Category: technical effect – no

Designing a wiring path/YAZAKI – T 1371/16 – 17 September 2021

In this decision the subject matter is a simulation for designing a wiring path. Claim 1 does not specify any further use of an output wiring path data of the simulation, further properties or specific data format that could limit the possible uses of the data. Therefore, the output data does not contribute to an “implied” technical effect that is to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step. Furthermore, the distinguishing features do not include any inventive details of the computer implementation.

Object of the Invention:

  • the application concerns an apparatus and method for aiding a design of wiring paths of wire harnesses in a three-dimensional space such as a vehicle body
  • the design takes into consideration three-dimensional data of a body in which the wire harness is installed, a minimum bending radius of the wire harness which varies depending on a type and the number of wires to be bundled into a wire harness, and a type of the covering of the wire harness
  • Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art in that
    • a storing unit also stores a second minimum bending radius based on force of the worker’s hand
    • a selecting unit selects the largest of the first and second minimum radii if they differ

Board I (inventive step – general considerations):

  • Claim 1 concerns an apparatus for computer aided design of a wire harness wiring path which outputs “data on corrected wiring path” as a final result
  • it thus relates to a design process which uses computer-implemented simulation to produce numerical data describing a wiring path
  • the distinguishing features result in wiring path data being output by the apparatus which take into account the force of the worker’s hand
  • the claimed subject-matter is thus analogous to a computer-implemented simulation of a technical system
  • its patentability is to be assessed taking into account the criteria established by the recent decision G 1/19
  • according to decision G 1/19, if a claimed process results in a set of numerical values, it depends on the further use of such data (which use can happen as a result of human intervention or automatically within a fwider technical process) whether a resulting technical effect can be considered in the inventive step assessment
  • if such further use is not, at least implicitly, specified in the claim, it will be disregarded for this purpose
  • calculated numerical data reflecting the physical behaviour of a system modelled in a computer usually cannot establish the technical character of an invention even if the calculated behaviour adequately reflects the behaviour of a real system underlying the simulation
  • only in exceptional cases may such calculated effects be considered implied technical effects (for example, if the potential use of such data is limited to technical purposes)
  • G 1/19 presents its conclusions for the application of the COMVIK approach to simulations
  • it explains that the underlying models of the simulation may contribute to technicality if, for example, they form the basis for a further technical use of the outcomes of the simulation (e.g. a use having an impact on physical reality)
  • in order to avoid patent protection being granted to non-patentable subject-matter, such further use has to be at least implicitly specified in the claim
  • G 1/19 provides some examples of further technical uses of the numerical data resulting from a simulation, which under certain conditions may be potential uses, implicitly specified or implied by the claim
  • one example is the use of the data in a manufacturing step, which “would of course be an argument in favour of patentability”
  • another example of a further technical use is the use of the data in controlling a technical device, which can be recognised if the resulting numerical data is specifically adapted for “the purposes of its intended technical use“, i.e. for controlling a technical device
  • in that case, the data is considered to have a technical character because it has the potential to cause technical effects
  • either the technical effect that would result from the intended use of the data could be considered “implied” by the claim, or
  • the intended use of the data (i.e. the use in connection with a technical device) could be considered to extend across substantially the whole scope of the claimed data processing method
  • these arguments cannot be made if claimed data or data resulting from a claimed process has relevant uses other than the use with a technical device

Board II (inventive step):

  • in support of inventive step, the appellant argued that the distinguishing features achieved a technical benefit over D1 by providing a wiring harness design capable of being installed simply and effectively in circumstances where a design output by the system of D1 would not
  • by providing the second minimum radius based on the force achievable using an assembler’s hand, the invention was “able to generate the design of a wiring harness which is easier to manufacture, yet which also does not have excessive stress generated on it, and yet which is also of as short a distance as possible in order to reduce cost and weight, as well as potentially improve the reliability of the systems utilising that harness through shorter communications paths“
  • the distinguishing features ensured the manufacturability of the design

Appellant I (inventive step):

  • according G 1/19 the claimed invention produced data that allowed manufacturing the wire harness
  • the numerical data produced by the claimed apparatus reflected the physical structure of the designed wiring path and not merely the physical behaviour of a simulated system
  • the claim specified at least implicitly a further use of the designed wire harness which had an impact on physical reality, and therefore fulfilled the requirements expressed in G 1/19
  • as with a claim to a bicycle that did not need to specify that the bicycle had two wheels, there had to be a limit to which features had to be specified in the claim for recognising the technical purpose
  • the claim explicitly specified that the design aiding apparatus comprised a designing unit and that the wiring harness was installed in a vehicle body
  • it was sufficient to show that the end result had, at least implicitly, a technical purpose
  • it was clear from the claim that the technical area of the invention was the installation of the wiring harness along the path

Board III (inventive step):

  • the board is however not convinced that the distinguishing features contribute to a technical effect in accordance with the criteria established by decision G 1/19
  • the only purpose of the wire harness wiring path design aiding apparatus according to claim 1 is to output “data on corrected wiring path data”, which is numerical data about the wiring path design
  • as explained above, the distinguishing features result in wiring path data being output by the apparatus which takes into account the force of the worker’s hand
  • claim 1 does not specify any further use of the output wiring path data, further properties or specific data format that could limit the possible uses of the data
  • in view of that, other relevant uses of the output data for non-technical purposes, for example informational, study or training purposes, are within the scope of the claim
  • since the data can be output in any form or format, it cannot be considered to be specifically adapted for the purposes of an intended technical use
  • in particular, the output data is not specifically adapted to be used in controlling a technical device or manufacturing a wiring path
  • it can thus be concluded that the data produced by the apparatus of claim 1 is not limited to a further technical purpose and does not contribute to an “implied“ technical effect that is to be taken into account in the assessment
  • furthermore, the distinguishing features do not include any inventive details of the computer implementation, and the appellant has not argued otherwise
  • –> no inventive step

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

Concept terms scoring/GOOGLE – T 0872/19 – 14 October 2021

In this decision, the appellant stated that a “web page” is a physical entity, corresponding to an “image”. The Board has considerable doubts about this. In fact, the inventive step did not depend on this.

Object of the Invention:

  • the subject matter relates to online advertisement auctions
  • when an online advertisement auction is to be conducted to select one or more advertisements to be included in a resource/ web page, resource features are extracted from the web page
  • a concept term scoring system uses the received resource features to predict a vector of scores that includes a score for each of the set of concept terms/ advertising features
  • in online advertising, the concept term scoring system can generate a score for each of a set of concept terms that may be used as advertising keywords for selecting advertisements for participation in the auction
  • the concept term scoring system includes a deep network and a classifier
  • Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art inter alia in that it is configured to process the alternative representation of the input to generate a respective relevance score for each concept term in a pre-determined set of concept terms, wherein each of the respective relevance scores measures a predicted relevance of the corresponding concept term to the resource

Appellant I (inventive step – 3rd auxiliary request)

  • the objective problem to be solved was to provide a more accurate representation of the resource features by generating an alternative representation of these resource features “in a new way”
  • in decision T 208/84, point 3, the board found that a method for image processing was susceptible of industrial application
  • T 208/84 stated the following: “Clearly a method for obtaining and/or reproducing an image of a physical object or even an image of a simulated object (as in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems) may be used e.g. in investigating properties of the object or designing an industrial article and is therefore susceptible of industrial application. Similarly, a method for enhancing or restoring such an image, without adding to its informational content, had to be considered as susceptible of industrial application.“
  • in T 208/84, points 6 and 7, the board stated that it was of the opinion that “even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such” and concluded that “[i]n contrast, a ‘method for digitally filtering data’ remains an abstract notion not distinguished from a mathematical method so long as it is not specified what physical entity is represented by the data and forms the subject of a technical process, i.e. a process which is susceptible of industrial application“
  • thus, the board equated a “technical process” with “a process susceptible of industrial application“
  • in accordance with the case law, “processing images” was considered as being susceptible of industrial application and thus was technical
  • according to the appellant a “web page” is a “physical entity”

Board I (inventive step – 3rd auxiliary request)

  • the board agrees that the electrical signals producing the “web page” are physical entities and that a web page printed on a piece of paper becomes physical
  • but it has strong doubts that a “web page” can be considered as a “physical entity“
  • rather, a “web page” is data representing information

Appellant II (inventive step – 3rd auxiliary request)

  • it would thus be correct to consider processing other entities, such as text, to be technical as well
  • the appellant questioned the difference between processing images versus processing text: the words in a particular language had a meaning (except for nonsensical words or sounds) that a (sufficient) number of people understood in the same manner as a (sufficient) number of people recognised a particular colour as being “red”, for example, even though this understanding was not “universal”
  • both an image and a web page were physical entities and that the claimed system concerned the processing, i.e. the analysing and classification, of physical entities
  • the classification of images had been recognised in the case law as solving a technical problem

Board II (inventive step – 3rd auxiliary request)

  • the board did not consider whether the system of claim 1 might be susceptible of industrial application but indeed whether the system had a technical effect going beyond the mere implementation of a non-technical method on one or more computers
  • however, providing a more accurate “alternative representation” of the resource features, and therefore refined relevance scores, is not a technical effect since the relevance scores do not constitute technical features
  • this does not depend on whether the “resources” are text, web pages, images or multimedia content, as in page 1, lines 4 to 5, of the description, and thus does not depend on whether the “resource features” are features of text, web pages, images or multimedia content (G 1/19 of 10 March 2021, Reasons 126, last sentence; see also T 1924/17 of 29 July 2019, Reasons 12 to 13).

Board III (inventive step – 3rd auxiliary request)

  • the relevance scores measure a predicted relevance of the “concept terms” to the resource
  • taking the example of an “image” as a “resource”, the concept term might be “cat“
  • the (first) relevance of this “concept term” to a first image comprising only dogs might be lower than its (second) relevance to a second image comprising exactly one dog and one cat, which might itself be lower than its (third) relevance to a third image comprising two cats or more, as an example
  • inversely, the three images exemplified here might be classified by their relevance to the concept term “cat”: the third image is more relevant than the second image, which is itself more relevant than the first image
  • the system of claim 1 does not explicitly stipulate that the classifier is also “configured to classify the concept terms” or “configured to classify the resources”
  • on the contrary, the description on page 6, lines 10 to 13 discloses that it is the concept term scoring system and not the classifier that orders the concept terms based on the alternative representation
  • moreover, not all image classifications solve a technical problem
  • if a user classifies displayed images via a user interface to have the images arranged according to the user’s viewing preferences, the image classification will, in most cases, not solve a technical problem
  • in the absence of any technical effect beyond its mere implementation in one or more computers, the subject matter of claim 1 of the first to third auxiliary requests cannot be considered to involve an inventive step