Tag: 3.5.01

Ephemeral group chat/SNAP – T 1959/20 – 9 November 2023

In this decision, the Board used non-technical features to formulate the technical object (in line with COMVIK). The Board then went on to explain why the implementation of non-technical requirements of a prior art system appears non-obvious, but is not non-obvious (see the last two bullet points).

Object of the Invention:

  • the invention concerns the implementation of an “ephemeral group chat”, that is, a chat whose messages are automatically deleted when a certain condition is met (for example, when a message has been viewed for a certain amount of time by all recipients)
  • how to implement the requirement of deleting all copies of a chat message based on the occurrence of an event in all client devices, such as the message having been read by all participants

Board (part I):

  • the feature of deleting all copies of a message after it has been read by all recipients is not based on technical considerations
  • nor does it solve a technical problem
  • the mentioned feature is a non-technical requirement expressing a user’s wish or subjective preference
  • non-technical features do not contribute to inventive step but may instead appear in the formulation of the technical problem, in particular as constraints or requirements to be achieved (T 641/00)

Appellant:

  • the condition to simultaneously delete a message for all participants when a trigger event had occurred at all recipient devices is not part of the problem to be solved
  • this has a technical effect, namely increasing security and maintaining data consistency across all devices
  • the technical problem to be solved was rather “how to coordinate the deletion of messages so that there is increased security and consistency“

Board (part II):

  • security of the system is not credibly increased
  • it could equally well be argued that security is decreased
  • achieving consistency of the contents of the various chat messages is not a technical effect
  • implementation of the non-technical requirements: since this cannot be achieved through the independent deletion of the messages disclosed in D1, the skilled person would have to look for a workable solution and, would consider managing the deletion operations centrally by means of the server as one of the obvious possibilities
  • implementation of nontechnical requirements on a technical prior art system might require modifications which, at first glance, appear non-obvious, as there is no technical reason for them in view of the prior art alone
  • however, since according to the principles of “Comvik” non-technical features cannot contribute to inventive step, the nontechnical requirements must be seen as a given, and the skilled person implementing them must make the necessary modifications to the prior art

Estimating airborne photovoltaic energy production/BOEING – T 1035/18 – 2 November 2021

This EPO’s Board of Appeal decision concerns a method for estimating energy savings due to solar cells on an aeroplane. The features of the method do not make a technical contribution, in particular since no further technical use is (implicitly) claimed for the determined energy savings.

Object of the Invention

  • estimating the electrical energy production of a photovoltaic system of an aircraft in flight

Appellant (part I):

  • method steps simulated the performance of a photovoltaic system under realistic conditions

Board (part I):

  • whether a simulation contributes to the technical character does not depend on the degree to which the simulation represents reality (G1/19, point 111)
  • nor does it depend on the technicality of the simulated system (G1/19, point 120)
  • whether the simulation achieves a technical effect depends on the further use of the numerical data of the simulation (G 1/19, point 124)

Appellant (part II):

  • technical effect is the further use of the predicted amount of electrical energy, namely translating this amount into estimated fuel savings
  • estimating the savings in pounds of fuel, i.e. in terms of weight, was a technical feature

Board (part II):

  • estimating the fuel savings for a flight is a nontechnical administrative activity

Appellant (part III):

  • estimated fuel savings imply a more precise estimation of the amount of fuel needed by the aircraft for a flight
  • this is a technical effect because refuelling the aircraft with the optimal amount of fuel would enable the aircraft to traverse the flight path more efficiently

Board (part III):

  • refuelling is a technical process, but it is not a direct consequence of the estimated fuel savings but would only occur as a result of a human decision (see also G 1/19, point 123)
  • the estimated fuel savings can also be used for business decisions, such as whether the savings merit the production and installation of the photovoltaic system or whether they permit a reduction of the flight tickets’ prices
  • the estimations do not have an implied technical use that can be the basis for an implied technical effect (see also G 1/19, points 98, 128)

Appellant (part IV):

  • subject matter describes accurate model for predicting the solar irradiance at a plurality of geographical points
  • the accurate model led to a more precise estimation of the fuel savings
  • according to G 1/19, point 111, the accuracy of a simulation might be taken into consideration in the assessment of inventive step

Board (part IV):

  • the simulation’s accuracy might play a role in the assessment of inventive step only if the simulation contributes to the technical character of the invention

Conclusion

The below figure shows according to G 1/19, point 85 and 86 how and when “technical effects” or “technical interactions” based on inter alia non-technical features may occur in the context of a computer-implemented process. In this decision T 1035/18 the software/ non-technical features do not contribute to the technical character of the invention via the output data. Therefore, the non-technical features are not considered for the assessment of inventive step.

Rain-sensitive parcels/IVECO – T 1806/20 – 17 November 2023

At the EPO, data relating to software-related inventions may, under certain conditions, be regarded as data of a technical character. This means that such data will be taken into account as a distinguishing feature in the examination of inventive step. Data may have a technical character if they are so-called “functional data”. A typical example of “functional data” is data intended to control a technical device. In the following decision T 1806/20, the appellant tried to present “cognitive data” as “functional data”. The appellant relied on the earlier decision T 1194/97, which identifies a type of test method that can be used to determine whether the data are “functional data”.

Object of the Invention

  • A parcel delivery system that seeks to prevent damage to water-sensitive parcels by avoiding delivery to rainy destinations.
  • Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art (CPA) inter alia by rescheduling of the delivery based on the parcels’ sensitivity to water and a rain forecast.

Appellant

  • The prevention of damage to physical objects was a fundamental technical problem that was addressed throughout various areas of technology.
  • The appellant did not dispute that delivering multiple parcels at different destinations and planing such delivery constituted a non-technical logistics scheme.
  • The rescheduling of the delivery based on the parcels’ sensitivity to water and the rain forecast do not form part of the non-technical logistic scheme.

Board

  • Contrary to the appellant’s view, the Board judges that the requirement to ensure that parcels do not get damaged by water forms part of the non-technical logistics scheme.
  • The Board is not convinced by the argument that information about a parcel’s water-sensitivity is functional technical data, because its loss would impair the technical operation of the system (cf. T 1194/97, reasons, point 3.3).
  • It is self-evident that if a piece, either technical or non-technical, of any invention is taken out, it would not work as designed.
  • In the Board’s view, what T 1194/97 is saying is rather that the loss of functional data would make the system inoperable at the technical level.
  • In contrast, if cognitive data is lost, the system would still work but possibly produce results that would be unintended for non-technical reasons.
  • Thus in T 1194/97, the loss of functional data prevented the system from generating any television picture, whereas the loss of cognitive data only resulted in a meaningless television picture resembling snow.
  • In the present case, the loss of water-sensitivity information would not cause the system to stop working; the vehicle would still be guided, and parcels would be delivered. However, it would result in leaving water‑sensitive parcels standing in the rain – an unintended operation comparable to producing a television picture that resembles snow. The reasons why these outcomes are unintended are non-technical. In T 1194/97, it was the cognitive meaninglessness of the television picture to a human viewer; in the present case, it is the prevention of rain damage to a parcel. Hence, judged by the consequence of its loss, the water-sensitivity data is equivalent to cognitive rather than functional data.

Conclusion

This decision deals with “functional data”. Such data is intended for controlling a technical device may be considered to have technical character because it has the potential to cause technical effects. In G1/19, reasons, point 94 the Enlarged Board of Appeal has generalized this as follow:

In the context of the problem-solution approach and the COMVIK approach, such potential technical effects may be considered if the data resulting from a claimed process is specifically adapted for the purposes of its intended technical use. In such cases:

  • either the technical effect that would result from the intended use of the data could be considered “implied” by the claim, or
  • the intended use of the data (i.e. the use in connection with a technical device) could be considered to extend across substantially the whole scope of the claimed data processing method.

Data is considered to be functional data when its loss would impair the technical operation of the system (cf. T 1194/97, reasons, point 3.3). This means, data is considered to be functional data, when the loss of the data would make the system inoperable at the technical level. In contrast, if cognitive data is lost, the system would still work but possibly produce results that would be unintended for non-technical reasons.

E.g. in T 1194/97, the loss of functional data prevented the system from generating any television picture, whereas the loss of cognitive data only resulted in a meaningless television picture resembling snow.

E.g. in T 1806/20, the loss of water-sensitivity information would not cause the system to stop working; the vehicle would still be guided, and parcels would be delivered. However, it would result in leaving water‑sensitive parcels standing in the rain – an unintended operation comparable to producing a television picture that resembles snow. The reasons why these outcomes are unintended are non-technical. In

T 1194/97, it was the cognitive meaninglessness of the television picture to a human viewer; in T 1806/20, it is the prevention of rain damage to a parcel. Hence, judged by the consequence of its loss, the water-sensitivity data is equivalent to cognitive rather than functional data.