T 2353/22 - Traversing a data structure

Key points

• The real surprise is at the end of this decision against a refusal.
• "The invention concerns a method, [...] for supporting the storage of, access to and display of lineage metadata about data stored in a storage system. The lineage metadata of a data object provides information about the sources from which the data object was derived. For instance, how the data object was generated, from which source it was imported, how it has been used by applications, how it relates to other datasets or how its modification will affect tables"
• The claim is lengthy.
• "The method according to the claimed invention includes a first step of receiving metadata from a data source, the metadata describing nodes and edges. Each node represents a metadata object, which can be a data element or a transformation. An edge represents a one-way effect of one node upon another node. According to the description, page 10, first paragraph, the data elements can represent, for instance, "datasets, tables within datasets, columns in tables, and fields in files, messages, and reports". An example of a transformation is "an element of an executable that describes how a single output of a data element is produced"."
• After reading the decision, I don't see any limitation to technical data. I understand the metadata could be metadata of pension contracts or insurance contracts, for example. The method is just generic.
• "After the step of receiving metadata from a data source, the claimed method further includes steps of generating a data structure representing the received metadata and receiving a query for lineage metadata. In response to receiving the query, the data structure is accessed and a response to the query is generated and sent to a computer system for display. The response includes the lineage metadata responsive to the query."
• The claim also includes: "in response to receiving the query (114, 126), traversing the data structure (134) in accordance with the walk plan (130) to collect lineage metadata stored in the data structure (134) that is responsive to the query (114)," 
• The walk plan is about following edges from node to node and is included in the query, i.e. preparing the walk plan is not a part of the claimed method.
• I understand graph theory, a mathematical theory, is used by the features of the edges and nodes.
• The Board: "It is true that since computer programming involves technical and non-technical aspects, it is difficult to distinguish between the "programmer as such" who, as long as they only develop abstract algorithms, are not a skilled person within the meaning of the case law, and the "technical programmer" (see also T 697/17, reasons 5.2.4). "
• "The subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the method of D2 in that it includes features (c1) to (f), (f2), (g) and (g1). These features specify details of the data structure (features (c1) to (c4)), the step of receiving a query for lineage metadata including the identification of a data element, a type of lineage and a walk plan (features (d) to (d2)), the steps of traversing the data structure and collecting data using the data structure and the walk plan (features (d3), (d4) and (e) to (e4)), the step of generating a response including lineage metadata responsive to the query ((f) and (f2)) and the steps of sending the response to a computer system and displaying the lineage data (features (g) and (g1))."
  
• "None of the cited prior-art documents disclose the combination of distinguishing features (c1) to (f), (f2), (g) and (g1). In the board's opinion, it would be within the ordinary skills of the computer expert to arrive at the data structure specified in the distinguishing features, which corresponds directly to the non-technical lineage structure. However, the board is not convinced that the skilled person would arrive at the combination of all the distinguishing features, including a walk plan to direct the way the data structure is traversed and the data is collected as claimed."
• "Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request involves an inventive step (Article 56 EPC)."
• Now, as a question to readers, this decision was issued by Board 3.5.07. Would Board 3.5.06 have decided differently (see yesterday's post about T1998/22 Wide and deep machine learning) ? 
• 
  
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision can be found after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t222353eu1