9.2. Problem-solution approach when applied to mixed-type inventions

In T 799/24 the invention concerned a method and device for analysing optimisation of vehicle body joint position. The aim of the invention was to provide an analysis apparatus for determining an optimal location of an additional welded point to be added to a portion to join a part to an assembly of parts in consideration of the load acting on the automotive body and of the inertia force acting on a fitting or lid component of the automobile during driving. Claim 1 of the main request concerned an "arithmetic processing unit" or a CPU together with a display device including elements which were computer-implemented or performed a "computer-implemented" method. The board noted that the first hurdle mentioned in decision G 1/19, which requires that the claimed subject-matter as a whole must not fall under the "non-inventions" defined in Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC, was overcome since claim 1 related to an "arithmetic processing unit" together with a display device.

The second hurdle, mentioned in decision G 1/19, is where, as part of the inventive step assessment, it must be established which features of the invention contribute to its technical character, by providing a technical effect in the context of the invention as a whole..

According to the board, the formulation in claim 1 of the main request that additional welded point(s) were "to be added" to the automotive body to improve its stiffness during driving at least implicitly specified a further technical use. The board considered it implicit from claim 1 that the additional welded points of which the locations were determined would be added to the automotive body.

In the board's view, since the use of the analysis results was defined in the claim as being "for automotive body designing", leaving it open which further steps, technical or not, were to be performed with the analysis results, a potential further selection of a particular automotive body might also be based on the visual characteristics or appearance of the automotive body. However, the board was of the opinion that the selection of the automotive body was, in addition, also restricted to the selected additional welded points to be added to the automotive body.

The board noted that the optimisation analysis on the welding candidates applied at least one of the load, of which magnitude and direction were different at each joining portion. An additional welded point or an additional welded location that satisfied the optimisation analysis conditions, including maximising absorbed energy, was selected.

The analysis results used in the automotive body designing were, for example, "automotive body displacement amount". The possible use by the user of the displayed analysis results might be a cognitive exercise such as selecting the automotive body corresponding to the lowest displacement amount (G 1/19), but the board considered that the step of selecting the additional welded points contributed to the technical character of the invention.

The board further noted that the additional welded points of which the locations were determined or selected were "to be added to the automotive body" ("to improve the stiffness of the automotive body during driving"). In the board's view this wording at least implicitly specified a further technical use (G 1/19)..

The board considered that, even if the automotive body was a "prototype" and the additional welded points were added to this "prototype", this "prototype" would still be a physical object having at least some of the features of an automotive body.

The board noted that the Enlarged Board in G 1/19 required a simulation to be "accurate enough" or a simulation that reflects "reality" "accurately enough". In the present case, the automotive model constituted by the automotive body frame model and the chassis model together with the welded points at the joining portion(s) was considered by the board to reflect an automotive body (as "reality") "accurately enough". The board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 and dependent claim 2 of the main request involved an inventive step.

In T 1650/23, the invention concerned controlling the display of content items provided by a website or an application. In the system according to the invention, the content of a content item to be displayed is reduced to an amount that enables a user "to understand the target content item within the display duration".

According to the board, the distinguishing features related in part to the way information was displayed (i.e. presented) to the user. Presentation of information is as such not patentable under Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC. According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, presentation of information as such, as non-technical subject-matter, cannot contribute to inventive step. Where a claim refers to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field, this aim may legitimately 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 has to be met (T 641/00).

The appellant had argued that the distinguishing features related to technical concepts directed at determining in advance how and which information to provide in accordance with the display duration. Hence, these features were directed at the internal processing of the claimed information processing system and not at the mere presentation of information. The distinguishing features achieved the technical effect of reducing processing loads, quickly changing the content amount of the target content item, and causing the target content item to be displayed, as was recited in the description. By storing in advance multiple content variants corresponding to possible display durations, the processing was improved.

The appellant had further argued that all the distinguishing features contributed to these technical effects, since they were involved in the steps leading to the improved processing. They could thus not be considered to be mere "constraints" included in the objective technical problem. The objective technical problem had to be formulated as how to improve the processing of displaying a target content item, possibly with the addition of "such that it enables the visitor to understand display content thereof" to take into account the board's assessment that the present invention contained a part that was based on non-technical considerations.

The board could not recognise any improved processing compared to the conventional prior-art system, since changing the displayed information involved additional processing. The only effect of this additional processing was in the mind of the user, who was presented with different information than in the conventional prior-art system.

The concept of the invention was that of displaying, for a display duration below a threshold, a version of the target content item with a reduced content amount that enabled the visitor to visually understand the target content item within the display duration. The versions to be displayed should be "mutually related in display content but mutually different in content amount". This concept of the invention was based on non-technical considerations about a reduction of the cognitive burden of the user. It was thus a non-technical concept that could be included in the formulation of the technical problem.

In view of this, the distinguishing features solved the technical problem of modifying the conventional prior-art system to display, for a display duration below a threshold, a version of the target content item with a reduced content amount that enabled the visitor to visually understand the target content item within the display duration. The board held, that the skilled person facing the above formulated technical problem would immediately recognise the need to estimate the display duration and change the version of the target content item to be displayed if the estimated display duration is below a threshold. The board found that this was obvious and the subject-matter not inventive within the meaning of Art. 56 EPC.

In T 2010/22, the opposed patent concerned a headphone. It aimed at providing a headphone that does not completely shield the wearer off from the outside acoustic environment (referred to by the appellant as an "open headphone"). Given that the appealed decision only concerned novelty in relation to claim 1 of the main request, the board conducted its own inventive-step analysis.

The technical problem as formulated by the parties could not, according to the board actually be derived from effects directly and causally related to the technical features of the claimed invention.

The technical problem as formulated by the opponent relied on the implicit assumption that the closer "high-frequency driver" position as per feature (d1) directly translated to a closer acoustic source as perceived by the user’s ear. This assumption was reasonable in a basic, direct-radiating open headphone, but this was not explicitly required by claim 1.

In relation to the technical problem as formulated by the appellant, the board found that none of the other features specifically concerned an open headphone, contrary to the proprietor’s allegations. The proprietor claimed that some limitations that both drivers are located "off of the ear" of the user necessitated an open arrangement.

While the board acknowledged that it was a plausible understanding that there may be an open arrangement, it was not the only one that was technically sound. The skilled reader would in particular be aware that the phrase "off of the ear" did not necessarily exclude the presence of circumaural or supra-aural earcups. The board wished to clarify that the derivability of a credible technical effect (for the purposes of assessing inventive step) from the original description may, if at all, only be seen as a necessary requirement but not a sufficient one in view of e.g. G 1/19, point 124 of the Reasons (in particular the sentence: "[...] only those technical effects that are at least implied in the claims should be considered in the assessment of inventive step"). This means that the conclusions of G 2/21 cannot be used to bypass the fundamental requirement that the claimed features must credibly achieve the asserted technical effect: the decisive question remains whether the claimed features themselves, as understood by the skilled person, credibly bring about the technical effect over the entire scope claimed.

The board found it difficult to discern a technical effect which feature (d1) would credibly achieve over the whole scope claimed. As indicated by the board during the oral proceedings before it, this feature provided, at most, a practical arrangement of the high- and low-frequency acoustic drivers in terms of their relative positions. This meant however that the objective technical problem could, at best, be formulated as "how to practically arrange the high- and low-frequency acoustic drivers in the 'alternate embodiment' of D1 in terms of their relative positions". After its assessment of obviousness, the board concluded that the claims lacked inventive step.

In T 1468/21 the differentiating features solved the technical problem of providing a fully autonomous locker. Feature [C] related to a particular way of creating or determining the opening code and of storing it in the locker. Features [E], [F], [G] and [H] related to the specific set-up of an autonomous locker and its relationship with the remote server / central control system in order to correctly distribute the valid opening code to the user and synchronise the autonomous locker with the central control system. Although the locker was autonomous with respect to other structural units like a telecommunication network or the central control system, the opening codes in the locker and the remote server needed to be updated and synchronised after the delivered goods had been collected from the autonomous locker (or delivered to the locker). The new opening codes had to be generated and synchronised in both the locker and the remote server.

The five differentiating features [C], [E], [F], [G] and [H] were at least partially linked to the objective technical problem of rendering the locker autonomous; however, according to the board these features solved three separate technical "sub-problems" related to the cited technical problem. The first sub-problem related to the question of how the opening codes are created or selected. The second sub-problem related to the question of how to provide the same opening codes in the locker and the remote server. The third sub-problem related to the question of how to synchronise both separate units.

With regard to the examining division's reasoning regarding the "broken technical chain fallacy", the board held that it was true that the locker and the "one or more terminals (4, 4')" were not technically linked to each other. The user's intervention was required to inform the remote server, via the "one or more terminals (4, 4')", that the locker door had been opened and/or closed; however, in the present case, contrary to cases T 1670/07 and T 1741/08, there was no "broken technical chain", since the user only enters a single piece of objective information on the "one or more terminals (4, 4')" without any subjective choice or specific mental activity on their part.

In contrast to this, case T 1670/07 concerned optimising a shopping itinerary in which the vendors visited are selected according to the customer's user profile. The deciding board found that "the possible final technical effect brought about by the action of a user cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect because it is conditional on the mental activities of the user". In the deciding board's view, the technical effect, if present at all, depended on the user's reaction to the itinerary. The deciding board further explained, with reference to T 1741/08, that a user's reaction to a piece of (non-technical) information was considered to be a "broken technical chain fallacy".

T 1741/08 concerned a graphical user interface (GUI) designed to assist the user in making choices on the GUI. The user's reaction is not a simple confirmation of a status quo by the user to the technical system, but instead the user responds subjectively to the information provided on the GUI. The board in the case in hand found that in contrast to these decisions, it becomes evident that a "user's reaction to information" is more than simple "feedback" in response to an actual situation. A "user's reaction to information" involves a subjective mental act performed by the user that is clearly distinct from simple feedback. Moreover, the user will recognise the simple feedback as an essential element for correctly using a technical system, as in the present case in which the user has no choice (apart from deciding whether or not to provide the expected input). For example, case T 1741/08 was in contrast to this, in which a user's reaction to information consisted of a selection from several given and offered possibilities. It could be argued that the entire process is stopped by a missing or incorrect user input (i.e. simple "feedback"); however, in the present case, this process interruption should not be interpreted as a possible "broken technical chain" since it is not the technical chain that is broken by subjective intervention of a user involving its reaction to information; the technical chain is merely broken by the claimed technical system being incorrectly used by the user.

Therefore, inputting a single piece of information, which represents feedback on a factual, objective situation from a user within a technical process and does not require any mental activity on the part of the user, i.e. no specific reaction by the user to information, does not immediately lead to a "broken technical chain fallacy". The board therefore concluded that the examining division's decision was incorrect and that the subject-matter defined in claim 1 was inventive.

In T 201/21, the prior art disclosed a system for verifying authentication and ownership of a physical article. Each article included a label having a unique authentication code, pre-stored on a server database. The authentication code can be used to verify authenticity of an item by sending a query to a manufacturer's server. When a transaction takes place, the merchant registers ownership of the item by sending a registration request to the server including the article's unique code and a generated unique number. The registration only takes place if the code and number are not already associated with another sale.

Claim 1 differed from the prior art essentially in that card numbers are pre-stored in the central database and provided to the merchant on a brand property card (BPC), in that the database is populated with point of sale data upon entry of the numbered cards at a point of sale, in that a BPC card is provided to the user and its number is combined by the merchant with the unique identifier code in a registration request, and in that the registration is only possible if both the BPC card number and unique identifier code match a number and a code stored on the server and not associated with a sold physical article.

The appellant had argued that these features increased the security of the authentication method by providing a second authentication factor. In particular, it was argued that "... the combination of ... pairing [of the unique card and article numbers] in the database and the use of numbered cards that are not initially paired with particular physical items, results in ... strong authentication of physical articles". Moreover, they guarantee that the merchant has the authority to register the sold articles in the database.

The board found these arguments unconvincing. It regarded the general idea of protecting a transaction, here a registration, with a password as non-technical and also well known. The board further considered that the idea of using a predefined set of one-time passwords for user or merchant authentication also lacked technicality. Even when considered technical, this feature could not support an inventive step, as it corresponded to the well-known transaction authentication number (TAN) authentication procedure commonly used in online transactions. Making use of a server to store and verify the passwords or TAN numbers and of cards for distributing these to the merchant and customers was a straightforward implementation of this known procedure on well-known means.

The appellant had argued that the invention addressed the sales of luxury goods where customers appreciate tangible objects, such as certificates on elegant cards, and formulated the objective problem as "how to make the use of security tokens more attractive to a given population".

The board did not consider this an objective technical problem, as its formulation depended on the user's subjective preferences or expectations. From a technical point of view, the cards of claim 1 were merely a support for providing the merchant with the unique numbers to be used for the registration procedure. This was considered to be an obvious implementation possibility. Accordingly, the board concluded that claim 1 of the sole request lacked an inventive step over the prior art.

In T 1439/21 the application related to an automated elderly insurance scheme. The board emphasised that for deciding whether a feature is technical or not for assessing inventive step under the EPC, it is not relevant which person makes the contribution in real life. In real life, a person skilled in financial mathematics will have some notions of technical aspects, and the computer expert working for an insurance company will have some notions of business aspects of insurance schemes.

Instead, it is relevant whether the feature provides a technical effect and thus contributes to the solution of a technical problem or not or, in other words, whether it falls into the realm of the fictitious business person or the fictitious technically skilled person.

The board also noted that the use of technical terminology did not confer technical character. The terms "components", "measurement parameters" or "triggers" may sound technical. Similarly, the "dynamic monitoring" of these parameters or triggers by means of "measurement systems" conveys the impression that physical parameters are measured by technical devices.

In the context of the application, however, these terms do not represent any technical features. For instance, the "risk exposure components" are, in the context of the application, insured persons. In a similar manner, the "measurement systems" are not technical measuring devices. Instead, they may simply be hospital entities reporting patient data to the insurer.

Thus, the terms used in the application that in a technical context would have had a technical meaning instead have, in the insurance context of the application, a non-technical meaning. Therefore, the "technical" terminology used in the application for some aspects of the insurance scheme does not lend any technical character to the respective features in substance. Instead, it only creates a misleading appearance or perception of technical character.

As a result, the board could not see any interaction between the features defining the dynamic insurance scheme and the networked computer system used to automate it. However, an interaction between these features such that a technical problem is solved would have been required in order to acknowledge a contribution to technical character by non-technical features (G 1/19).

It follows from the above that the networked computer system is the only technical feature of claim 1.

In T 1249/22 the application related to the development – including the training – of an analytical model (e.g. a machine learning model) and the deployment of the trained analytical model on a "compute engine" so as to process live incoming data. The examining division had not selected a particular piece of prior art as starting point for the assessment of inventive step. The board did not find fault with this and in the case of an invention that amounted to a technical implementation of a non-technical method (provided the "non-technical method" did not contribute to the technical character of the invention), considered it to be a valid approach to

– identify, on the one hand, the non-technical method underlying the invention, and, on the other hand, the features of its technical implementation,

– define as "technical problem" to provide a technical implementation of that non-technical method, provided to the (technically) skilled person as a "non-technical requirement specification" which is part of the technical problem,

– assess whether the skilled person would have solved this technical problem by providing the claimed technical implementation (if so, the claim is not inventive).

The board stated that such an approach had been applied in several board of appeal decisions (e.g. T 1027/06).

In this approach, the choice of the IT infrastructure on which the non-technical method is to be implemented is considered to be part of the technical solution and the assessment of inventive step includes assessing whether it would have been obvious to the skilled person to select this IT infrastructure to implement the non-technical method. This is in contrast to starting from that IT infrastructure as "closest prior art" and formulating the (objective) technical problem as to provide an implementation of the non-technical method on that IT infrastructure.

In cases where the IT infrastructure used in the invention is a computer system that is commonly used to implement methods of the same kind as the non-technical method (e.g. a generic computer for most applications or a generic client-server architecture for e-business applications), there will be no difference in result between both approaches. There could however be a difference where the choice of a specific IT infrastructure might not have been a straightforward one for the given non-technical method (as noted in T 1325/17).

In any case, whichever approach is used, according to the board it is essential to be clear from the reasoning – at least implicitly – what the technical problem and the non-technical requirements included in it are. The examining division's argumentation was deemed deficient in this respect, mainly due to the fact that the examining division had identified "technical features" of the claimed subject-matter merely by underlining parts of the text of claim 5 and implying that the remainder of the claim were its "non-technical features". According to the board, this was normally not sufficient to clearly identify the technical and non-technical features of the claimed subject-matter.

The board also considered the examining division’s reasoning to be deficient, inter alia in respect of the technical features. It held that it is normally not possible to perform a meaningful obviousness analysis by completely disregarding the non-technical aspects of the claim, as they are normally the raison d'être for the claimed combination of technical features relating to their implementation. This is taken account of by including these non-technical aspects in the technical problem as non-technical requirements (in accordance with T 641/00, headnote II).

In T 688/05 similar considerations were expressed by saying that features making no technical contribution "may well form the only logical link between technical features resulting from their implementation" and that "they must therefore be taken into consideration for the examination as to inventive step while at the same time not being permitted to contribute to it" (see also e.g. T 1027/06).

In some cases, it is possible to treat groups of technical features separately from each other, but this requires a proper definition of the respective partial technical problems solved by them and an explanation of why this approach is justified in the case at hand. It may also be possible to argue that a skilled person confronted with the general technical problem of providing a technical implementation of a given non-technical method, after having selected a particular IT infrastructure in a first step towards a solution, would necessarily have been confronted with several separate sub-problems arising when having to implement the non-technical method on that IT infrastructure (see e.g. T 1158/02). But none of this had been argued by the examining division. In summary, the board considered that for these reasons inter alia, the decision was not sufficiently reasoned within the meaning of R. 111(2) EPC.