Tag: 3.5.07

Classification/BDGB ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE – T 1358/09 – 21 November 2014

This decision concerns the patentability of the classification of text documents. In this context, the Board clarifies whether the determination of claim features contributing to the technical character is made without reference to the prior art.

Object of the Invention:

  • the invention is concerned with the computerized classification of text documents
  • this is done by first building a “classification model” and then classifying documents using this classification model

Board I (sufficiency of disclosure):

  • the application does not explain several techniques in detail, and claim 1 does not specify any measure being taken to ensure linear separability
  • it may therefore be questioned whether the application is sufficiently disclosed over the whole scope claimed
  • however, the Board considers that this issue does not prevent it from examining for the presence of an inventive step
  • given the outcome of this examination the question of sufficiency of disclosure need not be answered

Board II (inventive step):

  • claim 1 defines a method for classifying text documents essentially in terms of an abstract mathematical algorithm
  • a mathematical algorithm contributes to the technical character of a computer-implemented method only in so far as it serves a technical purpose (T 1784/06)
  • in the present case, the algorithm serves the general purpose of classifying text documents
  • classification of text documents is certainly useful, as it may help to locate text documents with a relevant cognitive content, but does not qualify as a technical purpose
  • whether two text documents in respect of their textual content belong to the same “class” of documents is not a technical issue
  • the same position was taken in T 1316/09 which held that methods of text classification per se did not produce a relevant technical effect or provide a technical solution to any technical problem

Appellant I (inventive step):

  • the claimed invention could not be seen as the straightforward implementation of something which had been done manually before
  • when manually classifying a text document, a human being would read it through and assign a particular class to it on the basis of his understanding of the document
  • as was known from the domain of cognitive psychology, he would not consider all of the words in the document; words near its beginning would often already provide a clear indication of its semantic topic
  • the claimed automatic classification method on the other hand involved precise computation steps which no human being would ever perform when classifying documents
  • the claimed computerised method was highly efficient, in particular in comparison to classification methods disclosed in documents cited in the international search report

Board III (inventive step):

  • the Board agrees that a human being would not apply the claimed classification method to perform the task of classifying text documents
  • the Board accepts that the proposed computerised method may be faster than classification methods known from the prior art
  • however, the determination of the claim features which contribute to the technical character of the invention is made, at least in principle, without reference to the prior art (T 154/04)
  • it follows that a comparison with what a human being would do or with what is known from the prior art is not a suitable basis for distinguishing between technical and non-technical steps (T 1954/08)

Board IV (inventive step):

  • nevertheless, not all efficiency aspects of an algorithm are by definition without relevance for the question of whether the algorithm provides a technical contribution
  • if an algorithm is particularly suitable for being performed on a computer in that its design was motivated by technical considerations of the internal functioning of the computer, it may arguably be considered to provide a technical contribution to the invention (T 258/03)
  • however, such technical considerations must go beyond merely finding a computer algorithm to carry out some procedure (G 3/08)
  • in the present case no such technical considerations are present
  • the algorithm underlying the method of claim 1 does not go beyond a particular mathematical formulation of the task of classifying documents
  • the aim of this formulation is clearly to enable a computer to carry out this task, but no further consideration of the internal functioning of a computer can be recognised

Appellant II (inventive step):

  • the claimed method provided more reliable and objective results than manual classification, since it was independent of the human subjective understanding of the content of the documents

Board V (inventive step):

  • the Board does not contest that the claimed classification method may provide reliable and objective results, but this is an inherent property of deterministic algorithms
  • the mere fact that an algorithm leads to reproducible results does not imply that it makes a technical contribution
  • since the mathematical algorithm does not contribute to the technical character of the claimed method, an inventive step can be present only in its technical implementation
  • the technical implementation of the mathematical algorithm being obvious
  • –> no inventive step

Information from the author: “technical purpose” is no longer sufficient according to decision G1/19 for non-technical features to make a technical contribution. According to current case law (as of August 2024), in such a case a further or intended or implied technical use is required.

Semi-automatic answering/3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES – T 0755/18 – 11 December 2020

This decision is about the output of a machine learning algorithm. The output of the algorithm is more accurate here compared to the prior art. However, this is not a reason that the output automatically serves a technical effect. The output therefore does not automatically lead to non-technical features making a technical contribution via the output.

Object of the Invention:

  • the present application is concerned with the generation of billing codes to be used in medical billing, wherein billings are provided to an insurer for reimbursement
  • computer-based support systems have been developed to guide human coders through the process of generating billing codes
  • claim 1 specifies a computer-implemented method for improving the accuracy of automatically generated billing codes

Board I (inventive step):

  • a billing code is non-technical administrative data
  • generating a billing code is a cognitive task

Appellant (inventive step):

  • use of machine learning techniques to improve the accuracy of the machine output
  • invention is technical because it improved the system so that it would generate more accurate billing codes in the future

Board II (inventive step):

  • if neither the output of a learning-machine computer program nor the machine output’s accuracy contributes to a technical effect, an improvement of the machine achieved automatically through supervised learning for producing a more accurate output is not in itself a technical effect
  • in this case, the learning machine’s output is a billing code, which is non-technical administrative data
  • the accuracy of the billing code refers to “administrative accuracy” regarding, for example, whether the billing code is consistent with information represented by a spoken audio stream or a draft transcript
  • the learning machine to generate more accurate billing codes or, equivalently, improving the accuracy of the billing codes generated by the system, is as such not a technical effect.

Conclusion

Furthermore, 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 (the arrows in the figure above represent interactions and not abstract data). In this decision T 755/18 it was discussed whether the non-technical features contribute to the technical character of the invention via the output side and also via the technical implementation (although the latter is not discussed here in this commentary).

Classifying resources using a deep network/GOOGLE – T 0874/19 – 6 July, 2022

In this decision, the EPO’s Board of Appeal clarifies that the (previously important) decision T 1227/05 is no longer followed due to the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G1/19.

Object of the Invention

  • classifying search engine resources (e.g. a blog) as a spam resource or not a spam resource
  • subject matter of the invention differs from the closest prior art in that a classifier is configured to generate a respective category score for e.g. a “spam” and “not spam” category, wherein each of the respective category scores measure a predicted likelihood that a resource is a “spam” resource

Appellant:

  • following decision T 1227/05, the claimed system could at least be regarded as simulating a hardware circuit that classifies inputs and thus had a technical purpose

Board:

  • decision T 1227/05 cannot be followed as argued by the appellant in view of recent decision G 1/19, Reasons 133
  • absence of any technical effect beyond its straightforward implementation in one or more computers, the subject-matter does not involve an inventive step

Pedestrians simulation/BENTLEY SYSTEMS – T 489/14 – 26 November 2021

The present decision is the reference decision to G 1/19, which was finally decided after decision G 1/19, as explained below. Among other things, it dealt with the question of whether the output data of a simulation result in the non-technical features of the simulation making a technical contribution and therefore being taken into account for the assessment of inventive step. At the end (conclusion), a bridge is again built to the decision G1/19.

Subject matter main request

  • The invention in the ex-parte case relates to a simulation of the movement of pedestrians through an environment (e.g. a building like a stadium or railway station).
Pedestrians simulation/BENTLEY SYSTEMS – T 489/14 – 26 November 2021

Board

  • The data produced by the method of claim 1, which reflects the behaviour of a crowd moving through an environment, does not contribute to a technical effect.
  • The potential use of such data is not limited to technical purposes, as it can be used e.g. in computer games or presented to a human for obtaining knowledge about the modelled environment.
  • Computer games and presentation of information are examples of non-technical uses of data falling within the scope of claim 1.
  • Therefore, there is no technical effect over the whole claimed scope derivable and the non-technical features are not contribute to the technical character.
  • –> no inventive step

Subject matter auxiliary request

  • Claim 1 of an auxiliary request additionally comprises the use of a profile for a pedestrian based on a set of measured attributes (in response to G 1/19, point 85: “technical input may consist of a measurement”).

Appellant

  • The additional feature leads to a “more accurate simulation”.

Board

  • A “more accurate simulation” per se cannot contribute to a technical character (cf. G 1/19, point 111).
  • Claim 1 does not contain a measurement step, but merely indicates that the attributes are somehow measured.
  • Therefore, no technical effect is derivable.
  • –> no inventive step

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 (the arrows in the figure above represent interactions and not abstract data).
  • The subject matter of the main request deals with output data of a simulation, wherein the use is not limited to technical purposes.
  • According to G1/19, points 94 and 95: With respect to potential technical effects, the Enlarged Board added that if claimed data or data resulting from a claimed process was specifically adapted for the purpose of controlling a technical device, the technical effect that would result from this intended use of the data could be considered “implied” by the claim. However, this argument could be made only if the data had no other relevant uses, since otherwise the technical effect was not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention.
  • Furthermore, the subject matter of the auxiliary request deals with a profile for a pedestrian based on a set of measured attributes. According to the appellant, this should represent input data in the form of a measurement.
  • In G 1/19 the Enlarged Board had pointed out that technical effects could occur at the input of a computer-implemented process (see figure above) and that technical input could consist of a measurement.
  • The question to be answered is whether the input data/ measuring step and the simulation method are not merely juxtaposed, the output of the measuring step serving as an input for the simulation method, but interact to produce a combined technical effect.
  • An interaction may be present, for example, if the combination amounts to an indirect measurement of a specific physical entity by means of measurements of another physical entity (see G 1/19, point 99).
  • The method of claim 1 provides information about the movement of simulated pedestrians through a modelled building structure. Since the calculated information is neither used in a further step of the method nor specifically adapted for the purposes of an intended technical (and only relevant) use, it has to be investigated whether the information represents a measurement of a physical entity.
  • The modelled building structure does not correspond to a building structure that was measured, whether directly or through measurement of its physical effects on other physical entities.
  • In fact, the modelled building structure need not correspond to any existing building structure. Nor does the calculated information about the movement of simulated pedestrians represent a direct or indirect measurement of any of the real pedestrians (or other physical entities) that were measured in the process of generating the pedestrian profiles.
  • Hence, in the present case no physical entity (or process) can be identified which could potentially be measured by the method of claim 1 in the sense that its physical status or some physical property is described by information calculated on the basis of data obtained by a direct or indirect physical interaction with the entity.

Content item visibility/GOOGLE – T 1422/19 – 19 May 2021

The software discussed in this decision carries out an indirect measurement. The software measures/ determines a web page viewing area based on the measurement/ input data/ raw data of the size of a browser window. Such indirect measurements are of a technical nature, regardless of what use is made of the results (cf. G 1/19, point 99).

Object of the Invention

  • Estimating the size of a browser’s viewport/ web page viewing area from within a cross-domain iframe (iframe is e.g. from a separate ad server). Due to security constraints, the size of the viewport cannot be accessed directly from within a cross-domain iframe.
  • Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art in that Document D1 in that the size of the viewport/web page viewing area is determined by reading the size of the browser window and subtracting from the size of the browser window the average size of one or more browser elements as determined by a statistical analysis based on historical measurements.

Examining Division

  • The determination of the estimated size of the viewport correspondeds to a technical implementation of a non-technical rule (compute the estimated size) based on a business requirement.
  • Since the determined output size was an estimated value, it circumvented the technical problem of actually measuring the viewing area rather than addressing it.

Board

  • It is true that the method of claim 1 does not include a technical use of the calculated/estimated content visibility. In fact, the claim specifies that the information about the visibility of the content item is reported to a content sponsor.
  • However, the method does not merely calculate this information from numerical input data but measures “raw” information about a running web browser and processes this information to produce an estimate of a technically meaningful parameter, namely the extent to which a content item displayed within a web page is visible to the user, and on the basis of technical considerations relating to what is possible with an unmodified browser that enforces standard security constraints.
  • Such an indirect measurement is normally of a technical nature (see G 1/19, point 99).
  • Subject matter of claim 1 is inventive.

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 the software/ non-technical features contribute to the technical character of the invention via the input data.