This decision concerns a method for image data. The competent chamber considers the object and solution to be technical.
Object of the Invention:
automatic scanning and identification of unknowncharacters (of image data)
in a first stage, different sets of logic tests are used for the identification of characters; were a character not to be identified by the said logic tests, the character would be tested in the second stage by logic tests which are discrete from the tests of the first stage
Board:
problem to be solved is to identify characters that could not be identified by the known system
this problem is clearly technical
solution is also of a technical character, as the addition of additional stages to a first stage clearly represents a technical measure
In this case, non-technical features were considered by the opponent to be non-technical as such. The Board argued that the whole scope of the claim should be considered. The claimed subject-matter includes the measurement of power and the allocation of power to consumers. The non-technical features interact with this technical subject matter and contribute to its technical character.
Object of the Invention
Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art (general purpose computer) in that a method is configuredhow to provide a more accurate control of the power consumption of individual consumers.
Opponent
Features like “determine characteristic time curves” and “wherein a plan for apportioning electric power is made” do not have a technical character, but rather relate to mere mental acts and therefore are not to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step.
In particular, measurements in a 10 second interval could easily be recorded manually by a user and entered in a suitable table.
Board
When features like “determine characteristic time curves” and “wherein a plan for apportioning electric power is made” are considered in isolation, only involve data processing and simulation aspects.
However it is a general principle that the question whether a feature contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter is to be assessed in view of the whole scope of the claim.
The data processing is defined in claim 1 as being based on (real) measurements of consumed electric power in a technical system, resulting in a plan and a prognosis, which does not produce a purely virtual effect.
Consequently, claim 1 is clearly limited to a technical teaching, involving the specific technical use of the calculated characteristic time curves, plan and prognosis.
Thus, irrespective of whether features are per se considered to be technical or non-technical in nature, in the overall context of claim 1, they in any case provide a technical contribution to the invention, having technical character as a whole, over the prior art, and are consequently to be taken into account in the assessment of 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). In this decision the software/ non-technical features contribute to the technical character of the invention via the input side and the output side.
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.
