Measuring Patent Success – The Devil in the Detail

In a previous post, we looked at some measures of patent attorney (or firm) success:

  • Low cost;
  • Minimal mistakes;
  • Timely actions; and
  • High legal success rate.

In this post, we will look at how we can measure these.


Legal Success 

Let’s start with legal success. For legal success rate we identified the following:

  • Case grants (with the caveat that the claims need to be of a good breadth);
  • Cases upheld on opposition (if defending);
  • Cases revoked on opposition (if opposing);
  • Oral hearings won; and
  • Court cases won.

When looking to measure these we come across the following problems:

  • It may be easy to obtain the grant of a severely limited patent claim (e.g. a long claim with many limiting features) but difficult to obtain the grant of a more valuable broader claim (e.g. a short claim with few limiting features).
  • Different technical fields may have different grant rates, e.g. a well-defined niche mechanical field may have higher grant rates than digital data processing fields (some “business method” areas have grant rates < 5 %).
  • Cases are often transferred between firms or in-house counsel. More difficult cases are normally assigned to outside counsel. A drafting attorney may not necessarily be a prosecuting attorney.
  • During opposition or an oral hearing, a claim set may be amended before the patent is maintained (e.g. based on newly cited art). Is this a “win”? Or a “loss”? If an opponent avoids infringement by forcing a limitation to a dependent claim, that may be a win. What if there are multiple opponents?
  • In court, certain claims may be held invalid, certain claims held infringed. How do you reconcile this with “wins” and “losses”?

One way to address some of the above problems is to use a heuristic that assigns a score based on a set of outcomes or outcome ranges. For example, we can categorise an outcome and assign each category of outcome a “success” score. To start this we can brainstorm possible outcomes of each legal event.

To deal with the problem of determining claim scope, we can start with crude proxies such as claim length. If claim length is measured as string length, (1 / claim_length) may be used as a scoring factor. As automated claim analysis develops this may be replaced or supplemented by claim feature or limiting phrase count.

Both these approaches could also be used together, e.g. outcomes may be categorised, assigned a score, then weighted by a measure of claim scope.

For example, in prosecution, we could have the following outcomes:

  • Application granted;
  • Application abandoned; and
  • Application refused.

Application refused is assigned the lowest or a negative score (e.g. -5). Abandoning an application is often a way to limit costs on cases that would be refused. However, applications may also be abandoned for strategic reasons. This category may be assigned the next lowest or a neutral score (e.g. 0). Getting an application granted is a “success” and so needs a positive score. It maybe weighted by claim breadth (e.g. constant / claim_length for shortest independent claim).

In opposition or contentious proceeding we need to know whether the attorney is working for, or against, the patent owner. One option maybe to set the sign of the score based on this information (e.g. a positive score for the patentee is a negative score for the opponent / challenger). Possible outcomes for opposition are:

  • Patent maintained (generally positive for patentee, and negative for opponent);
  • Patent refused (negative for patentee, positive for opponent).

A patent can be maintained with the claims as granted (a “good” result) or with amended claims (possibly good, possibly bad). As with prosecution we can capture this by weighting a score by the scope of the broadest maintained independent claim (e.g. claim_length_as_granted / claim_length_as_maintained).

Oral hearings (e.g. at the UK Intellectual Property Office or the European Patent Office) may be considered a “bonus” to a score or a separate metric, as any outcome would be taken into account by the above legal result.

For UK court cases, we again need to consider whether the attorney is working for or against the patentee. We could have the following outcomes:

  • Patent is valid (all claims or some claims);
  • Patent is invalid (all claims or some claims);
  • Patent is infringed (all claims or some claims);
  • Patent is not infringed (all claims or some claims);
  • Case is settled out of court.

Having a case that is settled out of court provides little information, it typically reflects a position that both sides have some ground. It is likely better for the patentee than having the patent found invalid but not as good as having a patent found to be valid and infringed. Similarly, it may be better for a claimant than a patent being found valid but not infringed, but worse than the patent being found invalid and not infringed.

One option to score to partial validity or infringement (e.g. some claims valid/invalid, some claims infringed/not infringed) is to determine a score for each claim individually. For example, dependent claims may be treated using the shallowest dependency – effectively considering a new independent claim comprising the features of the independent claim and the dependents. A final score may be computed by summing the individual scores.

So this could work as a framework to score legal success based on legal outcomes. Theses legal outcomes may be parsed based on patent register data, claim data and/or court reports. There is thus scope for automation.

We still haven’t dealt with the issues of case transfers or different technical fields. One way to do this is to normalise or further weigh scores developed based on the above framework.

For technical fields, scores could be normalised based on average legal outcomes or scores for given classification groupings. There is a question of whether this data exists (I think it does for US art units, it may be buried in an EP report somewhere, I don’t think it exists for the UK). A proxy normalisation could be used where data is not available (e.g. based on internal average firm or company grant rates) or based on other public data, such as public hearing results.

Transferred cases could be taken into account by weighting by: time case held / time since case filing.

Timely Actions

These may be measured by looking at the dates of event actions. These are often stored in patent firm record systems, or are available in patent register data.

It is worth noting that there are many factors outside the control of an individual attorney. For example, instructions may always be received near a deadline for a particular client, or a company may prefer to keep a patent pending by using all available extensions. The hope is that, as a first crude measure, these should average out over a range of applicants or cases.

For official responses, a score could be assigned based on the difference between the official due date  and the date the action was completed. This could be summed over all cases and normalised. This can be calculated from at least EP patent register data (and could possibly be scraped from UKIPO website data).

For internal timeliness, benchmarks could be set, and a negative score assigned based on deviations from these. Example benchmarks could be:

  • Acknowledgements / initial short responses sent with 1 working day of receipt;
  • Office actions reported with 5 working days of receipt;
  • Small tasks or non-substantive work (e.g. updating a document based on comments, replying to questions etc.) performed within 5 working days of receipt / instruction; and
  • Substantive office-action and drafting work (e.g. reviews / draft responses) performed within 4 weeks of instruction.

Minimal Mistakes

This could be measured, across a set of cases, as a function of:

  • a number of official communications issued to correct deviations;
  • a number of requests to correct deficiencies (for cases where no official communication was issued); and/or
  • a number of newly-raised objections (e.g. following the filing of amended claims or other documents).

This information could be obtained by parsing document management system names (to determine communication type / requests), from patent record systems, online registers and/or by parsing examination communications.

Low cost

One issue with cost is that it is often relative: a complex technology may take more time to analyse or a case with 50 claims will cost more to process than a case with 5. Also different companies may have different charging structures. Also costs of individual acts need to be taken in context – an patent office response may seem expensive in isolation, but if it allows grant of a broad claim, may be better than a series of responses charged at a lower amount.

One proxy for cost is time, especially in a billable hours system. An attorney that obtains the same result in a shorter time would be deemed a better attorney. They would either cost less (if charged by the hour) or be able to do more (if working on a fixed fee basis).

In my post on pricing patent work, we discussed methods for estimating the time needed to perform a task. This involved considering a function of claim number and length, as well as citation number and length. One option for evaluating cost is to calculate the ratio: actual_time_spent / predicted_time_spent and then sum this over all cases.

Another approach is to look at the average number of office actions issued in prosecution – a higher number would indicate a higher lifetime cost. This number could be normalised per classification grouping (e.g. to counter the fact that certain technologies tend to get more objections).

The time taken would need to be normalised by the legal success measures discussed above. Spending no time on any cases would typically lead to very high refusal rates, and so even though a time metric would be low, this would not be indicative of a good attorney. Similarly, doing twice the amount of work may lead to a (small?) increase in legal success but may not be practically affordable. It may be that metrics for legal success are divided by a time spent factor.

Patent billing or record systems often keep track of attorney time. This would be the first place to look for data extraction.

Final Thoughts

An interesting result of this delve into detail is we see that legal success and cost need to be evaluated together, but that these can be measured independently of timeliness and error, which in turn . may be measured independently of each other. Indeed, timeliness and error avoidance may be seen as baseline competences, where deviations are to be minimised.

It would also seem possible, in theory at least, to determine these measures of success automatically, some from public data sources and others from existing internal data. Those that can be determined from public data sources raise the tantalising (and scary for some?) possibility of comparing patent firm performance, measures may be grouped by firm or attorney. It is hard to think how a legal ranking based on actual legal performance (as opposed to an ability to wine and dine legal publishers) would be bad for those paying for legal services.

It is also worth raising the old caveat that measurements are not the underlying thing (in a Kantian mode). There are many reasonable arguments about the dangers of metrics, e.g. from the UK health, railways or school systems. These include:

  • the burden of measurement (e.g. added bureaucracy);
  • modifying behaviour to enhance the metrics (e.g. at the cost of that which is not measured or difficult to measure);
  • complex behaviour is difficult to measure, any measurement is a necessarily simplified snapshot of one aspect; and
  • misuse by those in power (e.g. to discriminate or as an excuse or to provide backing for a particular point of view).

These, and more, need to be borne in mind when designing the measures. However, I believe the value of relatively objective measurement in an industry that is far too subjective is worth the risk.

What makes a good patent attorney?

This is a question that has been on my mind for a while. The answer I normally get is: “well, you just kind of know don’t you?” This isn’t very useful for anyone. The alternative is: “it depends”. Again, not very useful. Can we think of any way to at least try to answer the question? (Even if the answer is not perfect.)

The question begets another: “how do we measure success?”


For a company this may be:

  • the broadest, strongest patent (or patent portfolio) obtained at the lowest cost;
  • a patent or patent portfolio that covers their current and future products, and that reduces their UK tax bill; and/or
  • a patent or patent portfolio that gets the company what it asks for in negotiations with third parties.

For an in-house attorney or patent department this may be:

  • meeting annual metrics, including coming in on budget;
  • a good reputation with the board of directors or the C-suite; and/or
  • no surprises.

For an inventor this may be:

  • minimum distruption to daily work;
  • respect from peers in the technology field; and/or
  • recognition (monetary or otherwise) for their hard work.

For a patent firm this may be:

  • a large profit;
  • high rankings in established legal publications; and/or
  • a good reputation with other patent firms and prospective or current clients.

For a partner of a patent firm this may be:

  • a large share of the profit divided by time spent in the office; and/or
  • a low blood pressure reading.

As we can see, metrics of success may vary between stakeholders. However, there do appear to be semi-universal themes:

  1. Low cost (good for a company, possibly bad for patent attorneys);
  2. Minimal mistakes (good for everyone);
  3. Timely actions (good for everyone but sometimes hard for everyone); and
  4. High legal success rate (good for everyone).

High legal success rate (4) may include high numbers of:

  • Case grants (with the caveat that the claims need to be of a good breadth);
  • Cases upheld on opposition (if defending);
  • Cases revoked on opposition (if opposing);
  • Oral hearings won; and
  • Court cases won.

I will investigate further how these can be measured in practice in a future post. I add the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list, however, rather than do nothing out of the fear of missing something, I feel it is better to do something, in full knowledge I have missed things but that these can be added on iteration.

Cost is interesting, because we see patent firms directly opposed to their clients. Their clients (i.e. companies) typically wish to minimise costs and patent firms wish to maximise profits, but patent firm profits are derived from client costs. For patent firms (as with normal companies), a client with a high profit margin is both an asset and a risk; the risk being that a patent firm of a similar caliber (e.g. with approximately equal metrics for 2-4 above) could pitch for work with a reduced (but still reasonable) profit margin. In real life there are barriers to switching firms, including the collective knowledge of the company, its products and portfolio, and social relationships and knowledge. However, everything has a price; if costs are too high and competing firms price this sunk knowledge into their charging, it is hard to reason against switching.

There is a flip side for patent firms. If they can maximise 2-4, they can rationalise higher charges; companies have a choice if they want to pay more for a firm that performs better.

On cost there is also a third option. If patent firms have comparative values for 2-4, and they wish to maintain a given profit margin, they can reduce costs through efficiencies. For most patent firms, costs are proportional to patent attorney time, reduce the time it takes to do a job and costs reduce. The question is then: how to reduce time spent on a matter while maintaining high quality, timeliness and success? This is where intelligence, automation and strategy can reap rewards.

In-house, the low cost aim still applies, wherein for a department cost may be measured in the number of patent attorneys that are needed or outside-counsel spend, as compared to a defined budget.

In private practice, and especially in the US, we often see an inverse of this measurement: a “good” patent attorney (from a patent firm perspective) is someone who maximises hourly billings, minimises write-downs, while anecdotally maintaining an adequate level for 2-4. One problem is maximising hourly billings often leads to compromise on at least 2 and 3; large volumes of work, long hours, and high stress are often not conducive to quality work. This is why I have an issue with hourly billing. A base line is that a profit per se is required, otherwise the business would not be successful. Further, a base line of profit can be set, e.g. allowing for a partner salary of X-times the most junior rate, an investment level of Y%, a bonus pool for extra work performed etc.. However, beyond that, the level of profit is a factor to maximise, subject to constraints, i.e. 1-4 above, where the constraints take priority. The best solution is to align profit with the constraints, such that maximising 1-4 maximises profit. That way everyone benefits. How we can do this will be the subject of a future post.

So, let’s return to our original question: what makes a good patent attorney?

From the above, we see it is a patent attorney that at least makes minimal mistakes, operates in a timely manner, has a high legal success rate and provides this at a low cost. In private practice, it is also a patent attorney that aligns profit with these measures.

Why do I work as a patent attorney?

I was lucky enough to attend a session with Debra Baker of Law Leaders Lab / GrowthPlay. One of the many good points raised by Debra was that we often need to ask ourselves: “why are we doing this?”

This follows on from the talks of Simon Sinek*.

It’s the kind of question that you answer in a covering letter for a job or in an interview. You often answer it when you have no experience of the job. You tend to forget the question more than a decade later.


So: why do I work as a patent attorney?

I love technology. Growing up my favourite possessions were a box of Lego, a BBC Micro, a cheap Bush walkman and my Casio calculator watch. In conversation I get excited about  machine learning and natural language processing. Blade Runner and Terminator 2 are my favourite films. I find the Promethean ability to breath life into inert matter fascinating. Working as a patent attorney means I am immersed in technology of all kinds every day.

I like helping inventors and innovative companies. As a patent attorney you get to work with some of the smartest, most creative engineers on the planet. You also work in the real commercial world, as opposed to the more artificial confines of academia.

I enjoy diving deep into new subject matter and linking it to existing understanding. I have a “systematic” mind, I enjoy figuring out what makes things work. As a kid, I devoured Encylopedias and practically slept with a copy of the Usborne Book of Knowledge. I studied hard, partly through sheer curiosity.  I always find how we know what we know fascinating. I may be the only one of my school and University peers who uses their subject knowledge everyday. Each new invention builds upon strata of past learning in a way that is deeply satisfying.

I like an intellectual challenge (the flip-side to being easily bored by the surface of things). I like wrestling an idea into language.

And the more quotidian reasons: I like being able to pay the bills; I like working in a place with free Nespresso and apples; I like having good colleagues and leadership.


Why you need the why

You need these reasons to keep going through the day-to-day work and the ups-and-downs of commercial reality.

For example:

  • Nine out of ten small businesses fail, typically despite great inventions and people.
  • Human contact is often lost beneath the required bureaucratic machinery of large organisations.
  • Cases can be granted or refused based solely on the luck of the examiner draw.
  • The gap between the hyperbole needed to sale a product and the prosaic hardwork to get the product working.
  • The size of the body of previously-published materials.
  • Cases you work on for years are left behind as companies pivot and cost-cut.
  • There’s always a deadline or five.
  • Every other patent attorney is just as driven and smart and is competing against you.

If you align why you are doing something with what you are doing then things become a lot easier.

* Caveat: I understand that this can seem a little MBA-gimmicky, and I do share your skepticism, but the underlying question is a sound one. Reflection is also a good thing, and needed now more than ever with the iPhone buzzing and blinking. 

Computer-Related Board of Appeal Decisions from 2014 Case Law Summary

The European Patent Office has now published a case law summary for 2014 as Official Journal supplementary publication 4/2015. Sections I-C-4.1, I-C-5.1, II-A-1, and II-E-1.4 discuss case law that relates to computer-related inventions. The relevant passages are extracted and commented on below.

Skilled Person

T 407/11 held that the relevant skilled person in the context of providing computer-system users with operating assistance via a user interface (e.g. error messages or warnings) was an expert in software ergonomics concerned with the userfriendliness of human-machine interfaces rather than an expert in software programming or in computer technology in the strict sense.

The objective problem to be solved by that skilled person was to prevent a situation whereby the user’s action caused an electronic data-processing system to execute a called function differently from intended (or even to fail to execute it at all).

In the board’s view, however, the technical effect claimed in the application (simpler operation of an object-oriented user interface, facilitating initial use and subsequent familiarisation, especially for beginners or upgrading users, and so making the resulting method easier and more intuitive to learn) could not be considered a directly derivable consequence of the distinguishing features, because attributes such as “simpler operation” or “easy and intuitive familiarisation” were generally subjective, i.e. depended on the user’s individual preferences and experience or intellectual capabilities, while the classification of users as “beginners”, “upgraders” or “advanced” was generally based on a variety of criteria which were not clearly defined.

This suggests that providing objective definitions of technical effects (e.g. millisecond time savings) may help to support an inventive step under European practice. It also further indicates a need to avoid reference to “user”-based advantages.

Applications of Algorithms

In T 2035/11 the application mainly related to navigation systems that could be tailored to a user’s particular wishes. The focus of the application was on the route-planning functionality of a navigation system.

The board held that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked an inventive step within the meaning of Art. 52(1) and 56 EPC. It noted that mathematical algorithms may contribute to the technical character of an invention only in so far as they serve a technical purpose (see e.g. decision T 1784/06). The purpose of the algorithm was the mere display of an optimal path to the user for cognitive processing. The user could act on the information, but did not need to.

As stated in decision T 1670/07, a technical effect may arise from either the provision of data about a technical process, regardless of the presence of the user or its subsequent use, or from the provision of data (including data that on its own is excluded, e.g. produced by means of an algorithm) that is applied directly in a technical process.

In the case at issue, the data was produced by means of an algorithm and was not applied directly in a technical process, so neither possibility applied.

Warning on Generalisation

In T 2231/09 the patent in suit concerned a method of representing and analysing images. Claim 1 of the main request set out that “… at least one said descriptor element is derived using only a subset of pixels in said image.”

The board considered the expression “subset of pixels” to be problematic under Art. 84 EPC 1973 and stressed that, while a certain degree of generalisation may be permitted, features as claimed should make it possible to clearly identify features of embodiments that are covered by the terms of a claim. Moreover, the generalised subject-matter as claimed should make it possible to understand the technical problem to be solved.

When amending claim 1, the applicant had put forward a new interpretation according to which a “region” could mean the whole image, and a “subset” could correspond to all pixels of the region. The board considered this interpretation to be inconsistent with essential parts of the described embodiments, according to which a subset corresponded to only some of the pixels of a region. The subject-matter of claim 1 was thus unclear when interpreted in the light of the description.

The board also stated that the requirements of clarity and support by the description in Art. 84 EPC 1973 were designed to reflect the principle that the terms of a claim should be commensurate with the invention’s technical contribution to the art. Taking into account the description, the board regarded the division of the image into regions and subsets as essential for achieving the technical effect underlying the invention. Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 was not supported by the description. The board concluded that claim 1 did not comply with Art. 84 EPC 1973.

This indicates the need, when drafting claims for computer-related inventions, to provide clear and unambiguous definitions of terms used within the claims. This is especially important when features of the claims relate to abstract entities, e.g. data within a data processing system.

Added Subject Matter and Features without Technical Contribution

In T 1779/09 the board considered that the appellant had found itself exactly in the situation envisaged in decision G 1/93 (OJ 1994, 451). As emphasised in Headnote II of G 1/93, “a feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is not to be considered as subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed within the meaning of Art. 123(2) EPC.” These principles were confirmed in G 2/98 (OJ 2001, 413) and G 2/10 (OJ 2012, 376). The board in the case at issue concluded that a limiting feature which generally would not be allowable under Art. 123(2) EPC could, under certain conditions, nevertheless be maintained in the claim of an opposed patent in the particular situation addressed in decision G 1/93. It then complied with Art. 123(2) EPC by way of a legal fiction. In the case at issue, the term “only” was introduced during the examination proceedings and successfully objected to under Art. 100(c) EPC in proceedings before the opposition division by the former respondent. Since the board considered the term to be truly limiting, its deletion would extend the protection conferred and thereby infringe Art. 123(3) EPC. However, the board held that the exclusive limitation did not influence the solution of the technical problem as understood from the application as originally filed, and hence provided no technical contribution to the claimed invention (see also decision T 384/91, Headnote II). It merely excluded protection of part of the invention described in the application, thus not giving any unwarranted advantage to the applicant. Claim 1 of the appellant’s sole request was therefore deemed to comply with Art. 123(2) EPC.

Updated US Guidance on Patent Eligibility (or “Stuff =/ Patents”)

The USPTO issued updated guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (i.e. things you can get a patent for in the US) at the end of July.

The materials are fairly dense and help address some of the criticisms raised by applicants. Further explanations of the approach are provided as well as an expanded list of examples.

Reading between the lines, it appears the USPTO is moving towards a position that is harmonised with European, Chinese and UK approaches on excluded subject matter.

Having a relatively simple mind, I found the following page from the guidance summary useful.

Stuff What You Can't Patent

Case Law Review – O/174/14 – UK Patent Hearing

Case:

O/174/14

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.]

Comments:

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”.

Case Law Review – T 2296/10

Case:

T 2296/10

Claimed Subject Matter:

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

Comments:

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 2.1.12.1.1 to 2.1.92.1.9 , 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.]

Case Law Review – T 1602/09

Case:

T 1602/09

Claimed Subject Matter:

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

Comments:

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.]

Case Law Review – T 1192/10

Case:

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.

Comments:

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.

Case Law Review – T 0913/10

Case:

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).

Comments:

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.]