D. Inventive step

Assessment of technicality of programs for computers: "further technical considerations" in the sense of opinion G 3/08

the (technically) skilled person might be considered a multilingual person but not normally a linguist (Reasons 3.13.7).

Ein Geschäftsmann, der ein Produkt anbieten möchte, welches die Durchführung einer Transaktion mit nur einem Endgerät ermöglicht, würde vorgeben, dass diese erst nach einer Autorisierung durch den Benutzer ausgeführt wird und auch, dem Trend der Zeit entsprechend, dass es wünschenswert wäre, wenn der Benutzer alle erforderlichen Eingaben auf seinem Smartphone vornehmen könnte. Demgegenüber fällt die Verwendung eines TAN-basierten Verfahrens einschließlich der Frage, wie eine sichere Übertragung der TAN ermöglicht werden kann, in die Sphäre des technischen Fachmanns. Denn ausgehend von einer traditionellen PIN basierten Passwort Authentifizierung bildet die Verwendung einer TAN, das heißt eines Einmalpasswortes, eine zweite Sicherheitsebene. Die damit verbundene Interaktion von zwei Applikationen und Kommunikationskanälen zum Erhalten und Bereitstellen einer TAN führt zu einer Zwei-Faktor-Authentisierung, die eine erhöhte Sicherheit gewährleistet. Damit liegen dem TAN-Verfahren unabhängig von seiner konkreten Anwendung technische Überlegungen zugrunde, die über das hinausgehen, was von einem Geschäftsmann an technischem Verständnis erwartet werden kann (vgl. hierzu auch T 1082/13 - Computer implemented system offering replacement services for applying tax legislation/SAP, Entscheidungsgründe 4.8, und T 2455/13 - Überwachung von Kapitalunterlegungshöhen bei Risikoereignissen/SWISS RE, Entscheidungsgründe 3.10 bis 3.12 sowie Orientierungssatz)(siehe Entscheidungsgründe 6.2).

If neither the output of a machine-learning computer program nor the output's accuracy contribute to a technical effect, an improvement of the machine achieved automatically through supervised learning to generate a more accurate output is not in itself a technical effect

Zur Berücksichtigung einer in der Beschreibung des Patents erwähnten Aufgabe, welche die beanspruchte Lösung vorwegnimmt, bei der Formulierung der zu lösenden technischen Aufgabe (Siehe Punkte 3.14 bis 3.19 der Gründe).

1. Die vorliegende, auf maschinellem Lernen insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit einem künstlichen neuronalen Netz beruhende Erfindung ist nicht ausreichend offenbart, da das erfindungsgemäße Training des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes mangels Offenbarung nicht ausführbar ist.

2. Da sich im vorliegenden Fall das beanspruchte Verfahren vom Stand der Technik nur durch ein künstliches neuronales Netz unterscheidet, dessen Training nicht im Detail offenbart ist, führt die Verwendung des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes nicht zu einem speziellen technischen Effekt, der erfinderische Tätigkeit begründen könnte.

1. Die vorliegende, auf maschinellem Lernen insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit einem künstlichen neuronalen Netz beruhende Erfindung ist nicht ausreichend offenbart, da das erfindungsgemäße Training des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes mangels Offenbarung nicht ausführbar ist.

2. Da sich im vorliegenden Fall das beanspruchte Verfahren vom Stand der Technik nur durch ein künstliches neuronales Netz unterscheidet, dessen Training nicht im Detail offenbart ist, führt die Verwendung des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes nicht zu einem speziellen technischen Effekt, der erfinderische Tätigkeit begründen könnte.

Zum Verhältnis zwischen "subjektiver" und "objektiver" technischer Aufgabe: siehe Punkt 3.4 der Entscheidungsgründe.

However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms. In T 1798/13 (Forecasting the value of a structured financial product/SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD), points 2.7 to 2.9, the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. In that case there were none. This was contrasted with T 2079/10 (Steuerung von zellulär aufgebauten Alarmsystemen/SWISSRE) where the invention was seen to lie in the improvement of the measurement technique itself, which involved technical considerations about the sensors and their positions. Such a situation is conceivable in the present case, if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using considerations of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, the claim only specifies that the data "includes a time series of acceleration vectors" and that this data is "analyzed". There are no further details that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors. (See points 2.11 to 2.13 of the reasons)

No need for a hint to the claimed solution in the closest prior art (see point 3.2.3)

Rechtfertigung der Wahl des Ausgangspunkts zur Prüfung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit (siehe Punkt 5.1 der Entscheidungsgründe).

a) Soll ein Standard-Verfahren oder -Produkt geschützt werden, so muss definiert werden oder durch die Gesamtoffenbarung eindeutig klar sein, auf welchen anerkannten Standard sich das Verfahren oder Produkt bezieht. (Gründe 4.1.4)

b) Gibt es in den gesamten Anmeldeunterlagen keine direkte oder plausible Offenbarung, wie die erwünschte Wirkung der Erfindung erzielt wird und warum durch die beanspruchten Merkmale die Aufgabe gelöst wird, dann kann die Wirkweise auch durch die Lehre von anderen (vorveröffentlichten) Dokumenten abgeleitet werden. (Gründe 5.4.4)

The specification of the business method ended with how to determine the reward distribution ratio. The features of dividing the advertisement display area into partial areas and allocating each partial area to a user such that when the partial area is clicked on the user gets a reward, were based on technical considerations of the web page system. It was not motivated by any business considerations.

...

In order to come up with this idea, one needs to understand how a web site is built, and in particular how an image map works. Thus, this feature cannot be part of the non-technical requirements. Instead it is part of the solution that has to be evaluated for obviousness. (See point 2.10 of the reasons)

The mere assumption that an algorithm is optimised for the computer hardware and may have a technical contribution is not sufficient. The implementation of an algorithm in a method for filtering spam messages must have a proved further technical effect or specific technical considerations; such further technical effect must be specifically and sufficiently documented in the disclosure of the invention and be reflected in the claim wording; the algorithm must serve a technical purpose.

The fact that the skilled person is taught in the prior art to investigate polymorphs in order to isolate the crystalline form having the most desirable properties is in itself not necessarily sufficient to consider a specific polymorphic form having a certain desired property obvious (see point 4.3.4 of the Reasons).

In the application of the problem-solution approach for the assessment of inventive step, the person skilled in the art within the meaning of Article 56 EPC enters the stage only when the objective technical problem has been formulated in view of the selected "closest prior art". Only then can the notional skilled person's relevant technical field and its extent be appropriately defined. Therefore, it cannot be the "skilled person " who selects the closest prior art in the first step of the problem-solution approach. Rather, this selection is to be made by the relevant deciding body, on the basis of the established criteria, in order to avoid any hindsight analysis (see point 2.1.4 of the Reasons).

Selection of the "closest prior art": see point 5. RPBA 2020 Article 13(1) and (2): see points 15 to 20. Technical effects: see points 24 to 26 and 35.

Plausibility - (points 2.1 to 2.8, 7.2 and 11)

Plausible argument of the appellant about the choice of specific, non-obvious hardware implementation, in favour of an inventive step over the prior art (Article 56 EPC).

Der Fachmann bedarf keiner Anregung, um sein Fachwissen zur Anwendung zu bringen (siehe Punkt 3.5 der Entscheidungsgründe)

see sections 3 to 6

As to the definition of the skilled person for the assessment of inventive step and the interpretation of technical specifications (such as telecommunications standards): see points 2.2 and 2.7 of the Reasons.

Plausibilität und Berücksichtigung nachgereichter experimenteller Daten im Rahmen der erfinderischen Tätigkeit (siehe Entscheidungsgründe, Punkte 5.5 und 5.6)

selection of the closest prior art - see Reasons 8, 8.1 - 8.4

The notional business person might come up with the abstract idea of avoiding the customer having to provide PIN and account information to the merchant. The invention however requires a new infrastructure, new devices and a new protocol involving technical considerations linked to modified devices and their capabilities as well as security relevant modifications of the transfer of sensitive information using new possibilities achieved by the modifications to the previously known mobile POS infrastructure. This goes beyond what the notional business person knows and concerns technical implementation details (how to implement) which are more than a straight-forward 1:1 programming of an abstract business idea. (See point 5 of the reasons). This is in the sphere of the technical expert and subject to the assessment of inventive step (see T 1082/13).

Was der beanspruchte Gegenstand leistet ist lediglich, anthropometrische Daten in einer Datenbank so zu organisieren, dass diese in standardisierter Form oder in Form statistischer Kennwerte zur Abfrage über eine Kommunikationseinrichtung bereitgestellt werden. Der Anspruchs­gegenstand betrifft nur Auswertungsergebnisse, auch wenn solche im Rahmen einer Zweckangabe zur Produktherstellung gesendet werden. Es erfolgt keine Kontrolle des Betriebs einer Herstellungsanlage, sondern es werden lediglich Produktdaten bereit gestellt. Die Kammer bezweifelt, dass das Ziel der Anthropotechnik mit einer Gestaltung der Schnittstelle zwischen Mensch und Maschine hier relevant ist. Die Kammer erkennt in dem beanspruchten Verfahren keinen technischen Effekt, der über die reine naheliegende Automatisierung einer abstrakten Idee zur Standardisierung hinausgeht (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe, Punkt 7).

The requirement in G 1/03 that an accidental novelty-destroying disclosure has to be completely irrelevant for assessing inventive step is to be understood not as an alternative, or additional criterion, but as a consequence of the criterion that, from a technical point of view, said disclosure is so unrelated and remote that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making or working on the invention (points 2 and 7).

The proper application of the COMVIK approach requires a thorough analysis of the business constraints when formulating the problem to be solved before investigating what the skilled person would have done to solve it. The failure to reflect all aspects of the business method in the problem to be solved led the examining division to argue unconvincingly that the inconvenient distinguishing feature of authorising the access terminal was an alternative whose choice was governed by unspecified business constraints (see reasons 4.2).

The appellant's wish for the Board to define criteria that the examining division should use to prove that a feature is not technical is tantamount to defining the term technical, which the Boards have consistently declined to do. However, as stated in e.g. T 2314/16 - Distributing rewards/RAKUTEN at points 2.6 to 2.8, over the years the case law has provided guidance on the issue of technicality. Recently, the Board has tended to use the framework for discussion given in the CardinalCommerce decision (T 1463/11 - Universal merchant platform/CardinalCommerce) to help classify whether borderline features of a claim are on the technical or the non-technical side. It is thus clear that some discussion can and ought to take place. However, rather like objections against added subject-matter, one is essentially trying to prove a negative which tends to be a rather short exercise. On the other hand, the appellant is trying to prove a positive which involves more argument. Thus an objection from the division should probably start with a prima facie assertion that the feature in question is non-technical, perhaps because it is in one of the exclusions listed in Article 52(2) EPC, or a related or analogous field. If this is uncontested then this would be enough. However the Board considers that it is then up to the appellant to provide arguments why there is a technical effect or that some technical considerations are involved. The division should consider these arguments and give reasons why they are not convincing. As mentioned above, the Board is satisfied that this happened in the present case. One final piece of advice for examining divisions would be where possible to search for and start from a document that already discloses some of the alleged non-technical features, thus avoiding the discussion for these features (see for example, T 756/06 - Displaying a schedule/FUJITSU, point 5 or T 368/05 - Integrated account/CITIBANK, point 8). (See points 3.3 to 3.5 of the reasons)

The Board judges that using ranges of unit identifiers to label a number of (consecutive) unit identifiers of manufactured items is, at the level of generality at which it is claimed, on the business side of the line between technical and non-technical subject-matter (see e.g. T 144/11 - Security rating System / SATO MICHIHIRO, points 2.1, and 3.6 to 3.9).(See point 2.5 of the reasons) The ranges of unit identifiers do have a meaning for the business person. They correspond to batches of units produced on a production line. (See point 2.6 of the reasons) Even if the "determining of ranges of unit identifiers" achieved a technical effect, such as reducing data storage and data bandwidth requirements, it is a matter of routine design for the skilled person, a software programmer or a database expert, based on common general knowledge to store the first and the last element of a list of items, instead of the whole list. (See point 2.9 of the reasons)

 Auch der nicht-technische Fachmann hat Kenntnis von den Möglichkeiten einer Realisierung von geschäftsbezogenen Konzepten auf netzwerkbasierten Computersystemen. Er kannte zum Prioritätszeitpunkt eine Vielzahl von rechner- und netzwerkgestützten geschäftlichen Prozessen (z.B. im Bereich der Zahlungsprozesse, Materialwirtschaft und auch der Versicherungswirtschaft), um eine Vorstellung davon zu haben, was konzeptionell auf einer abstrakten Meta-Ebene realisierbar ist. Was der nicht-technische Fachmann jedoch nicht weiß ist, wie genau eine Implementierung auf dem Computer erfolgt. Dies liegt in der Sphäre des Programmierers, des technischen Fachmanns, und ist bei der Prüfung auf erfinderische Tätigkeit zu berücksichtigen (vgl. T 1082/13, Entscheidungsgründe 4.8). Sind Merkmale lediglich auf einer abstrakten Meta-Ebene als Module spezifiziert und repräsentieren Funktionen, wie sie der nicht-technische Fachmann in seinem Konzept zugrunde legen würde, so gibt dieser damit auch keine technischen Merkmale vor. Erst durch die Angabe von tatsächlichen Implementierungs­schritten im Anspruch werden diese Module zu technischen Merkmalen qualifiziert (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe 3.10 bis 3.12).

The "weather" is not a technical system that the skilled person can improve, or even simulate with the purpose of trying to improve it. It is a physical system that can be modelled in the sense of showing how it works. This kind of modelling is rather a discovery or a scientific theory, which are excluded under Article 52(2)(a) EPC and thus do not contribute to the technical character of the invention (see point 2.10ff.).

1. The assessment of technical character of a claim does not require a reference to the prior art following the established "whole contents approach" (see reasons, point 1.1).

2. A "timeout" condition claimed in general and broad terms that cover non-technical interpretations is in the domain of the non-technical person and part of the requirements specification given to the technical expert for implementation on a computer system (see reasons, point 2.4).

3. The "notional business person", as introduced in T1463/11, is to be interpreted within the framework of the well established COMVIK-approach according to T0641/00. Consequently, the notional business person knows all about the business related requirements specification and knows about the fact that such business related concepts can be implemented on a computer system. The choice of where to do a calculation in a distributed system is not necessarily technical, but can also be driven by administrative considerations. What the notional business person does not know, however, is how exactly it can be implemented on a computer system. This is in the sphere of the technical expert and subject to the assessment of inventive step.

4. When referring to prejudices, it has to be carefully analysed, whether it is actually a technical prejudice or, in fact, a business prejudice (e.g. just a new way of organising a business transaction that goes against traditional ways of organising it - see reasons, point 4.8).

The claimed invention is not directed to a real-time problem in the sense of improving a technical process, but rather to automation in the sense of making (non-technical) financial information available quickly. This automation is achieved by mapping the financial concept of derivative transactions on a client-server computer system (see reasons, point 8.2).

See point 5.8.

A computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process that is claimed as such can, for the purpose of assessing inventive step, solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect going beyond the simulation’s implementation on a computer. For that assessment it is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process. The answers to the first and second questions are no different if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process, in particular for verifying a design.