T 1141/17 - An example of the Comvik approach

 Key points

• Under the Comvik approach to inventive step, the non-technical features of the claim are basically put in the objective technical problem (“in particular where the claim refers to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field, this aim may legitimately appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved, in particular as a constraint that has to be met”; T 641/00 hn.2, G1/19 r.30(g).
• However, it's not so easy to find an easy and illustrative example of the Comvik approach in the case law of the Boards. There are numerous decisions applying the Comvik approach but often the non-technical innovation is complex, or the step of actually formulating the objective technical problem in line with the Comvik approach is summarily disposed of.
• In the present case, “The invention concerns the automatic selection of a customised telemarketing script. When a potential customer calls a number in an advertisement, the call is often received by a sales representative firm that represents many businesses. Thus, the sales representative needs to find the marketing script associated with the product or service that the customer is calling about. Furthermore, it is advantageous to use a script that is targeted to the prospective customer. For example, a person who is likely to make a high value purchase may receive a different offer than a person who is likely to make a low value purchase, or unlikely to make a purchase at all.” (internal citations omitted).
• The invention uses number recognition to identify the caller's phone number (ANI), looks the number up in a database (shared between different telemarketing firms), and calculates a score (e.g. a "prospective customer value indicator") which in turn is used to select the phone script from a database that the marketer is to follow. In the same way, the specific phone number (DNIS) in the advertisement is also used (for telemarketing firms acting for various selling companies)
• The Board, “Starting from a conventional communication system combining a telephone system and a computer system, such as the one disclosed in D1 [(US6597685], the invention in claim 1 distinguishes itself by the use of the ANI to locate customer information in a database, the calculation of a modeling score based upon the customer information and the DNIS, the selection of a stored script based on the modeling score contemporaneously with a time at which the customer communications device provides the ANI, and the display of the script to the marketer.”
• “In line with the Comvik approach, the Board considers that the problem to be solved by the distinguishing features is how to automate the method of selecting a customised script defined under point 2.3 above.”
• ô2.6 In the Board's view, the technical implementation of the non-technical requirements, including the use of ANI and DNIS to identify the customer (caller) and the contacted business (callee) respectively, and the use of the computer to contemporaneously look up information in a database, calculate the modelling score, and select and display a relevant script, would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art of telecommunications and computer systems. ANI and DNIS were well known and designed to provide the recipient of the telephone call with information about the caller and the dialled number. The skilled person would have provided suitable means for storing and retrieving data, including the use of the ANI as an identifier for storing and retrieving customer information in a database.”

T 1141/17 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171141eu1.html

Reasons for the Decision

1. Background

1.1 The invention concerns the automatic selection of a customised telemarketing script (see page 4, lines 12 to 14 of the published application).

1.2 When a potential customer calls a number in an advertisement, the call is often received by a sales representative firm that represents many businesses (page 3, lines 5 to 16). Thus, the sales representative needs to find the marketing script associated with the product or service that the customer is calling about.

Furthermore, it is advantageous to use a script that is targeted to the prospective customer (page 3, lines 17 to 23). For example, a person who is likely to make a high value purchase may receive a different offer than a person who is likely to make a low value purchase, or unlikely to make a purchase at all.

1.3 The invention uses Automatic Number Identification (ANI, also referred to as "Caller I.D.") to identify the calling customer, and Dialled Number Identification Service (DNIS) to identify the dialled number associated with the product or service in the advertisement.

A computer (135) that is coupled to the marketer's telephone device uses the ANI number received from the telephone system to locate customer information in a database. The customer information is, together with the DNIS information, used to calculate a "modelling score", i.e. a value corresponding to the segments "high", "medium", and "low". The modelling score is, in turn, used to select a script from a database (150). The script is displayed to the marketer who uses it to communicate with the customer. The selection of the script takes place contemporaneously with the time at which the customer's telephone device provides its ANI number.

2. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

2.1 The invention in claim 1 comprises a mixture of technical and non-technical features. The Board agrees with the appellant that the claimed computer system and its components have technical character. However, the invention also involves non-technical aspects related to marketing.

2.2 The established approach for assessing such mixed-type inventions is the "Comvik approach" (see T 641/00 - Two identities/COMVIK, and The Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 9.1.3 b)). Under the Comvik approach, only the technical features which contribute to the solution of a technical problem by providing a technical effect are taken into account for the purpose of assessing inventive step under Article 56 EPC. The non-technical features which make no technical contribution may legitimately form part of the technical problem to be solved as a set of requirements to be met.

2.3 Applying the Comvik approach to the present case, the Board considers that the following included in or underlying claim 1 is part of a non-technical business concept:

- A customer, having an identity contacting a business (also having an identity) about a product or service;

- A marketer dealing with the customer on behalf of the business;

- Selecting a marketing script from a plurality of marketing scripts divided into a plurality of customer value segments (high, medium, low or "risk" or a combination thereof) based on the customer's "modelling score" and the relevant business, product or service;

- presenting the selected script to the marketer.

Being non-technical in nature, the above features cannot contribute to inventive step. Instead, they form a set of requirements which are part of the problem to be solved.

2.4 Starting from a conventional communication system combining a telephone system and a computer system, such as the one disclosed in D1, the invention in claim 1 distinguishes itself by the use of the ANI to locate customer information in a database, the calculation of a modeling score based upon the customer information and the DNIS, the selection of a stored script based on the modeling score contemporaneously with a time at which the customer communications device provides the ANI, and the display of the script to the marketer.

2.5 In line with the Comvik approach, the Board considers that the problem to be solved by the distinguishing features is how to automate the method of selecting a customised script defined under point 2.3 above.

2.6 In the Board's view, the technical implementation of the non-technical requirements, including the use of ANI and DNIS to identify the customer (caller) and the contacted business (callee) respectively, and the use of the computer to contemporaneously look up information in a database, calculate the modelling score, and select and display a relevant script, would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art of telecommunications and computer systems. ANI and DNIS were well known and designed to provide the recipient of the telephone call with information about the caller and the dialled number. The skilled person would have provided suitable means for storing and retrieving data, including the use of the ANI as an identifier for storing and retrieving customer information in a database.

3. The appellant argued that, while known, the ANI and DNIS numbers had never been used for looking up customer information in a database and for calculating a modelling score for selecting a script. The use of the ANI and DNIS in this way enabled selection of the script contemporaneously, which really meant less than 7/10th of a second. The invention thus achieved a low response time, which was a technical effect that contributed to inventive step in a non-obvious manner.

4. In the Board's assessment, however, the low response time is an effect of the automation, i.e. the use of a computer to select a script. Computers are technical, but the Board judges that it would have been obvious to use one for selecting a script in accordance with the requirement specification. The Board notes that neither the claim, nor the application as a whole, specifies any particular technical implementation details which could support a low response time beyond that achieved by merely using a computer.

5. For these reasons, the Board judges that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the sole request

("Main Request 2") lacks an inventive step

(Article 56 EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.