In this decision, the Board does not see any technical effect with respect to the distinguishing features of the claimed subject-matter over the prior art.
Object of the Invention:
- method and a system for suggesting automated responses to an incoming electronic message based on content analysis and categorisation
Board I (inventive step):
- a decisive factor in any assessment of inventive step is the objective technical problem underlying the invention
- the inventive solution of the objective technical problem must be based on the technical features of the invention as claimed
- text classification per se, however, does not serve any technical purpose
- neither does the combination of different methods of text categorisation per se provide any relevant technical effect that could form a valid basis for defining the objective technical problem
- in the light of document D2, the invention seems merely to consist of proposing an alternative to the classifier 34 in the form of a “classifier committee” combining the rule-based scheme of D1 with an example-based classifier based on the k-nn algorithm disclosed in D1
Appellant (inventive step):
- the distinguishing features of claim 1 over D2 lead to the following technical effects:
- more relevant responses to an incoming message can be located, i.e. a greater number of irrelevant responses are filtered out
- the time and effort required to respond to incoming messages is reduced
- messages can be processed at a greater rate, i.e. more efficiently
- the quality of responses to messages can be improved
- the synergistic combination of query based classification and example based classification yields greater efficiency and better results than either method taken alone
- the skilled person is confronted with the objective technical problem of how to more efficiently and effectively provide a response to an incoming message
Board II (inventive step):
- the alleged effects are speculative, considering that nothing in the claimed invention prevents the intersection of the categories provided by a query and by the example-based algorithm being empty and hence that the claimed method is a complete failure
- even more importantly, the appellant did not provide any substantive reason why a more efficient and better categorisation of the informational content of an incoming electronic message qualifies as a technical effect at all and why such an advancement over the prior art has technical character
- no inventive step