Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 056 für die Entscheidung T0279/21 vom 30.01.2024

[placeholder for title]In T 279/21 the invention related to a central control system for providing automated real- time interaction and state-transition-controlled processing of (data) objects. The invention was said, rather generally, to provide a system which was capable of flexibly capturing the external and/or internal factors that may affect the processing of an object within a workflow and that was more capable of being operated by externally or internally occurring boundary conditions or constraints. Furthermore, it was able to react dynamically to changing environmental or internal conditions or measuring parameters that were possibly not known or predictable at the beginning of the workflow process, in particular without human interaction. The examining division had argued that the claimed subject-matter related to abstract information modelling concepts at meta-language level in the context of workflows. They had pointed out that the design and modelling of workflows for business processes represented activities in the sphere of methods for doing business. The appellant had argued that when G 1/19 (e.g. at point 51 of the Reasons) stated that any technical effect going beyond the implementation of the process on a computer may be considered for inventive step, it meant anything beyond a 1:1 mapping between the implementation and a step of the business method being implemented. In other words, any subject-matter that does not "map" to a step in the business method is technical. The board agreed that the "implementation" of a business method implies some sort of mapping between non-technical steps of the business method and their technical realisation. Decision G 1/19 had something to say about this mapping, at least in the forward direction, at point 51 of the Reasons, when it rephrased the requirement for technical effect as "technical effect going beyond the simulation's straightforward or unspecified implementation on a standard computer system". Thus, even a 1:1 mapping might be inventive if it is not "straight-forward" (e.g. not standard programming or routine modification of the technical means used), or "unspecified" (e.g. not simply as "means for [carrying out the step]"). But, according to the board, looking for a mapping from "implementation" to the step of a business method in the reverse direction did not make sense as the steps of the non- technical activity do not have to be specified explicitly. They would include any steps that the business person would come up with in a non-technical workflow. The way this was handled was by considering the mapping of the implementation to the effect of the step and to examine whether the effect had any technical character, or whether it would be covered by what the business person would consider as part of the non-technical process. This was, in other words, the standard COMVIK approach where one looks at the effect of a feature in order to pose a technical problem, which might simply be the implementation of the feature, for which the above-mentioned mapping in the forward direction meant in G 1/19 applied. Thus, looking at the feature of the "operating tags" in the present case, the effect was to define business conditions determining whether a certain task shall be executed or not. This, of course, corresponded to a non-technical step of the workflow system, namely keeping track of the state of a process. Going forward again with the mapping in order to judge inventive step, the implementation was seen to be the use of "operating tags", which even if escaping the "unspecified" classification must surely be "straight-forward". Furthermore, the board could not see how avoiding the folder data structure of the prior art, as argued by the appellant, represented a technical effect. The board found the present case comparable to T 894/10, in which the board, in a different composition, held that "all aspects of the idea of modelling and manipulating representations of a workflow are fundamentally non-technical, being essentially aspects of either a business method or an algorithm or both. [...] Technical considerations only come into play when implementing the representation and rules". The board therefore concluded that the subject-matter of the claim in question lacked an inventive step over the prior art within the meaning of Art. 56 EPC, because the skilled person would adapt the modules seen in the prior art, with additional functions to implement new workflow rules or constraints based on common general knowledge.