9.1. Treatment of technical and non-technical features
9.1.4 The aim to be achieved in the formulation of the technical problem
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
For the purpose of the problem-and-solution approach developed as a test for whether an invention meets the requirement of inventive step, the problem must be a technical one (T 641/00). The definition of the technical problem is difficult if the actual novel and creative concept making up the core of the claimed invention resides in the realm outside any technological field, as is frequently the case with computer-implemented inventions. Defining the problem without referring to this non-technical part of the invention, if at all possible, would generally result either in an unintelligible vestigial definition, or in a contrived statement that does not adequately reflect the real technical contribution provided to the prior art (T 154/04, OJ 2008, 46).
In T 641/00 (OJ 2003, 352) the board considered the formulation of the technical problem. Although the technical problem to be solved should not be formulated to contain pointers to the solution or partially anticipate it, merely because some feature appeared in the claim did not mean it was automatically excluded from appearing in the formulation of the problem (see point 7 to the Reasons). In particular where the claim referred to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field, this aim might legitimately appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem which was to be solved in order to avoid taking into account a non-technical contribution when assessing inventive step. The board referred to its decision T 1053/98, where it had considered it necessary to formulate the technical problem in such a way that "there was no possibility of an inventive step being involved by purely non-technical features". Such a formulation of the problem could refer to the non-technical aspect of the invention as a given framework within which the technical problem was posed. Thus, the board allowed an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field to appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved, in particular as a constraint that is to be met (see e.g. T 2063/09). Such a formulation had the additional, desirable effect that the non-technical aspects of the claimed invention, which generally relate to non-patentable desiderata, ideas, and concepts and belong to the phase preceding any invention, are automatically cut out of the assessment of inventive step and cannot be mistaken for technical features positively contributing to inventive step. Since only technical features and aspects of the claimed invention should be taken into account in assessing inventive step, i.e. the innovation must be on the technical side, not in a non-patentable field (see also decisions T 531/03 and T 619/02), it was irrelevant whether such a non-technical aim was known before the priority date of the application, or not (see T 154/04). In the case at issue, the object of the invention as stated in the patent specification was to eliminate inconveniences caused by distributing costs for service and private calls or among different users. That object had to be reformulated to arrive at the technical problem of implementing the GSM system in such a way as to allow user-selectable discrimination between calls for different purposes or by different users (see also in this respect T 509/07).
The board noted that this approach, although not made explicit before the Comvik decision T 641/00, was in line with the case law of the boards of appeal as shown, for example, from the analysis of some earlier decisions in decision T 764/02. In T 1769/10 the board stated that the case law, as summarised in T 154/04, had created a practicable system for delimiting the innovations for which a patent may be granted (G 3/08 date: 2010-05-12, OJ 2011, 10).
In T 1284/04 the board held that the Comvik approach does not consider the non-technical constraints as belonging to the prior art, but rather as belonging to the conception or motivation phase normally preceding an invention, since they may lead to a technical problem without contributing to its solution. Such aspects have never been taken into account in assessing inventive step, irrespective of whether or not they were known from the prior art (see e.g. T 958/03 and T 506/06).
In T 1463/11 the board noted that if the essential idea of the invention lies in a non-technical field (usually one excluded by Art. 52(2) EPC, such as business, programs, or presentations of information), the objective technical problem often amounts to a statement of requirements that any implementation must meet. The assessment of what is and what is not technical is, therefore, a critical step in the formulation of the objective technical problem. A non-obvious difference over the prior art leads to a positive outcome, if it is deemed technical; but a non-obvious difference that is deemed non-technical leads to a negative outcome. This often leads to opposing definitions of the problem and must therefore be analysed precisely. The formulation of the objective technical problem in terms of non-technical requirements raises the question of what requirements the business person (for example) can actually give to the technically skilled person. Naturally, any requirement that is purely a business matter can be included. However, in the assessment of inventive step, the business person is just as fictional as the skilled person of Art. 56 EPC. The notion of the skilled person is an artificial one; that is the price paid for an objective assessment. So it is too with the business person, who represents an abstraction or shorthand for a separation of business considerations from technical. A real business person, a real technically-skilled person, or a real inventor does not hold such considerations separately from one another.
In T 630/11 the invention provided a "gaming server" with which various online casinos communicate, with the aim of reducing waiting time for players. The issue was how the non-technical aim of reducing waiting time was translated to a (technical) invention and whether there came a point at which technological issues so predominate that further non-technical considerations are no longer separable from them.
The board noted that T 1463/11 warned against allowing the notional business person to require technical means and thus to take technical decisions.
In T 144/11 the board stated that what the board had held in T 1463/11 demonstrated that a careful analysis of which parts of a claimed feature involve a business requirement could help to resolve the grey area between technical and non-technical features. A corollary of this approach, and what is seen in practice, is that a problem of the type "implement the business requirement" will normally never lead to an allowable claim. Either the implementation will be obvious or have no technical effect, or if not, the implementation will have a technical effect that can be used to reformulate the problem essentially to "achieve the effect of the implementation". However, the implementation-type problem is just a starting point that might have to be modified when the implementation is considered. It helps when a technical problem is not apparent at the outset. Examining the business requirements like that and correctly establishing what is to be implemented ensures that all technical matter arising from the idea of the invention and its implementation is taken into account for inventive step. In the Board's view, another constraint is that the technical skilled person must receive a complete description of the business requirement, or else he would not be able to implement it and should not be providing any input in the non-technical domain.
In T 2052/12 the invention dealt with parking meters that could credit money on smart cards, but also stored a repayment limit on the smart card to prevent theft. The board held that the claimed method involved technical features carried out by the data carrier, in particular the storing, setting and reducing of the repayment limit, the checking of the reimbursement value and its contingent addition to the memory value, and the checking of key information identifying the communication facility's credit authorization. It held that these technical features brought about technical effects beyond the mere implementation of the claimed method in such a way as to achieve the aims corresponding to the non-technical features.
- T 1408/18
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).
- T 2314/16
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)
- T 1749/14
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).
- T 232/14
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)
- T 2455/13
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).
- Case law 2020
-
In T 1749/14 the invention was in the field of mobile point-of-sale (POS) terminals for carrying out transactions, e.g. involving a credit card. Conventionally, the merchant possessed such mobile POS terminals and the customer had to provide his identification credentials such as account number and PIN to this merchant's unit. The invention tried to avoid the customer's sensitive information becoming known if the merchant's device was tampered with by allowing a transaction to be carried out without the customer having to present account information and the PIN to the merchant. The board held that the notional business person might have come up with the abstract idea of avoiding the customer having to provide PIN and account information to the merchant. The invention, however, required 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 went beyond what the notional business person knew and concerned technical implementation details (how to implement) which were more than a straightforward 1:1 programming of an abstract business idea. This was in the sphere of the technical expert and subject to the assessment of inventive step (see T 1082/13).
In T 232/14 the invention related to the identification of specially taxed or branded manufactured items (also called units or cartons, e.g. cigarette cartons), packaged into containers (also called cases). Identification allowed products to be authenticated as genuine, tracked and traced, which helped to detect contraband and counterfeit products. The board held that using ranges of unit identifiers to label a number of (consecutive) unit identifiers of manufactured items was, at the level of generality at which it was claimed, on the business side of the line between technical and non-technical subject-matter (see e.g. T 144/11, points 2.1, and 3.6 to 3.9 of the Reasons). Contrary to the appellant's argument, the board held that the ranges of unit identifiers did have a meaning for the business person. They corresponded to batches of units produced on a production line. (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 was 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. Therefore the determination of ranges of unit identifiers was rather linked to the number of possible ways of organising items of a group of items based on how they were produced, that is, the number of batches, than to the way in which data can be stored. The board agreed with the examining division that the use of an (electronic) database for the storage of data, that is, the ranges of unit identifiers, was a straightforward consequence of the requirement specification when implementing it on a data processing system. The person skilled in the art when implementing the business requirements would straightforwardly store in the database a container identifier for each container, each being coupled in the database to the one or more ranges of unit identifiers allocated to the container. The saving in storage space was a mere "bonus effect".
In T 2314/16 the invention concerned the distribution of rewards to participants in an affiliate marketing scheme by which an influencer (called user in claim 1) received a reward for advertising a product or service on a blog or on social media. Participating influencers were each allocated a portion of an advertisement banner displayed on a website. The visitors to the website did not see the user areas, only an advertising banner. When the visitor clicked on the banner, the user whose portion was clicked on got a reward, distributed according to the sizes of the image portions. The partial areas were allocated such that the reward distribution rates matched the degree of contribution of each user to the advertising. The board held that 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 was clicked on the user got 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 needed to understand how a web site is built, and in particular how an image map works. Thus, this feature could not be part of the non-technical requirements. Instead it was part of the solution that had to be evaluated for obviousness.