Author Archive

Redistributing workload between active servers upon network change: technical

The invention relates to the load distribution mechanism in a distributed database system. The Examining Division alleged that the invention lacked an inventive step as the implementation was a normal design option, and it was unclear what technical problem had been solved.

The applicant argued that it was possible to redistribute workload between active servers upon network change. The Board agreed with the applicant and considered that a skilled person would not arrive at the claimed invention by solving the problem of routing work. However, as the cited document was directed to localised load redistribution, which is conceptually the opposite of the claimed invention, the Board remitted the case for further examination.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0928/19 (Load distribution/NOKIA) from March 14, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Redistributing workload between the active servers upon a network change is a technical effect.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application relates to a load distribution mechanism in a distributed database system using front-end servers and back-end servers, the front-end servers to route requests for specific data items to the back-end server storing the requested item. For routing, the front-end servers use a lookup table with entries of the form pair, the key being the hash of the query search key, and the value the corresponding data address (description page 1, background section).

2. The application addresses in particular the problem of front-end server failures, or of server addition. These events are likely to result in less evenly distributed system load and also, for the former case, losses of data (pages 2 and 3).

2.1 The application proposes to split the lookup table between the set of active servers according to a partitioning table – e.g. by splitting the hash values in equal ranges. One of the active servers acts as a master server which, upon a change in the number of servers, recalculates the partitioning table, i.e. the ranges of hash values, and sends it to all other active servers (pages 5, 6 and 9). The servers communicate with each other to transfer the needed lookup entries in accordance with the new partitioning table.

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it lacked inventive steps in document D1 (US 2005/114862 A1), as the implementation was a normal design option, and it was unclear what technical problem had been solved.

The Board acknowledged that the claimed invention aimed to achieve a technical effect, provided all the essential features were included in the claim:

7. The Board expressed the preliminary view that the claimed invention achieved its technical effect of redistributing workload between the active servers upon a network change only by collaboration between the master server and all other active servers. Separately claiming the partial methods to be carried out on either of them would therefore lack essential features, Article 84 EPC. An independent claim should thus comprise all the steps of re-calculating the first (partitioning) look-up table at the master server and generating the new modified partition of the second (data) lookup table at each (not only at one) of the active servers, as essential features of the invention.

In view of the amended claim, the Board identified the distinguishing features as follows:

12. To summarise, D1 discloses two main alternative approa­ches, a centralised and a decentralised approach, both using a set of active servers sharing the workload. In the decentralised approach there is no centralised look up table, whereas in the centralised one there is one, kept on one server. A master server may be said to be present, temporarily, during the redistribution of the workload.

13. An essential difference between the claimed invention and D1, whichever the approach considered, is the use of a, otherwise well-known (see DA1), front-end/back-end server architecture, where the front-end servers route the “work” to the appropriate servers. Such architecture is normally employed to ease and simplify routing to the servers doing the work, i.e. the back-end servers.

13.1 The decentralised approach in D1 has its own, specifically developed, routing mechanism (see 8.4 above). The Board does not see that front-end servers fit into this in any obvious way.

13.2 In the centralised approach, the skilled person might find problematic that the map function, i.e. the partitioning table as claimed, is stored only on one server, which might become overloaded. It might then appear obvious to add a layer of front-end servers, notwithstanding the fact that D1 itself has another solution to this problem, namely the aforementioned decentralised approach. But even if front-end servers were added, the skilled person would apply the teaching of D1 concerning the work redistribution, in particular that concerning table repartitioning by a temporary master server, to the active servers according to D1, which are effectively back-end servers.

13.3 So the Board does not see that the skilled person would arrive at the claimed invention by solving the problem of routing work to the active servers of D1.

Finally, the Board agreed with the applicant that it was not obvious to arrive at the subject-matter of the claim:

16. The Board acknowledges that the skilled person starting from D1, in order to arrive at the claimed invention in the manner considered would have to make a few crucial decisions.

16.1 First, the skilled person would have to decide to apply the teaching of D1 to front-end servers. Notably however, the function of the active servers of D1 is to process the workload itself, the servers thus appearing rather as back-end servers.

16.2 Second, if there were problems with having one table on one server only, the skilled person would have to decide not to use the local decentralised approach which is expressly disclosed in D1 and which the skilled person would be inclined to prefer.

16.3 And third, even if the skilled person were to deviate from the express disclosure of D1 and not use the local decentralised approach, the skilled person would still need to decide to distribute the partitioning table to all front-end servers.

17. Reconsidering the facts of the case, and in particular the teachings of D1, in view of the above, the Board follows the Appellant and comes to the conclusion that the skilled person could have arrived at the invention as laid out above, but that it cannot be asserted that he or she would have.

The Board considered the subject-matter was inventive over document D1. However, the Board considered that the cited document related to localised load distribution, which was the opposite of the claimed invention. Therefore, it was possible that more relevant prior art may exist. Therefore, the Board remitted the case to the Examining Division for further search.

More information

You can read the full decision here:T 0928/19 (Load distribution/NOKIA) from March 14, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Managing cached search result: technical

The invention relates to managing pre-computed search results. The Examining Division alleged that the invention lacked an inventive step as it saw no technical problem that was solved over the prior art.

However, the applicant argued that distinguishing features achieved the technical effect of more efficient utilization of the computation resources in that the computational resources were more likely used to re-compute actually invalid pre-computed search results than valid pre-computed search results.

The Board noted that a more accurate estimation of the current validity probabilities of cached search results leads to an improved trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute/update cached search results and the actual validity of the cached search results. Improved caching mechanism, in principle represents a technical effect.

While there can be no general guarantee that a specific unexpected event also has a significant effect on the validity of the search results, it is not unreasonable to assume that the effect of an unexpected event in different shares is similar to the effect of past unexpected events and is therefore reflected in the measured correlation over time. The board therefore has no sound reason to doubt that, on average, the distinguishing features do improve the accuracy of the validity probabilities

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0576/21 (Managing pre-computed search results/AMADEUS) from November 21, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

Improving the trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute pre-computed search results and the actual validity of the pre-computed search results is a technical problem.

Improved caching mechanism, in principle represents a technical effect.

While there can be no general guarantee that a specific unexpected event also has a significant effect on the validity of the search results, it is not unreasonable to assume that the effect of an unexpected event in different shares is similar to the effect of past unexpected events and is therefore reflected in the measured correlation over time. The board therefore has no sound reason to doubt that, on average, the distinguishing features do improve the accuracy of the validity probabilities.

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The application

1.1 The background section of the application, on page 1, lines 11 to 17, explains that maintaining a cache of pre-computed search results which can be returned in response to search queries helps to shorten query response times. Since the data which forms the basis for the pre-computation of the search results changes over time, the cached pre-computed search result may get outdated and therefore have to be regularly updated by re-computing them (see also page 6, lines 12 to 22).

1.2 Since computational resources are generally limited, only a selected number of the pre-computed search results can be re-computed within a certain period of time (page 6, lines 24 to 29). Typically, update strategies for selecting the search results to be updated are based on probabilistic models for estimating the current validity probability of the pre-computed search results (page 7, lines 8 to 20).

1.3 The invention aims to improve the estimated validity probabilities by adjusting them when an “unexpected or unpredictable” event is detected which is not accounted for in the probability model (page 7, line 33, to page 8, line 16).

  • Claim 1

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it lacked inventive steps in document D1 (WO 2013/160721 A1), and the problem to be solved referred to a non-technical decision.  The Board identified the distinguishing feature as follows:

5.5 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of document D1 in that:

– the pre-computed search results are subdivided into a plurality of shares of related pre-computed search results having identical or similar validity trends;

– the re-computation controller derives an instantaneous validity rate λ^D for a share D from the two latest re-computations of the pre-computed search results included in the share D;

– when the instantaneous validity rate for the share D exceeds the validity trend for a pre-computed search result i in the share by a given extent, the re-computation controller decreases the validity probabilities associated with the pre-computed search results in a correlated second share D’ by an amount which depends on the difference between the instantaneous validity rate for the share D and the validity trend for the pre-computed search result i,

– where the shares D and D’ are correlated if the correlation coefficient of the instantaneous validity trends λ^D and λ^D’ over time exceeds a given threshold.

These distinguishing features relate to the estimation of the validity probabilities indicating whether pre-computed results may be outdated and thereby to the determination of the pre-computed results with lower validity probabilities which are to be re-computed before pre-computed results with higher validity probabilities.

With respect to technical effect, the Board agreed with the appellant as follows

5.6 The appellant argued that the distinguishing features achieved the technical effect of a more efficient utilisation of the computation resources in that the computational resources were more likely used to re-compute actually invalid pre-computed search results than valid pre-computed search results. If the instantaneous validity rate in share D suddenly dropped, for example due to an unexpected event that was not reflected in the probabilistic model represented by the validity trends of the pre-computed search results, it was likely that the instantaneous validity rate in the correlated share D’ showed the same behaviour. This meant that the current validity probabilities of the pre-computed search results in share D’ were too high and should be reduced.

5.7 The board accepts that a more accurate estimation of the current validity probabilities of pre-computed (i.e. cached) search results leads to an improved trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute/update cached search results and the actual validity of the cached search results because the strategy used to decide which cached search result to update next will take its decision on the basis of more accurate information. The board further accepts that such an improved caching mechanism in principle represents a technical effect (cf. decisions T 117/10, Reasons 4; T 729/21, Reasons 9.4).

5.8 In its communication the board expressed doubt, however, that the distinguishing features did indeed result in a better estimation of the validity probabilities of the pre-computed search results in the share D’, in particular because claim 1 of the then main request did not define what it meant for pre-computed search results to be “related” and for shares to be “correlated”.

Present claim 1 overcomes these concerns by specifying that related pre-computed search results have identical or similar validity trends and that shares are correlated if the development over time of the past values of their instantaneous validity rates show a sufficient correlation.

5.9 The board notes that there can be no general guarantee that a specific unexpected event which causes a drop of the instantaneous validity rate for a share D by invalidating a significant number of its pre-computed search results also has a significant effect on the validity of the pre-computed search results in a correlated share D’. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to assume that the effect of an unexpected event on the validity of pre-computed search results in different shares is similar to the effect of past unexpected events and is therefore reflected in the measured correlation over time between the instantaneous invalidity rates calculated for different shares. The board therefore has no sound reason to doubt that, on average, the distinguishing features do improve the accuracy of the validity probabilities.

5.10 Hence, the board accepts that the distinguishing features solve the technical problem of improving the trade-off between the computational resources used to re-compute pre-computed search results and the actual validity of the pre-computed search results.

The Board considered the subject-matter was inventive. Therefore, the case is remitted with the order to grant a patent.

More information

You can read the full decision here:T 0576/21 (Managing pre-computed search results/AMADEUS) from November 21, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Automatic association of medical elements: technical

The invention relates to the administration of medication, with interesting aspects of technical subject-matter and method of treatment (Art. 53(c) EPC – Exception to patentability subject matter)

The Examining Division alleged that the invention lacked an inventive step as it saw no technical problem that was solved over the prior art. In addition, it expressed doubts about the allowability of selecting a medication concerning Article 53(c) EPC.

However, the Board noted that enabling the clinician/caregiver to choose the correct medication from a plurality of medications is a technical effect and solves the technical problem such that the “five rights” are still ensured in the presence of a plurality of medications. And since selecting a medication only concerns operating the medical device such that human handling errors are avoided, it has no functional link to the effects of the (unclaimed kind of) medication on the body of the patient. Thus, it is not a method of treatment that forms a barrier to patentability (Art 53(c) EPC).

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 3124/19 (Automatic association of medical elements/CAREFUSION) from December 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

Enabling the clinician/caregiver to choose the correct medication from a plurality of medications is a technical effect and solves the technical problem of how to improve such that the “five rights” are still ensured in the presence of a plurality of medications.

Selecting a medication for a patient can have a therapeutic effect only if the selection is performed taking into account the kind of illness to be treated, in the sense that a medication is selected that has, for that kind of illness, a known, beneficial effect on the body of the patient.

However, selecting a medication only concerns operating the medical device such that human handling errors are avoided has no functional link to the effects of the (unclaimed kind of) medication on the body of the patient. Thus, it is not a method of treatment that forms a barrier to patentability (Art 53(c) EPC).

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

The application and the invention relate to providing an improved automated process to ensure the “five rights” of medication administration (right patient, right time, right medication, right route of administration, right dose) in a hospital (see paragraph [0002] of the description). In particular, the time-consuming steps of manually scanning bar codes to identify, e.g., the patient, the caregiver and the medication can be eliminated using a real-time locating system (paragraphs [0003] to [0006].

  • Claim 1 (sole request - labeling added by the Board)

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it saw no technical problem that was solved over the prior art. In addition, it expressed doubts about the allowability of selecting a medication concerning Article 53(c) EPC. According to the Decision, the prior art document D2 (US 2004/019464 A1) was summarised as follows:

2. The relevant prior art

D2 discloses a patient care system. Although not explicitly mentioned as such, ensuring the “five rights” of medication administration is one of the aims of D2 (see paragraph [0055]). The disclosed system involves identifiers of clinicians, patients, medications and medical devices (see paragraph [0052]). The embodiments described in detail use bar code scanning for identification purposes, but D2 also refers to the use of RFID (see paragraphs [0022] and [0066]), that is to a real-time locating system.

The Board then considered D2 as the closest prior art and identified that it failed to disclose how a particular medication is selected when more than one medication is detected. Based on this, the Board formulated the problem as follows:

5.4 Technical effect / objective technical problem

When RFID is used to identify objects, more than one object of the same type may in the range of the system and consequently be detected. This may, in principle, also happen in a hospital where medications are to be detected by RFID. The technical effect of the distinguishing features is thus that the clinician/caregiver is enabled to choose the correct medication in such a situation. The objective technical problem might then be formulated as how to improve the system of D2 such that the “five rights” are still ensured in the presence of a plurality of medications.

Then, the Board assessed if it was obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the solution starting from document D2.

5.5 Obviousness

5.5.1 In its detailed embodiments, D2 refers to bar code scanning. With this technology, a plurality of medications present at the treatment location would not be a problem, because only one of them would be bar code scanned by the clinician. When the bar code scanning referred to in the detailed embodiments of D2 is to be replaced by its alternative RFID suggested in paragraphs [0022] and [0066] of D2, the skilled person would normally consider to use an RFID system with a similar range as bar code scanning, that is a few centimetres (using e.g. an NFC system). In that case, the above-mentioned problem would not arise, either.

It is thus likely that the skilled person, starting from D2, would not come across the issue addressed by the distinguishing features.

The skilled person, starting from D2, would thus probably not even consider that the above-mentioned problem needs to be solved.

…

5.5.3 The board thus concludes that the skilled person, starting from D2, would first of all not be aware that the objective technical problem defined above was to be solved at all. Further, even if it was aware of that problem and tried to solve it, it would arrive at a different solution than the one presented in claim 1.

Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is inventive in view of D2 and the common general knowledge. Since D1 does not refer to medications at all, it has no relevance for the assessment of inventive step.

Finally, the Board addressed the doubt expressed by the Division if such a method would be considered a method of treatment and thus fall under the exception to patentability:

6. Exceptions to patentability – Article 53(c) EPC

The examining division expressed “considerable doubt” as to whether the step of selecting a medication constituted medical treatment and thus formed a barrier to patentability.

The board is of the opinion that selecting a medication for a patient can have a therapeutic effect only if the selection is performed taking into account the kind of illness to be treated, in the sense that a medication is selected that has, for that kind of illness, a known, beneficial effect on the body of the patient.

In the present case, however, the kind of illness does not play a role. Instead, the purpose of the claimed selection step is to make sure that a medication is administered that was previously chosen as appropriate, in a step preceding and therefore not being part of the claimed method.

That is, in the present case, the step of selecting a medication only concerns operating the medical device such that human handling errors are avoided. It has no functional link to the effects of the (unclaimed kind of) medication on the body of the patient (see section 4.3.2 of the Reasons for the Decision of decision G1/07).

The board therefore believes that in the present case, the step of selecting a medication (features e4) and e4′)) does not form a barrier to patentability of the independent claims, contrary to the remark of the examining division.

The Board considered the invention solved a technical problem and that Article 53(c) EPC also does not apply. Therefore, the case is remitted with the order to grant a patent.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 3124/19 (Automatic association of medical elements/CAREFUSION) from December 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Accessing cookies from different domains: technical

The invention relates to monitoring media and determining media impressions using distributed demographic information.

The Examining Division refused the application, alleging that accessing cookies from different domains was considered administrative in nature and the problem was circumvented by means of administrative steps. 

However, the Board noted that accessing cookies from different domains is a technical issue, and the technical solution is circumventing a browser restriction, which is itself a technical feature. Since no documents were cited, the Board remitted the examination back to the Division for further examination.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0072/20 (Accessing cookies from different Internet domains/NIELSEN) from November 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Accessing cookies from different domains is a technical issue.

The technical solution is circumventing a browser restriction, which is itself a technical feature albeit possibly implementing a non-technical policy. This is not the same as circumventing a technical problem by modifying a non-technical scheme.

The invention

The invention addresses monitoring users’ access to online media content and linking this information with demographics in proprietary databases like Facebook.

The main challenge is the “same origin” policy in web browsers, which restricts access to cookies set by different Internet domains. This policy hinders the ability of an impression monitor system (IMS) and a database proprietor to access each other’s cookies for linking monitoring information with demographic data.

The invention solves this problem by using a “cookie reporter” on the client device. This reporter, provided by an audience measurement entity associated with the IMS, detects a login event to the database provider’s service and sends a dummy request to the IMS. This request prompts the IMS to set a cookie on the client device, which, along with the database proprietor’s cookie, is sent back to the proprietor for linking.

  • Claim 1 (sole request)

Is it patentable?

In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application as it was considered obvious over a general-purpose computer, for the following reasons:

4.1 The examining division considered that the features relating to accessing cookies from different domains were administrative in nature.

The problem of “how to combine information extracted from cookies respectively associated to different domains, when one of the domains is not accessible to the entity setting a cookie in a different domain due to existing protocols” was said to be circumvented by means of administrative steps as in T 258/03 – Auction method/HITACHI and T 931/95 – Controlling pension benefits system/PBS PARTNERSHIP.

The Board disagreed with this assessment and noted as follows:

4.2 The Board, however, takes the view that accessing cookies from different domains is a technical issue and that the invention in claims 1 and 10 provides a technical solution to this issue. This technical solution is circumventing a browser restriction, which is itself a technical feature albeit possibly implementing a non-technical policy. This is not the same as circumventing a technical problem by modifying a non-technical scheme as in T 258/03.

However, the Board noted that the Examining Division did not cite any document, as the features were considered non-technical and only searched within the classification of business methods.

The Board considered the feature was technical and also covered computer security and web systems. Thus, remitted it to the Examining Division for further search.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0072/20 (Accessing cookies from different Internet domains/NIELSEN) from November 30, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

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