European Patent Office

T 1026/17 (Securing a tendering system/KOHLI) vom 21.06.2022

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T102617.20220621
Datum der Entscheidung
21. Juni 2022
Aktenzeichen
T 1026/17
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
06842769.9
IPC-Klasse
G06Q 30/00
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
Nicht verteilt (D)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
A PROCESS FOR SECURING TENDERING SYSTEM
Name des Antragstellers
KOHLI, Jitendra
Name des Einsprechenden
-
Kammer
3.5.01
Leitsatz
-
Relevante Rechtsnormen
European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
Schlagwörter
Inventive step - mixture of technical and non-technical features
Inventive step - bidder created pass-phrases (no
Inventive step - not technical)
Inventive step - main request and auxiliary request I (no)
Auxiliary request II late filed during oral proceedings - not admitted
Orientierungssatz
In the Board's judgement it is part of the non-technical requirement specification to keep keys (be it analog or electronic keys) away from people one does not trust. This does not require technical considerations of a technically skilled person. The Board does not consider this to be a technical difference, but to be an administrative consideration within the sphere of a business person when contemplating a secure tender process. It is not regarded as a technical innovation, but a natural choice for the bidders to use individual keys, keep the keys back as long as possible and furnish them as late as possible. And even if this was considered technical, it would, in the Board's view, be obvious to do so.
Furthermore, the Board considers that implementing a functionality in the networked e-tender system corresponding to D1 would be, at the claimed level of generality, obvious in view of the above business related requirement specification. The Board notes that the implementation is claimed in functional terms and neither the claim nor the application as a whole provide details on how encryption/decryption is achieved on a technical level. The application apparently relies in this respect on the skilled person's common general knowledge. The Board notes in this regard that if providing necessary software and data structures were beyond the skilled person's skills, the invention would not be sufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC).
Even if the appellant is correct that using different keys for different bidders is a difference over D1, this would in the Board's view imply - in the light of bidders creating their own individual keys for unlocking/decrypting being obvious - that the keys of different bidders are different, too. Therefore creating individual keys/pass-phrases would inherently require the use of multiple keys for implementation.
(See points 4.2 to 4.4 of the reasons)
Zitierte Akten
T 0641/00
Zitierende Akten
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.