9.2.6 Assessment of non-technical features
In T 1784/06 the board confirmed the Comvik approach and held that it would appear paradoxical to recognise an inventive step on the basis of a non-technical innovation (such as an organisational, administrative, commercial or mathematical algorithm) having no technical implication other than the (obvious) desire for its implementation on a general-purpose computer. Where an intrinsically non-technical solution (here: a mathematical algorithm) seeks to derive a technical character from the problem solved, the problem must be technical. Otherwise, the solution remains non-technical and does not enter into the examination for an inventive step (T 566/11). The board agreed with the statement that a non-technical problem can have a technical solution. However, where an intrinsically non-technical solution (mathematical algorithm) seeks to derive a technical character from the problem solved, the problem must be technical.
In T 1145/10 the board stated that it may be acceptable to start the inventive-step assessment of a particular invention including a mix of technical and non-technical features from a "general-purpose computer system". However, the inventive-step reasoning should normally mention which features, especially which technical features of the invention, are anticipated by that well-known prior art. Where specific technical features or functionality of the standard computerised system are required to implement the non-technical features, those specific well-known technical features and functionality should be clearly identified (see also T 1930/13).
In T 1379/11 the board held that the closest prior art is usually chosen on the basis of the technical problem to be solved and/or the technical features of the invention. The closest prior art does not normally have to include non-technical features of the claim. On the other hand, features which would, when taken in isolation, be considered non-technical may nonetheless impose technical requirements or contribute to the technical character of the invention. Such features should be taken into account when choosing a starting point for assessing inventive step.
In T 483/11 the board held that a feature does not automatically inherit the technical character of the context in which it occurs. The feature must, itself, make a contribution to the technical context or the technical aspects of the invention (see also T 1722/12).