Category: G06F9/44

Arrangements for executing specific programs

Programmiersystem/RENNER – T 1539/09 – 18 July 2013

The invention is directed to a graphical programming language and environment that should enable a user to create programme code without a great deal of learning effort or special expertise. The definition and provision of a programming language does not contribute to the solution of a technical problem according to the Board.

Object of the Invention:

  • enable persons without special prior knowledge in the position to create their own computer programmes
  • the application proposes a graphical programming system as a solution
  • the system provides different “programme modules” which can be linked together according to predetermined rules
  • graphic symbols are assigned to the program modules, which the user can arrange on a “visualisation surface” and which are linked there by means of suitable lines to form a “structure diagram”
  • each programme module of a structure diagram corresponds to a “programme code section” and the entire structure diagram thus to a programme
  • thus, the user can define programme code “on a text basis” by manipulating graphic symbols on the computer screen without having to enter it directly
  • when the user selects a programme block, a display interface (e.g. a window) opens in which the user can edit the programme code section of this block

Board:

  • the invention is directed to a graphical programming language and environment that should enable a user to create programme code without a great deal of learning effort or special expertise
  • the effect of reducing the user’s mental effort when creating programmes is not in itself a technical one in the opinion of the Board
  • this is all the more true as it is aimed at equally for all programmes, regardless of the purpose of the developed programme
  • when programming – in the sense of formulating programme code, “coding” – the programmer must select those formulations from the repertoire of a programming language that lead to the desired result when the programme is executed
  • the programming language defines, on the one hand, which formulations are permissible as “well-formed” (syntax) and, on the other hand, which “behaviour” is attributed to a program (operational semantics)
  • in individual cases, the choice of programming language can influence how easily (and sometimes whether at all) the solution to a problem can be formulated as a programme
  • the activity of programming itself is an essentially mental process – comparable to the verbalisation of a thought or the formulation of a mathematical fact in a calculation – which, in the words of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 3/08 lacks “further technical considerations”
  • this applies at least if and to the extent that, as in the present case, the activity of programming does not serve to achieve a technical effect in a causal manner in the context of a specific application or environment.
  • –> the definition and provision of a programming language or programming language tools per se does not contribute to the solution of a technical problem

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).