T 2825/19 - Linguistics vs abstract formulation of algorithms

 Key points

• The Board finds the claim shown below not inventive under the Comvik approach. The Board: “In essence, the invention translates natural language input into internal formal language expressions and then further translates these expressions into executable formal expressions in a formal language such as SQL (structured query language)”
• The present Board: “The Enlarged Board of Appeal [in G3/08] defined the expression "further technical considerations" by analogy to the expression "further technical effect" introduced in decision T 1173/97 (Computer program product/IBM, OJ EPO 1999, 609). That decision pointed out two cases in which the technical character of a computer program is supported. First, when a computer is used to solve a technical problem related to a technical field outside of computing such as control of industrial manufacturing processes. Second, when there is a "further technical effect" that solves a technical problem internal to the computer system”
• “The board understands opinion G 3/08 as taking a negative view on the technical character of the activity of programming a computer as also expressed in the decision T 1539/09”
• “the board agrees with the examining division that steps b) to p) do not contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention as these steps do not involve technical considerations going beyond "merely" finding an abstract computer algorithm to carry out the translation from natural language text into an internal formal language. In particular, nothing in steps b) to p) reflects considerations that concern the internal technical operations of a computer system on which these steps are carried out. Rather, these steps are specified merely on an abstract level”
• “the board has made it clear that according to opinion G 3/08 the issue of technicality is not only relevant for linguistic aspects but also for the abstract formulation of algorithms. ”
  
  
  
• “Consequently, [under the Comvik approach] the objective technical problem may be formulated as how to implement a non-technical algorithm comprising steps b) to r) in the computer system disclosed in document D4. The board judges that the method of claim 5 does not contain any implementation details going beyond a mere automation of the underlying non-technical algorithm using computing means known from document D4. In view of the above, the board concludes that the method of claim 5 lacks inventive step and is therefore not allowable”

T 2825/19 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t192825eu1.html

IX. Claim 5 of the new main request reads as follows:

"A computer-implemented method for translating natural language into a formal language executable on a programmable device, said method comprising the steps of:

a) receiving (3.1.1) natural language text;

characterised by:

b) parsing (3.1.2) said text into a sequence of sequences of pretokens;

c) recognizing (3.2.0) the pretokens as tokens in a lexicon of terms;

d) inserting new terms into the lexicon under specific control;

e) assigning syntactic types to pretokens by comparison to lexical terms in the lexicon for further syntactic processing;

f) generating a sequence of expressions by reassigning lexical types to tokens based on syntactic context based on the assigned types;

g) correlating terms occurring in the set of expressions in order to replace indirect references by direct references;

h) performing a process of term reduction, using a type reduction matrix, to establish syntactic dependencies between terms in an expression created by said correlating of terms, wherein the type reduction matrix maps sequences of tokens into a relative reduction ordering that represents syntactic dependencies between tokens;

i) constructing in a process of term inversion chains of syntactic dependencies among lexical terms in an expression provided by the term reduction process and determining dependencies;

j) generating (3.2.3) syntactic trees which represent the syntactic structures of said processed expressions provided by the term reduction process;

k) representing said processed expressions as terms in a syntactic algebra on the basis of the syntactic trees, the syntactic algebra comprising syntactic terms formally representing processed expressions;

l) representing terms in the syntactic algebra as objects in a semantic algebra, the semantic object algebra comprising semantic objects as internal references of terms in the syntactic algebra;

m) combining objects in a semantic object algebra by means of a semantic product on pairs of semantic objects to form more complex semantic objects;

n) representing (3.3.1) correlated syntactic algebraic terms and semantic objects as terms in a semantic tensor algebra, the semantic tensor algebra comprising correlated syntactic terms and semantic objects;

o) representing terms in the semantic tensor algebra as internal formal models;

p) transforming terms in the syntactic algebra into equivalent expressions in an internal formal language;

q) associating external operation environments with internal formal models; and

r) translating expressions of the internal formal language into equivalent formal expressions executable in an external operational environment."

[decision text omitted]

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t192825eu1.html