T 0905/21 (Providing targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device protection program/ASSURANT, INC.) 27-05-2024

Reasons for the Decision

1. Background of the invention

1.1 The invention concerns the provision of targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device protection plan, see [0001]. Wireless device protection plans or programs come in the form of insurance and warranty programs. They involve the payment of a premium by a user to cover for simple repairs or replacement of the insured device. These plans or programs include the ability to receive a replacement device of like kind and quality within a short period of time.

1.2 The invention addresses the issue that customer satis-faction is a key component in managing an effective wireless device protection program. It is desirable to provide improved mechanisms of providing fulfilment of claims in a wireless device protection program in order to have an increased likelihood of maintaining or im­pro­ving customer satisfaction, see [0004].

1.3 The solution is the provision of a targeted fulfilment engine for execution of a predictive model that defines an aggregated weighted value that accounts for factors affecting multiple parties using a series of component weighted values. The model and apparatus increase the timeliness of the computer processing in­volved in the claim fulfilment process to meet the rigorous time requirements of claim fulfilment.

2. Main request - Article 56 EPC

2.1 The claims of the main request correspond to those of the refused main request, subject to corrections to claims 2 and 11 to correct typographical errors, see page 2 of the grounds.

2.2 The application was refused for a lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC), because the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was an obvious implementa­tion of a commercial scheme of processing user claims associated with a wireless device protection program on a notoriously known networked computer system, compri­sing client terminals.

The commercial scheme was seen to be defined by the functional features of claim 1 which were considered to be non-technical, whereas the features "apparatus com­prising a processor coupled to a memory, the memory comprising instructions that cause the processor to configure the apparatus to" were seen to be technical.

The examining division argued that the fact that user claims have to be processed in a short period of time was a commercial constraint rather than a technical issue, see points 4.2, 4.3 and 6 of the impugned decision, and the provision of a model taking into account time con­straints and other factors such as processing ability were not deemed to be technical solutions. Accuracy of fulfilment was understood as commercial accuracy and rigorous time requirements of a claim fulfilment was a business constraint.

The examining division further considered the use of an interface for presenting infor­mation to be notoriously known. Receiving information from a client terminal was seen to be well-known in the art and the reception of claim information in such a way was seen to be an obvious choice.

2.3 The appellant contested the non-technical interpreta­tion of the claimed scheme of processing user claims asso­cia­­­ted with a wireless device protection program. While greater customer loyalty might be a non-technical ad­vantage of the invention, the appellant argued that they are a consequence of technical improvements of a reduced computer processing time and of the sharing of processing functions between multiple devices.

The appellant argued that claim 1 addresses the objective technical problem of how to provide rapid and accurate claim fulfilment, while maintaining a required level of complexity. The solution is a targeted fulfilment engine which is part of the opera­tion of the apparatus itself, see [0024] of the patent application. It executes a unique predictive model. The unique model and appa­ra­tus increase the timeliness of the computer processing involved in the claim fulfilment process to meet the rigorous time requirements of a claim fulfilment. They make the apparatus operate more quickly.

The appellant thus considered that the manner in which the time limit is met relates to the actual behaviour of the computer system and is therefore technical. The claims require specific, in some in­stan­ces, distinct apparatuses that improve the computa­tio­nal efficiency of the claimed apparatuses and systems by carrying out the steps of the claims.

2.4 The appellant's arguments are not convincing. The application mentions time to correspond to the contract life remaining as part of the contractual commitment, see [0036] of the application. While [0044] and [0045] mention to reduce computation times for the fulfilment of a claim, which is achieved by the options manager, a part of the fulfilment engine (Figure 2), modify­ing pre­deter­mined options and by providing updated tar­geted fulfilment solutions or options for a subscri­ber. In this context, as explained in [0045], the rapidness or the time of fulfilment appears to depend on the type of customer, in other words, certain customers are selected for receiving claim fulfilment faster than others.

2.5 The Board therefore agrees with the examining division that time is - in this context - a mere business con­straint. Furthermore, if a model and an en­gine for claim fulfilment are set up in a unique manner, that claim fulfilment may be achieved faster, for example, in that the apparatus operates faster, then this is a mere bonus effect of a busi­ness model.

2.6 Claim 1 of the main request does therefore not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

3. Auxiliary requests

3.1 The claims of the first auxiliary request correspond to those of the refused first auxiliary request.

3.2 The appellant argued that in view of the predictive model referred to in claim 1 customer claim fulfilment can be performed at the client terminal without using signifi­cant computational processing power in the client terminal. The reduction of minimum processing power required by the client terminal was a technical problem.

3.3 The appellant's arguments are not convincing.

The replacement of the term "apparatus" in claim 1 of the main request with the term "client terminal" does not lead to any surprising technical effect by opera­ting the apparatus as a client terminal, or by simply naming it as such, and the appellant did not provide any new convincing arguments. It is well-known in the art that client terminals, such as mobile terminals, may have a limited battery life and may be provided with only minimum processing power, compared to stand-alone, wired computer systems.

3.4 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request does therefore not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

3.5 The claims of the second auxiliary request correspond to those of the refused second auxiliary request, subject to additional amendments to address typogra­phical errors, see page 6 of the grounds.

3.6 The appellant argued that the features of calculating predetermined options for claim fulfilment before receiving claims information, introduced in claim 1, provide the technical effect of "reducing computa­tion times later on when a claim is initiated", see [0048] of the applica­tion. The pre-calculation of options was not a business idea, but a technical problem of how to reduce the on-demand computation required to determine the options for claim fulfilment without sacrificing accuracy.

3.7 The Board is not convinced by the appellant's argum­ents. In T 1148/18, reasons, points 12 and 13, the Board, in a diffe­rent composition, found that a proper data selec­tion may have an impact on and is important for pre­dic­tion accu­racy, which is, however, neither technical nor surpri­sing. The "data selection" in that case has the purpose of reducing the number of input variables which is comparable to the pre-calculation of the present invention. The Board shares the view expressed in T 1148/18, that the fact that less data requires less pro­cessing power is an inevi­table bonus effect resulting from the business related cal­cula­tions and, thus, cannot support an inventive step. The Board judges that this also applies to the pre-calculation of options according to present claim 1 and the effect of reduced processing power derived therefrom.

3.8 Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request does therefore not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

4. In conclusion, the main, first and second auxiliary request are not allowable under Article 56 EPC.