T 2852/19 - Reselling tickets

Key points

• "The invention relates to optimised occupancy of an event. The aim is to avoid seats remaining empty if visitors cannot reach the event location in time (see introduction of the description).
• The invention proposes to automatically determine whether visitors to an event are in a defined area at a certain distance from the venue. GPS data from visitors' cell phones is used for this purpose. If ticket buyers are not in said area shortly before the start of the event, an alert is sent to them and their ticket is resold in case of cancellation."
• " D1 discloses GPS tracking of event visitors within a specific radius, but D1 does not mention reselling a ticket. D1 is considered closest prior art."
• "D1 therefore does not explicitly disclose: (a) dynamically adapting the distance/area with time; (b) requesting a visitor to cancel a seat reservation; (c) offer the seat for resale."
• The Board identifies two effects: effect (i) of features (a) and (b) is optimising the seat occupancy; effect (ii) of features (b) and (c) is to increase the profit by reselling seats shortly prior to the event in case a visitor has cancelled its venue.
• As a comment, possibly cancelling reservations leads the ticket being offered to people on the waiting list thereby increasing seating capacity.
• " The effect (i) is technical. The effect (ii) is non-technical."
• The Board does not comment on the relation between the feature "(b) requesting a visitor to cancel a seat reservation" and the broken technical chain fallacy (T1670/07).
• The Board, after a review of the Comvik approach: "Therefore, the problem may be formulated as [how to] "optimising the seat occupancy and implementing features (J) and (K), i. e. prompting the user to indicate whether they plan to attend the event and offer the seat for sale"."
• Features J and K are: "(J) sending an alert to the user prompting the user to indicate whether they plan to attend the event; (K) offer the seat for sale to another user based on the user indicating that they will not attend the event.."
• "it is obvious in view of the disclosure of D1 that the size of the area is reduced (e.g. from a 5-mile radius at 7:30 PM to a 2-mile radius at 7:45 PM) as an event start time approaches"
• "Feature (b) relates to an economical model, i.e. reselling a ticket by encouraging a visitor to cancel its reservation if it cannot meet the appointment time. The system of D1 reveals that a visitor is reminded of its reservation ("remind a user of a reservation"). D1 further discloses the option to "cancel a reservation if the user cannot meet the appointment time" by mobile phone. It would be obvious that the reminder contains a link or a request to cancel the reservation if the appointment time cannot be met."
• As a comment, it is interesting to see the Board analysing the obviousness of a feature relating to an economic model.
• "Feature (c) is per se obvious, because it relates to a business method, i.e. reselling a ticket (reservation) in the case a visitor cannot arrive in time."
• The Board also finds feature (c) to be suggested by D1.
• "Features (F), (I), (J) and (K) are therefore obvious in view of the disclosure and teachings of D1."
• Note that features J and K were also included in the objective technical problem. 

 

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

T 0698/19 - Technical effect must be derivable from the application as a whole

Key points

• The applicant of the application at issue is Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd.
  
•  Board 3.4.03 in the headnote: " If non-technical features have both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step, but the technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole".
• This statement appears to combine two distinct rules: 1) "If non-technical features have both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step" and 2) a  "technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole".
• The arguments of the applicant: " Prior to automation, the handling of insured loss cases was handled by an insurance agent who determined the amount of loss to be reimbursed based on similar claims and the insurance policy. In the 1960s, attempts were made to automate the handling of claims by a computer. For this purpose, the procedures were parameterized, which led to an efficient (but less accurate) claims handling. However, there were parts that could not be parameterized. The present procedure solved this problem by automating these non-parameterized parts through pattern matching with historical data by use of seamless integration. The invention represented the complete automation of an insurance premium payment. Automation was technical as such and had a technical effect." 
• The Board: " Automation is admittedly technical in itself. This is inherent in the very fact that the method runs on a computer. The board agrees with the Appellant that in the present case technical and non-technical features are interwoven and that generally non-technical features can have a technical effect. If non-technical features have both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step, but the technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole." 
• " The Board is not persuaded either that steps (b) to (d) in combination  have a technical effect, i.e. improving the stability of the automated system of the invention, for the following reasons."
• "Disclosure as to how the algorithm is implemented in practice must be provided in order to give evidence that the algorithm has any proved further technical effect with respect to known algorithms and that it provides an improvement over the prior art. The present invention has the object to provide a stable system. However, as discussed above, no details are given why the proposed system should be considered to provide better stability than any other system, for example, how and at which level improved stability or accuracy of the algorithm is achieved, which kind of data is used for pattern matching, how historical data is selected, prepared and compared, and which parameters are matched. The only data provided in the application is pure economical data (see e.g. Fig. 3)."
• Note, " The system should be stable and "give basis to better investment grounds for partners and clients supporting the system" (description, page 3, lines 28-33)." The term 'stability' of the automated insurance system may refer, possibly, to financial stability, but the Board's decision does not comment on that point.
• "To summarise, any further technical considerations or effect must be derivable from the application as a whole and the claims must comprise the specific features which contribute to the further technical effect of the invention, ... "
• The Board adds: "... since it must be made clear to third parties what the technical part of the invention is, and the technically skilled person needs these details to carry out the invention (Article 83 EPC). This is not the case for present claim 1." 
• As a comment, it may also be said that an inventive step is to be based on features specified in the claim and the technical effect provided by those features (if any).

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

T 2052/12 - Smart card repayment limit inventive

Key points

• The Board finds a claim inventive directed to a payment method. 
• The invention deals essentially with parking meters that can credit money on smart cards, in order to make repayments to the smart card. Such parking meters are stolen which were thus able to credit money " to any smart cards as wished" 
• In the invention, this is addressed (in essence) by storing a repayment limit on the smart card and accepting credits only up to that amount. The repayment limit is set equal to the (outstanding) debited amount of a debit (i.e. payment with the card).  The Board finds this technical and inventive. 

EPO T 2052/12 -  link

IV. The wording of independent claims 1 and 4 of the main request is as follows:

"1. A payment method (BV) executed by a communication facility (1, 2, N) and at least one data carrier (11, 12, K) for debiting a payment value unit (BW) from the data carrier (11, 12, K), in order to pay for a performed service, wherein the following steps are executed:
debit from a memory value unit (SW) stored in the data carrier (11, 12, K), of a debit value unit (AW) sufficient for payment for the maximum service to be performed, wherein a repayment limit (RL) stored in the data carrier (11, 12, K) is set, by the data carrier, to the amount of the debited debit value unit (AW);
calculation of a credit value unit (AWE) to be credited back, wherein the payment value unit (BW) to be paid for the actually performed service is subtracted from the debited debit value unit (AW);
check, by the data carrier (11, 12, K), whether the credit value unit (AWE) to be credited does not exceed the stored repayment limit (RL), wherein only when it is detected that the credit value unit (AWE) to be credited does not exceed the stored repayment limit (RL), the credit value unit (AWE) is credited by adding the credit value unit (AWE) to the memory value unit (SW) stored in the data carrier (11, 12, K), wherein after the crediting of the credit value unit (AWE) to the data carrier (11, 12, K) the repayment limit (RL) stored in the data carrier (11, 12, K) is reduced by at least the credited credit value unit (AWE), and wherein before the crediting of the credit value unit (AWE) to the data carrier (11, 12, K), key information (SI1, SI2) output by the communication facility (1, 2, N) and identifying the communication facility's credit authorization is checked by the data carrier (11, 12, K), and wherein the communication facility (1, 2, 8, N) is authorized to credit the credit value unit (AWE) up to at most the value of a maximum credit limit (ML) if the communication facility (8) has a first credit authorization, and wherein the communication facility (1, 2, N) is authorized to credit the credit value unit (AWE) up to at most the value of the repayment limit (RL) stored in the data carrier (11, 12, K) if the communication facility (1, 2, N) has a second credit authorization."

T 0093/12 - Country specific cooking program

Key points

• The Board acknowledges inventive step for a cooking device, wherein the pre-programmed cooking programs are specific for the country or language of the user interface. The Board does not expressly discuss whether the feature (or effect) is technical.

EPO T 0093/12 - link

3. Hilfsantrag III

Das Gargerät nach Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags III unterscheidet sich im Wesentlichen dadurch von dem Gegenstand wie erteilt (Hauptantrag), dass es zwei Voreinstellungsmöglichkeiten (landes- und sprachspezifisch) umfasst und die Voreinstellung nicht irgendwelche Parameter betrifft, sondern Garparameter eines Garprogramms oder einer Garbetriebsart.

Nach Auffassung der Kammer bedeutet ein Garparameter einen Parameter, dessen Wert bzw. dessen Einstellung einen unmittelbaren Einfluss auf das Garen und daher auf das Endergebnis des Garprogramms bzw. der Garbetriebsart aufweist, vgl. hierzu insbesondere Absätze [0027] und [0033] des Streitpatents.

3.1 Garprogrammdeskriptoren gemäss E7, welche lediglich in eine gewünschte Landes- bzw. Bediensprache übersetzt und im Bildschirm 1 angezeigt werden, sind keine landesspezifisch und bediensprachespezifisch voreingestellten Garparameter im Sinne des Streitpatents.

In E7 sind zwar ebenfalls Garparemeter im Sinne des Streitpatents offenbart, welche voreingestellt und vom Bediener des Gargeräts veränderbar sind, vgl Absätze [0040], [0045], [0048], [0050] und [0057] zusammen mit Figuren 5, 8, 11, 13 und 21 von E7.

Eine, wie beansprucht, landesspezifische bzw. sprachspezifische Voreinstellung eines Garparameters ist E7 jedoch nicht zu entnehmen.

3.2 E1 offenbart lediglich die Anzeige von Garprogrammen bzw. Gardeskriptoren in der Form von Landesprogrammlisten, wo die Reihenfolge landes- bzw. sprachspezifisch voreingestellt ist. Auch bei E1 geht es nicht um die Voreinstellung von Garparametern.

Die Unterscheidung gegenüber E7 bzw. E1 des Gargeräts gemäß dem Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags III, wonach Garparameter landes- bzw. sprachspezifisch voreingestellt sind, wodurch die Flexibilität bei gleichzeitig einfacher Bedienbarkeit des Gargeräts erhöht werden kann, bleibt also ohne Vorbild im Stand der Technik und ergibt sich auch nicht allein aus dem fachmännischen Wissen.

Die Erfordernisse des EPÜ und insbesondere des

Artikels 56 EPÜ sind durch die geänderten Patentunterlagen des Hilfsantrags III erfüllt.

T 2073/11 - Package delivery at storage site

Key points

• The claimed invention is, essentially, a system wherein packages are not delivered to the home of the customer or to a local post office, but to a delivery and storage stations with lockers. The customer picks up the package from the delivery station. 
• The Board fins the claimed invention to lack inventive step based on D1 and common general knowledge, e.g. the use of a unique identifier such as a bar code for the package was obvious.
• The filing date is in 2000, regional entry in 2002, refusal by the ED in 2011 after only one Communication in 2009, and a decision of the Board finding lack of inventive step was issued in February 2017. So the EPO took about 15 years for one communication from the ED, and oral proceedings before the ED and the BoA.

EPO T 2073/11 -  link 

Reasons for the Decision

The invention

1. The application relates to the delivery of packages to customers, which has become increasingly important for instance due to online shopping (page 2, lines 34-37).

1.1 It is explained that the conventional prior-art solutions, namely home delivery and delivery to a local post office, were inconvenient both for the customer (e.g. because the customer had to be at home at delivery time or drive to the post office during office hours) and for the delivery service (e.g. because it needed to drive to unfamiliar parts of town with potential parking problems; see page 2, line 41, to page 3, line 75). Other known solutions, such as the use of a "smart" locked box at the customer's house or delivery to businesses other than post offices, did not fully overcome these disadvantages (see page 3, line 81, to page 4, line 2).

1.2 The invention thus proposes to use dedicated "smart" storage devices (claimed as "package holding facilities") to which packages may be delivered for the customers to pick up and to which customers may return packages (see page 11, lines 287-293). These storage devices are meant to be placed at locations where parking is not a problem and which customers routinely visit anyway, such as gas stations and the like (see page 10, lines 259-262).

T 0485/11 - Identification code: technical

Key points

• Claim 1 is directed to a method for data management in an analytical laboratory. The distinguishing feature at issue is that an identification code is placed on a container at the time of production or packaging of said container, and not thereafter. The opposition division took the view that the labelling of a sample container at the stage of production or packaging was merely an administrative measure devoid of any technical aspects and should thus not be taken into consideration in assessing inventive step. The Board however finds that this feature is "a technical feature solving the technical problem of avoiding label misplacement with respect to the kind of container to be used for a given type of analysis". The Board acknowledges inventive step.

EPO T 0485/11 - link

IX. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"A method for data management in an analytical laboratory,
comprising the steps of:
- providing a plurality of containers for the laboratory analysis of biological specimens, each container being associated with a unique identification
code, placed on the container at the time of the production or packaging thereof;
- by means of a central computer, associating a patient code with a patient to be subjected to analysis;
- for each container used for said patient, generating in a data processing system a combination of said patient code and said identification code of
the corresponding container;
- carrying out, by means of at least one analyzer, at least one analysis on the container or containers used for said patient, the analyzer entering the
results of said analysis, combined with the identification code of the container or containers, into the data processing system,
wherein said identification code contains additional data relating to the type of analysis for which said container is intended, and wherein the analyzer
receiving a container reads the identification code and checks that the type of analysis for which the container is intended corresponds to the analysis which
the analyzer is to carry out."

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Main request - Article 56 EPC

2.1 It was common ground in the written and oral submissions of both the appellant and the respondent that E1 represents the closest prior art to the subject-matter of the granted claims. Both parties also agreed that, as stated in the decision under appeal, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs in substance from the disclosure of E1 in that: