was found to be purely a business or legal question, and so features relating to its solution could not contribute to the technical character of the claim.

Machine Translations for Korean Patents

Having found myself needing to quickly understand Korean, I note that a cheap machine translation service is available ($30/23 Euros) – either through the Korean Patent Office (http://eng.kipris.or.kr/eng/main/main_eng.jsp) or the European Patent Office (EPO) (http://www.epo.org/searching/asian/translation/K2E-PAT.html). The EPO’s service looks more user friendly and would probably allow for debiting from a deposit account.

May be useful for those dealing with prior art from an ex-PCT application with a Korean search.

London Agreement in Force for Finland

A quick reminder that the London Agreement came into force for Finland on 1 November 2011: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/information-epo/archive/20111004b.html .

For European patents granted with effect for Finland on or after 1 November 2011, no Finnish translation of the European patent specification need be supplied if the patent is granted in English or if an English translation of the patent is supplied in accordance with Article 65(1) EPC; but a Finnish translation of the claims must always be supplied.

This should save quite a bit of money for those wanting to validate in Finland as only a translation of the claims is now necessary.