Author Archive

Transferring content stored on remote terminals: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to the transfer of content from a remote terminal to a local terminal. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since claim 1 mainly addresses the implementation of a convenient content transfer with respect to a non-technical terminal selection policy. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1847/18 (Transferring content stored on remote terminals/TENCENT TECHNOLOGY) of February 8, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Technical features implementing a non-technical policy cannot contribute to inventive step.

A policy based on arbitrary user decisions does not involve any technical considerations.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision mainly concerns inter-terminal interaction to facilitate publishing of content to a social network. The invention addresses a situation in which the content is not stored on the currently used terminal (“second terminal” of claim 1). Accordingly, there is a need for efficiently transferring the required content from a specific group of terminals on which the content is stored to the currently used terminal for publishing the content.  (cf. abstract and paras. [0004] and [0005] of the application). This problem is solved by using a server (“service device”) to access content from the specific group of terminals (terminals which have been used in the past to log into the user’s social network account). The server keeps a list of these terminals (“the service device memorizes the matchup between the account information and the terminals’ identification information”). Once a user wishes to publish content (“a media resource insertion command”), a request is transmitted to the server, which then determines based on the user’s social network account information the terminals to be accessed and selects one of them (“the first terminal”). The desired content is then transmitted from the first terminal to the second terminal and published.

Fig. 1 of WO 2014/040459A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

For assessing the inventive step, the Board in charge started from a conventional social network platform (as described in para. [0003] of the application), which thus discloses the first and fifth feature of claim 1. The remaining features of claim 1 were grouped by the Board as follows:

    1. Group A (second to fourth and sixth feature of claim 1) relates to the transferring of content from remote terminals to a local terminal.
    2. Group B (seventh to tenth feature of claim 1) relates to the selection of the remote terminals.

According to the Board, group A has the effect of enabling a convenient transfer of content, while group B including non-technical features relates to a policy for selecting terminals from which the user wishes to get content for publishing. The policy specifies that these terminals are selected, which have been used in the past to log into the user’s social network account.

While the appellant argued that said policy improves data security and integrity, the Board did not follow this argumentation as the selection of terminals depends entirely on the user’s past log in activities (i.e., the list of terminals includes the terminals on which the user has logged into in the past). This might be the phone of a friend, but also an anonymous internet terminal in an airport. Therefore, the Board concluded that the selection cannot be based on security considerations and thus cannot provide the mentioned technical effect. As a result, the features of group B relating to the policy are to be considered as non-technical.

The Board followed that the technical problem may thus only be based on the convenient transfer of content (group A), while, in addition, meeting the requirements of the non-technical policy (group B).

Based on that, the Board defined the objective technical problem as:

“enabling a convenient transfer of social network content from previously used remote terminals to a local terminal”.

However, the Board judged that the skilled person, starting from a conventional social networking platform in combination with D1, would have solved this problem without inventive effort. The Board argued as follows:

    • D1 discloses a convenient way e.g. using a web browser interface, to select data on remote terminals and transfer the selected data to a local terminal.
    • From this the skilled person would learn that data transfer can be realized using a server storing a list of remote terminals and authorization information such as user account data.
    • Therefore, D1 anticipates all features of group A apart from the fact that the user account is the user’s social network account.
    • However, latter is a direct consequence of the policy defined by the features of group B and can thus not contribute to the inventive step.

Therefore, the Board dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1847/18 (Transferring content stored on remote terminals/TENCENT TECHNOLOGY) of February 8, 2022

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Measuring communication skills of crew members: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to measuring communication skills of crew members. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since claim 1 mainly addresses the improvement of calculating a (non-technical) property, namely the prosodic accomodation of two crew members during a conversation. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2689/18 (Measuring communication skills of crew members/Trinity College Dublin) of January 25, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:

Key takeaways

Improving the quality of a (non-technical) output from a (technical) signal processing procedure cannot contribute to the technical character of an invention.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision mainly concerns the measuring of specific communication skills (e.g., prosodic accomodation) from a recorded conversation between at least two crew members (cf. paras. [0001] and [0014] of the application).

Fig. 4 of WO 2015/014956 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D1 fails to disclose the following two features of claim 1:

1. Two recorded audio traces from two participants in a conversation are compared with each other in order to provide a rating for each of the at least two participants as well as a joint rating for the at least two participants together, and

2. The calculation of the correlation coefficient is based on a time window, the default length of which is extended to include the speech utterance of each crew member it its entirety.

The Appellant argued that adjusting the default length, which is extended to include the speech utterance of each crew member in its entirety, by flexibly varying a time window used in the calculation of the correlation, would result in a better resolution of the correlation coefficient.

However, the Board considered both features as non-technical. Regarding the first feature of measuring the skills based on comparing their recorded audio traces, the Board argued as follows:

1.1 Comparing and analysing two audio traces (signals) instead of only one as disclosed in D1 is carried out using the same, generally know signal processing techniques. Otherwise indicating details are not provided in the application.

1.2 The specified prosodic parameters used in the analysis are based on speech utterance and are as such non-technical. The reason for this is that they involve a mixture of administrative, psychological and mental acts. The same reasoning applies to the numerical rating resulting from the signal processing of the two audio traces.

1.3 Moreover, the aural detection of the crew’s behaviour does not go beyond the computer-implementation of a equivalent analysis by a human. An increased objectivity of the ranking arises purely from the computer-implementation itself due to the straightforward automation by the computer.

Regarding the second feature concerning the default length of the moving time window, the Board outlined:

2.1 The choice of the length as well as the positioning of the window are purely subjective choices that have no technical influence on the calculation of the correlation coefficient or the statistical modelling technique. Instead, only the quality of the calculated coefficient is improved. Given that the rating has no technical meaning, obtaining a “better” or “more accurate” rating has no technical meaning as well. Consequently, the choice of the length of the time window is seen as a choice based on an administrative consideration, a scheme of performing a mental act or a mathematical method, all of which are non-technical.

Despite the lack of a further technical effect, the Board also responded to the Appellant’s argument that the definition of the “default length” is of a flexible or extendable nature:

2.2 The wording of said feature, namely the “default length is extended to include the speech utterance of each crew member in its entirety” does not necessarily express the appellant’s interpretation that the moving time window is of a flexible or extendable nature. According to the definition of claim 1, it can be understood that the “default length” is adjusted according to the entire duration of the speech utterance of each participant once at the beginning of the statistical modelling. From this, one cannot conclude that the window length is flexibly varied and extended during the course of the analysis. There is also no passage of the application which defines the exact meaning of the term. In fact, the term is used only once in the entire description (para. [0049]) and in a very similar wording. Accordingly, a flexibly variable time duration cannot be unequivocally derived.

Since both differentiating features are considered as non-technical, they cannot contribute to an inventive step over D1.

Therefore, the Board dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2689/18 (Measruing communication skills of crew members/Trinity College Dublin) of January 25, 2022.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Customization of a piece of footwear based on physiological data: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to customization of a piece of footwear based on physiological data. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since claim 1 mainly addresses the a non-technical mapping of (technical) acceleration data to a gait category. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1234/17 (Customization based on physiological data/Adidas AG) of March 4, 2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

The mere mapping of (technical) sensor data to a gait category cannot contribute to the technical character of an invention.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision mainly concerns the customization of a product (e.g., a piece of footwear) based on physiological data (e.g., a given set of characteristics of a person’s gait as measured by an accelerometer) (cf. paras. [0005] and [0023] of the application).

Fig. 6 of EP 2610808 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D3 failed to disclose that the customization uses sensor data being applied to a model of human physiology as defined by the last two features of claim 1:

1.1 wherein said at least one sensor includes an accelerometer and the collected sensor data includes a time series of acceleration vectors, wherein the data collected by said at least on sensor is analyzed by a sensor data analysis module, and

1.2 wherein the sensor data analysis module applies a model of human physiology to associate the time series of acceleration vectors with one of the following categories of human gait: supination, protination, over-protination or neutral.

However, the Board considered the claimed customization as well as the use of the human physiology model to be non-technical:

1.3 The skilled person would need to be given instructions on both how the “physiological” attribute” (category of human gait) should be based on the sensor data and how the customization should be based on the human gait. This was said to be an indication of non-technicality.

In response, the Appellant argued that the term “design” pertained to technical properties of the piece of footwear and that “customization” had to be interpreted as customization of a physical item. Furthermore, the Appellant argued that the distinguishing features would improve the accuracy and user-friendliness of the customization process by additionally including dynamic information:

1.4.1 The appellant argued that the term “design” pertained to technical properties of the piece of footwear, like shape, size and material composition and that “customization” had to be interpreted as customization of a physical item rather than graphics customization. The description (paras. [0023], [0027] and [0041]) would clearly set out how sporting footwear could be customized based on one or more properties of a user’s running gait, determined from sensor data representing time series of acceleration vectors by applying a model of human physiology.

1.4.2 The appellant also pointed out that the advantageous technical effect of the combination of the above features was that not only static data about the shape of the foot of a wearer – in the form of a 3D scan of the foot and pressure map of the foot sole – was used in the customization process for the piece of footwear, but that dynamic information – in the form of a time series of acceleration vectors – was utilized to obtain information about the gait category of the wearer. The gait category was used to determine the design of the customized footwear which better fitted the user’s typical movement patterns.

1.4.3 The appellant argued that the objective technical problem should be formulated as how to improve the accuracy and user-friendliness of the customization process of D3.

However, the Board did not follow the Appellant’s arguments. Instead, the Board stated that the invention can be seen as two mappings, where the first one maps sensor acceleration data to a gait category and the second one maps the gait category to a “customized” design:

1.5.1 With respect to the first mapping, the Board stated that the recording of sensor data is no doubt technical. However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to a gait category is technical, involves any technical considerations or has any overall technical effect. This would be the case if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using consideration of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, apart from specifying that the data “includes a time series of acceleration vectors” which is “analyzed” no further details are present in the claim that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors. Thus, the Board considers that the mere idea of mapping acceleration data to gait category does not contribute to inventive step. Only its implementation involving the sensors could contribute.

1.5.2 With respect to the second mapping, the Board stated that due to the lack of detail in the claim and in the description, no technical considerations were involved in the design, apart from the fact that it involves a physical object, namely footwear. Thus, the Board considers that the basic idea of customizing footwear depending on the model of human physiology does not contribute to inventive step.

Since the second mapping was considered non-technical, as a result, the Board defined the problem to be solved as how to adapt the customization process of D3 to take into account categories of human gait derived from acceleration data. However, solving this problem by adding sensors to the arrangement of D3 was considered obvious.

Therefore, the Board dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1234/17 (Customization based on physiological data/Adidas AG)) of March 4, 2022

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field