Tag: functional data – no

Stock index/NASDAQ – T 1161/04 – 6 December 2006

In this case, the responsible board decides in particular whether input data is functional data / a physical entity or simply cognitive data.

Object of the Invention:

  • Claim 1 relates to an apparatus for rebalancing a stock index
  • stock indexes are used to track the performance of a group of stocks
  • capitalization-weighted indexes are regarded as having the disadvantage that a few large stocks may dominate the overall performance of the index
  • the invention is aimed at overcoming this drawback by scaling down large individual stocks and distributing the corresponding excess capitalization over the smaller stocks
  • the output data of the apparatus correspond to the redistributed capitalization weights of the stock index.

Board I (inventive step):

  • the hardware defined in claim 1 is well known as such
  • the invention concerns the way data relating to stocks in a stock index are processed
  • the computer implementation of this process must be assumed to be straightforward

Appellant I (inventive step):

  • decisions T 115/85 and T 362/90 established the principle that automatic visual display of conditions prevailing or desirable in an apparatus or system was basically a technical problem

Board II (inventive step):

  • the invention in the case T 115/85 was a method for displaying one of a set of predetermined messages
  • each such message indicated a specific event which might occur in the input/output device of a text processing system
  • this system comprised a processor, a keyboard, a display and a memory and would also require means for detecting events
  • deciding board: “giving visual indications automatically about conditions prevailing in an apparatus or system is basically a technical problem”
  • the Board cannot agree with the appellants that the present invention relates to an “apparatus or system” in the way these terms are used in decision T 115/85
  • the data entering the system of claim 1 are “information relating to stocks”
  • this is information of a descriptive kind having exclusively “cognitive content” in the sense of decision T 1194/97
  • applying the test proposed in this decision for cognitive information as opposed to “functional data“, it can be seen that if stock information were lost the claimed apparatus would still function, ie still perform the algorithm and produce output data (although these data would be meaningless)
  • presentations of information having merely “cognitive content” are as such excluded from patentability under Article 52(2) EPC and cannot contribute to an inventive step
  • it appears necessary to point out that the nature of such information is irrelevant
  • a description of a gear box may intuitively appear more “technical” than a play by Shakespeare, but in fact both are examples of data having only cognitive content
  • the Board does not accept the appellants’ argument that the present invention provides visual indications automatically about conditions prevailing in a system in the sense of decision T 115/85 for the triple reason:
    • that the conditions are outside the claimed system,
    • that they are not detected by the claimed system but input to it in the form of descriptive data, and
    • that the system in which the conditions prevail is of a commercial rather than technical nature

Appellant II (inventive step):

  • the “information relating to stocks” in claim 1 represents physical entities and therefore has technical character.

Board III (inventive step):

  • in T 208/84 a distinction is made between abstract concepts on the one hand and technical processes involving and modifying a “physical entity”, such as an electrical signal, on the other hand
  • the present invention is not completely abstract since it involves electrical signals
  • but the mere fact that an invention involves signals representing data does not necessarily imply that it solves a technical problem going beyond that of physically representing these data
  • for example, information having only cognitive content is also conventionally represented by (electrical) signals
  • decision T 208/84 therefore requires that the data should represent not just numbers but a “physical entity“
  • the physical entity in that case was an image, and the invention aimed at restoring it if distorted
  • in the case T 1194/97 the physical entity was a synchronization signal
  • the data were thus in both cases “functional” because the degree of restoration of an image or the synchronisation state of a receiver are objectively measurable entities
  • in both cases a technical effect was achieved by the functional nature of the data irrespective of their cognitive contents
  • in the present case however the data represent nothing but numbers, arguably describing “physical entities“, which necessarily require interpretation by a human being without any further interaction with, or modification of, the technical system
  • the data input to the claimed apparatus have no technical function
  • the processing performed on them comprises classification, scaling and redistribution
  • these steps concern exclusively the cognitive content of the data (their numerical value)
  • this is pure information processing which is as such excluded as a mental act by virtue of Article 52(2) EPC
  • the technical task is reduced to the implementation of the process on a conventional computer, something which was obvious for the skilled person –> no 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.