technical implementation – no

Classification method/COMPTEL – T 1784/06 – 21 September 2012

In this decision, the appellant criticises the COMVIK approach on several points. The Board disagrees. With regard to inventive step, according to the Board, there is a lack of “technical purpose” according to T1227/05.

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.

Object of the Invention:

data records, e. g. the duration and data volume of a telecommunication connection, that are sorted into service classes, in particular for rating and billing purposes
identifying the class of a service from a data record forms a performance bottleneck once the number of services is increased to the thousands
the application seeks to provide a method which can handle large numbers of service classes more efficiently than the conventional use of conditional statements does
the solution is based on reducing, as a first step, a large number of service classes into specific sets
these sets are then intersected in a final step
this algorithm classifies data records more efficiently

Board (COMVIK approach):

it would appear paradoxical to the Board to recognise an inventive step on the basis of a non-technical innovation (such as an organisational, administrative, commercial or mathematical algorithm) having no technical implication other than the (obvious) desire for its implementation on a general-purpose computer

Appellant I (COMVIK approach):

claimed subject-matter as a whole should be examined for the presence of an inventive step once the subject-matter as a whole has been found to meet the technology criterion of Article 52(1)(2)(3) EPC
Article 56 EPC 1973 should be applied independently of Article 52(1)(2)(3) EPC because Article 52(2) EPC has to be applied independently of Article 56 EPC 1973

Board I (COMVIK approach):

the Board does not accept such formal reasoning and points out that it is normal and often necessary for legal provisions to be in an asymmetric relationship or hierarchical dependency
for example, the novelty of a claim has to be examined independently of inventive step considerations, whereas a finding of inventiveness presupposes a novelty examination
another example is the validity of a priority claim which has to be checked independently of novelty and inventive step requirements, whereas novelty and inventive step cannot be established independently of the validity of a priority right.

Appellant II (COMVIK approach):

regarding the Board’s insistence on a technical problem when applying the problem-and-solution approach, the appellant disputes that such a requirement can be deduced from the EPC or introduced from its Implementing Regulations
the appellant refers inter alia to decision T 473/08 (by a different Board) to point out that “a non-technical problem can have a technical solution“

Board II (COMVIK approach):

there is no divergence, the Board agrees to the statement that a non-technical problem can have a technical solution
on the other hand, where an intrinsically non-technical solution (mathematical algorithm) seeks to derive a technical character from the problem solved, the problem must be technical
this is the point on which the present case hinges

Appellant III (COMVIK approach):

another argument of the appellant refers to the legislative history of the EPC (travaux préparatoires) which is said not to provide any explicit support for a cumulative application of Article 52(2) EPC and Article 56 EPC 1973

Board III (COMVIK approach):

the restriction of substantive patent law to technical subject-matter is so self-evident that the founding fathers of the EPC did not even mention that requirement in the original (1973) version of Article 52(1)
the explicit clause “in all fields of technology” was not added to Article 52(1) until the Diplomatic Conference in the year 2000 harmonised the Article with the TRIPs treaty
nevertheless, Article 52(1) EPC has always been understood as referring to technical inventions

Board IV (inventive step):

as the algorithm is a mathematical (inter alia Boolean) method and mathematical methods as such are deemed to be non-inventions (Article 52(2)(3) EPC), a technical character of the algorithm could be recognised only if it served a technical purpose (T1227/05)
however, the automatic classification of data records according to claim 1 serves only the purpose of classifying the data records, without implying any technical use of the classification
the claim covers any non-technical (e.g. administrative or commercial) use of the classified data records
in the light of the description, the classification method prepares rating and billing procedures
the Board does not consider the result of the algorithm — a set of classified data records — as technical

Board V (inventive step):

enhanced speed of an algorithm, as compared to other algorithms, is not sufficient to establish a technical character of the algorithm (T 1227/05)
if a computer-implemented algorithm runs more quickly, the resulting saving in energy is a technical effect inherent to the normal interaction of software and hardware, i.e. it is not a “further” technical effect of the algorithmic program controlling the computer (T 1173/97)
the claimed algorithm may allow a data record to be processed in a parallel computer architecture as the various fields of a data record can be judged separately in a first level of processing
however, claim 1 is not limited to an implementation on a parallel hardware structure
in fact, the application as a whole is silent on parallel data processing (Parallel processing has been mentioned by the decision under appeal and addressed by the statement setting out the grounds of appeal)
–> no inventive step

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

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).

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.