CII Case Law @ the EPO

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...

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

In this decision, the Board considers the technical effect, i.e. categorization of electronic messages is more efficient and better, to be speculative. 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...

Text mining/BOEING – T 1416/06 – 24 April 2009

In this decision the board considers the data does not form a physical entity. Object of the Invention: the subject matter is directed to a method of representing a document collection the method is to a large extent defined in terms of equations the purpose of the method is to...

Image classification / STMICROELECTRONICS – T 1148/05 – 27 May 2009

In this decision, a method of image classification was claimed. The Board assumed that all features contribute to the technical character and that the sufficiency of disclosure was given. Object of the Invention: image classification method for classifying digital images into photographs, texts, and graphics conventional heuristic methods implemented by...

Translating natural languages/SYSTRAN – T 1177/97 – 9 July 2002

This decision concerns the technical nature of information. This can have a technical character if: – it is used in or intended for use in a technical system, – if it reflects the properties of the technical system. Object of the Invention: automatic search in dictionaries with a character-by-character process...

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...