Category: technical effect – speculative

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

This decision concerns the classification of emails where a user flags spam in addition to a computer-implemented method. This is considered to be a de-automation of a computer-implemented method. De-automation is not, according to the Board, a technical solution to a technical problem.

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 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 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