9.2. Problem-solution approach when applied to mixed-type inventions
9.2.1 The Comvik approach
The Comvik approach was applied in T 641/00 (OJ 2003, 352). It replaced the "contribution approach" customary until then (for the contribution approach, see in particular T 121/85; T 38/86, OJ 1990, 384; T 95/86; T 603/89, OJ 1992, 230; T 71/91; T 236/91; T 833/91; T 77/92). The contribution approach had been abandoned as early as T 1173/97 (OJ 1999, 609, point 8 of the Reasons; see also G 3/08 date: 2010-05-12, OJ 2011, 10, point 10.6 of the Reasons), it being held that features already known from the prior art could form the basis for a finding that the requirements of Art. 52 (2) and (3) EPC were met. The Comvik approach (T 641/00) is a conventional application of the problem-solution approach where the differences from the closest prior art are determined and only those that contribute to technical character are considered for inventive step.
In T 641/00 the board specified that an inventive step can only be acknowledged for an invention which makes a technical contribution to the art (see, inter alia, T 38/86, OJ 1990, 384; T 1173/97; T 1784/06, T 258/03 (OJ 2004, 575)), i.e. a contribution in a technical field. The case law of the boards of appeal has also developed the understanding that the examples of subject-matter excluded from patentability given in Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC 1973 concern fields considered to be non-technical.
In T 258/03 (OJ 2004, 575) the board noted that one compelling reason for not refusing subject-matter consisting of technical and non-technical features under Art. 52(2) EPC 1973 is simply that the technical features may in themselves turn out to fulfil all the requirements of Art. 52(1) EPC 1973. It is often difficult to separate a claim into technical and non-technical features, and an invention may have technical aspects which are hidden in a largely non-technical context. Such technical aspects may be easier to identify within the framework of the examination as to inventive step, which, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, is concerned with the technical aspects of an invention. Thus, in addition to the restrictive wording of Art. 52(3) EPC 1973 limiting the applicability of Art. 52(2) EPC 1973, there may be practical reasons for generally regarding mixes of technical and non-technical features as inventions within the meaning of Art. 52(1) EPC 1973.
In T 531/03 the board stated that an attempt to take into account the contribution of non-technical and technical aspects on an equal footing in the assessment of inventive step would not be in conformity with the EPC, since the presence of inventive step would in such an approach be attributed to features which are defined in the EPC as not being an invention.
In T 912/05, although the board agreed with T 641/00 (OJ 2003, 352) and T 258/03 (OJ 2004, 575), it found that in the case at issue it was not necessary to seek to separate features that were essentially business-related, and thus not relevant for the solution of a technical problem, from those features that, as essentially technical, should be taken into account when assessing inventive step. It concluded that the assessment of the inventive step of a business-related method might be possible without a preliminary clear-cut separation between business-related features and technical features.
In T 1462/11 the board held that, as has been the case since T 641/00, non-technical elements do not contribute to inventive step, and, to that end, may appear in the formulation of the objective technical problem. If the essential idea of the invention lies in a non-technical field (usually one excluded by Art. 52(2) EPC), the objective technical problem often amounts to a statement of requirements that any implementation must meet.
In T 1784/06 the board noted that the established way of assessing inventive step under Art. 56 EPC made reference to Art. 52 EPC. However, this did not mean that the assessment of the two requirements was "mixed". In T 1461/12 as well, the board observed that the Comvik approach did not involve an inadmissible mixing of the requirements of Art. 52 and 56 EPC, which were still to be examined separately. Inventive step, however, required a technical contribution to the prior art (see, in particular, T 38/86, OJ 1990, 384; T 1173/97; T 1784/06), i.e. a contribution in a technical field.
- T 1594/20
Abstract
In T 1594/20 bezweifelte die Kammer, dass überhaupt eine Simulation eines technischen Gegenstands vorlag. Eine mathematisch rechnerische Optimierung bewirke nicht zwangsläufig auch eine Simulation des zugrunde liegenden physikalischen Vorgangs (hier Warentransport), sondern es seien vom hier vorliegenden Anspruchsgegenstand auch rein deterministische mathematische Optimierungen umfasst. Die optimierte Aufteilung eines Kommissionierauftrags nach rein kaufmännischen Kostenbetrachtungen (z.B. break-even-point) sei ebenso umfasst wie mathematische Optimierungsalgorithmen analog zum bekannten travelling-salesman-problem. Dabei werden kognitive geschäftsbezogene Daten verarbeitet und es liegen keine technischen Überlegungen zugrunde, die zu einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit nach Art. 56 EPÜ beitragen könnten.
Die Beschwerdeführerin argumentierte, dass mit dem beanspruchten Gegenstand eine Reduktion der Anzahl von Fahrten erreicht werde und damit eine Energieeinsparung verbunden sei. Die Kammer war davon nicht überzeugt. Eine geltend gemachte Energieeinsparung sei rein spekulativ und könne nicht ohne weiteres zur Annahme eines technischen Effekts führen. Dazu wäre erforderlich, dass ein solcher Effekt mit technischen Mitteln erreicht werde. Beim beanspruchten Gegenstand wäre eine Energieeinsparung (sofern tatsächlich erzielt) aber Folge einer rein organisatorischen oder algorithmischen Optimierung, die im Wesentlichen auf einer gedanklichen Tätigkeit basiere. Daraus könne kein technischer Effekt zur Berücksichtigung einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit abgeleitet werden. Die Kammer stimmte daher der angefochtenen Entscheidung zu, dass die objektive technische Aufgabe darin bestand, das mathematische Verfahren zur Warenkommissionierung, welches vom Geschäftsmann der Logistik als Spezifikation vorgegeben wurde, auf einem Computersystem zu implementieren. Bei der Implementierung sah die Kammer keinen technischen Effekt, welcher über die reine Automatisierung hinausging.