European Patent Office

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

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T102617.20220621
Date of decision
21 June 2022
Case number
T 1026/17
Petition for review of
-
Application number
06842769.9
IPC class
G06Q 30/00
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
No distribution (D)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
A PROCESS FOR SECURING TENDERING SYSTEM
Applicant name
KOHLI, Jitendra
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
Keywords
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
Catchword
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)
Cited cases
T 0641/00
Citing cases
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.