Tag: technical effect speculative

Spam classification/MICROSOFT – T 0022/ 12 – 16 November 2015

This decision was particularly concerned with whether a technical effect exists with a certain classification of emails.

Object of the Invention:

  • the invention concerns the classification of emails, e.g. as either spam or legitimate mail
  • an incoming email is first analysed to determine whether it contains one or more features in a set of predetermined features that are particularly characteristic of spam
  • two types of feature are used: word-oriented and “handcrafted“
  • the former refers to the presence of particular words, or stems of words, the latter to features determined through human judgement alone
  • examples of a handcrafted feature is a sender address, since most spam messages are sent at night from “.com” or “.net” domains

Board I (inventive step):

  • the Board agrees with the Examining Division that the classification of messages as a function of their content is not technical per se
  • it is immaterial whether the messages are electronic messages, because, even though an email has technical properties, it is the content of the email that is classified
  • mathematical methods as such are not technical and the application of a mathematical method as such in a non-technical analysis of message content does not change that
  • if there is a technical effect, it can only reside in the automation of the email classification using a computer
  • the technicality of the computer is not enough to establish a technical effect of any method that it executes

Appellant I (inventive step):

  • a classification based on a combination of “handcrafted features” and “word oriented features” had the technical effect of reducing processing load

Board II (inventive step):

  • the Board is not persuaded that the alleged effect is actually achieved by the invention
  • there is no link between the word-oriented and handcrafted features, so that the latter reduces the processing involved in the former
  • the handcrafted features are, rather, a different class of features that the user considers indicative of spam, but which cannot be expressed in terms of the presence of individual words
  • simply adding a second class of features to the analysis increases the load rather than reducing it
  • furthermore, the Board does not consider that the de-automation of a computer-implemented method, by making a human perform steps that a computer could do automatically, is a technical solution to a technical problem
  • any reduction in computer processing would be a mere consequence of the de-automation
  • handcrafted features relate to information content that is considered as indicative of spam
  • including such features in the analysis might, if well chosen, improve the quality of the classification, but the designation of a second class of features does not provide a technical effect

Appellant II (inventive step):

  • the appellant argued, however, that there was a technical effect in the particular combination of an SVM and a sigmoid function
  • performing the method in two stages, first using an SVM, and then applying an adjustable sigmoid function as a threshold to the output of the SVM, reduced the processing load, which reduced the complexity of the computer implementation
  • thus, the invention was motivated by technical considerations of the computer implementation

Board III (inventive step):

  • the Board is not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments on this point
  • the Board does not find support, anywhere in the application, for the classifier being updated by adjusting the sigmoid parameters alone, without retraining the SVM
  • the generation of parameters for the classifier during the training phase involves two steps:
    • first the weight vector w is determined by conventional SVM training methods
    • second the optimal sigmoid parameters are calculated by using a maximum likelihood on the training data
  • there is nothing to suggest that re-training may involve only one of those steps, or that the classifier may be updated by simply adjusting the parameters A and B
  • on the contrary, it is the teaching of the application that, when the conditions of what is considered as spam change (e.g. when the user reclassifies a message) the whole classifier is retrained
  • furthermore, the Board does not consider that reducing the complexity of an algorithm is necessarily a technical effect, or evidence of underlying technical considerations
  • that is because complexity is an inherent property of the algorithm as such
  • if the design of the algorithm were motivated by a problem related to the internal workings of the computer, e.g. if it were adapted to a particular computer architecture, it could, arguably, be considered as technical (T 1358/09 referring to T 258/03)
  • however, the Board does not see any such motivations in the present case
  • thus, the Board is not persuaded that the use of an SVM in combination with a sigmoid threshold function contributes, technically, to the the computer implementation
  • the Board rather considers this to be a mathematical method
  • the technical implementation of the method consists in programming the computer to perform the method steps
  • this would have been a routine task for the skilled programmer
  • –> no inventive step

Categorization of Messages – T 1316/09 – 18 December 2012

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

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

Simulation accuracy/YOKOGAWA – T 2014/21 – 7 December 2022

This EPO’s Board of Appeal decision relates to a simulator for a facility in a plant. The simulator adjusts a simulation model based on actual data from the plant. All features were taken into account by the Board in assessing inventive step, but the objective technical problem (as formulated by the Board) was simply to find an alternative simulation algorithm.

Object of the Invention

  • plant simulation device and method for simulating a facility in the plant
  • claim 1 differs from the closest prior art (CPA) in that a first parameter is adjusted at the start of a operation of the plant and a second parameter is varied during operation, while the first parameter is kept constant at this stage

Appellant (part I)

  • enhance the model used for providing diagnostic results via the simulator thanks to successive adjustments of the first parameter and the second parameter, resulting in better process diagnosis for estimating possible deterioration
  • objective technical problem: how to improve the modelling accuracy of a simulator

Board (part I)

  • establishing a model is a purely mental act (see e.g. G 1/19, Reasons 106)
  • consequently, improving such a model, e.g. in terms of accuracy, also represents a purely mental act and thus corresponds to a non-technical problem
  • claim 1 does not specify any of the parameters that are adjusted, nor the type of plant that is controlled or the relationship between the first and the second parameter
  • reduction of arbitrarily chosen parameters also does not necessarily improve “modelling accuracy” because models with arbitrary parameters may never converge irrespective of the number of fixed or adjusted parameters
  • the distinguishing features cannot credibly relate to increasing the accuracy of the simulation process used for controlling
  • objective technical problem has to be derived from technical effects that are based on objectively established facts and are directly and causally related to the technical features of the claimed invention (see e.g. T 583/93, Reasons 7.5 and T 1341/16, Reasons 2.1.7)
  • objective technical problem: how to provide a plant simulation device having an alternative simulation algorithm compared to that of closest prior art

Appellant (part II)

  • even if the objective technical problem was formulated in such a less ambitious manner, the skilled person would not have arrived at the claimed subject-matter when starting from CPA
  • CPA did not present any hints towards fixing some parameters and adjusting others successively
  • the invention implied a change of perspective compared to CPA which adjusted all parameters simultaneously

Board (part II)

  • adjusting the parameters successively is a usual approach that is ubiquitously used in manual tuning of control systems
  • adjusting a first parameter at the start of the operation of the plant and varying the second parameter during operation is a mere straightforward choice which the skilled person would have selected depending on the circumstances
  • —> not inventive

Measurement for a diaper – T 2803/18 – 13 December 2022

This decision concerns an invention comprising a mathematical method. The invention includes the input of sensor signals. However, the Board decided that this was not relevant to the question of whether the non-technical features contribute to the technical character, because there is no technical interaction of the mathematical method on the output side, or no technical implementation of the mathematical method. Nevertheless, the Board considered the non-technical features in the inventive step assessment and found them obvious.

Object of the Invention

  • method for processing sensor signals representing a wetness event in an absorbent article
  • Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art in that it is comprising certain mathematical method steps (comparing vectors with representative vectors of clusters, determining the most similar, allocating the vector to a cluster, based on a mathematical model) to indicate volume of exudate in the absorbent article in a wetness event

Respondent (patent owner):

  • the mathematical method steps contribute to a technical effect
  • relying on point 99 of the Reasons in G 1/19, claim 1 was directed to an indirect measurement or at least to an accurate estimation of the exudate volume collected in an absorbent article

Board (part I):

  • claim only relates to the processing and analysis of sensor signals received from a sensor and results in a more or less accurate estimation of the volume of collected exudate
  • the results obtained by the claimed method are not necessarily more accurate, since the accuracy would depend on many factors (size of training sets, number and type of elements/variables constituting the representative vectors, etc.), none of which are defined in claim 1
  • whether the processing method in the present case may be qualified as an indirect measurement envisaged may be left undecided here, for reasons mentioned below
  • it may just be added that the determination of the volume of a single or of multiple successive wetness events does not provide any technical effect in the sense that the so determined volume necessarily affects the control of any component of the system composed, for example, of an absorbent article comprising sensors and an appropriate processor
  • further, the method does not necessarily imply any action on some other system or a modification of the operation of the system executing the claimed method going beyond the normal physical interaction between the program and the computer
  • -> absent of any technical effect

Board (part II) (assumption of a technical effect):

  • considering in favour of the respondent, that the estimation of the volume of exudate could be seen as a technical effect, to which the distinguishing feature step (mathematical method) further contributs
  • objective technical problem could only be seen in providing an alternative method of processing sensor signals representing wetness events in an absorbent article
  • irrespective of whether the processing method could be considered to involve a technical effect, the subject-matter of claim 1 lacks an inventive step in view of the obvious combination of the method known from the closest prior art with common general knowledge
  • –> 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.

In this decision T 2803/18, input data of a sensor is claimed. However, the claimed mathematical method/non-technical features do not lead to a technical effect on the output side or to a technical effect based on a technical implementation. Therefore, according to the Board, the claimed method could not be considered to involve an inventive step. However, presumably because of the sensor/ sensor signals on the input side, the Board assumed a technical effect and then examined the inventive step based on the non-technical features.