9.2.11 Assessment of features relating to mathematical algorithms
Overview
9.2.11 Assessment of features relating to mathematical algorithms
In T 1784/06 the board stated that as the algorithm is a mathematical (inter alia Boolean) method and mathematical methods as such are deemed to be non-inventions, mathematical algorithms may contribute to the technical character of an invention only in so far as they serve a technical purpose (Art. 52(2) and Art. 52(3) EPC), (see also T 208/84; T 1227/05, OJ 2007, 574; T 1358/09; T 306/10; T 566/11; T 2035/11; T 2249/13; T 2330/13).
In T 208/84 the board made a distinction between abstract concepts on the one hand and technical processes involving and modifying a "physical entity", such as an electrical signal, on the other hand. It held that a basic difference between a mathematical method and a technical process could be seen in the fact that a mathematical method or a mathematical algorithm was carried out on numbers (whatever these numbers may represent) and provided a result also in numerical form, the mathematical method or algorithm being only an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers. No direct technical result was produced by the method as such. In contrast thereto, if a mathematical method was used in a technical process, that process was carried out on a physical entity (which could be a material object but equally an image stored as an electric signal) by some technical means implementing the method and provided as its result a certain change in that entity.
In T 1161/04 the invention related to an apparatus for rebalancing a stock index. The board held that apart from the input means, processing means and output means, the features of the claim did not contribute to the technical character of the invention. They merely defined the computer operations necessary to implement an algorithm for rebalancing a capitalization-weighted stock index. The board further concluded that the data input to the claimed apparatus was cognitive and had no technical function. The processing performed on them comprised classification, scaling and redistribution. These steps concerned exclusively the cognitive content of the data (their numerical value) which was pure information processing and as such excluded as a mental act.
In T 1814/07 the application related to an automated collection and analysis patient care system and method for ordering and prioritising multiple health disorders to identify an index disorder. The board held that if a mathematical method is used in a technical process, and this process is carried out on a physical entity by some technical means implementing the method and provides as its result a change in that entity, it contributes to the technical character of the invention as a whole.
In T 2418/12 an algorithm suggested related terms. This was considered not to be a technical problem; whether terms were "related" to each other was a cognitive or linguistic matter and not a technical issue (T 1358/09, T 2230/10, T 2439/11). This was in line with the case law of the boards of appeal, which generally holds that algorithmic efficiency is not a technical effect (cf. T 1784/06, T 42/10, T 1370/11).
- T 1768/20
Catchword: see reasons 4.7 for exceptional cases in the sense of points 98 and 128 of G 1/19
- T 702/20
Catchword:
A neural network defines a class of mathematical functions which, as such, is excluded matter. As for other "nontechnical" matter, it can therefore only be considered for the assessment of inventive step when used to solve a technical problem, e.g. when trained with specific data for a specific technical task.
- T 366/20
Catchwords:
No technical effect of the distinguishing features over the disclosure of document D1 can be derived over the whole scope of claim 1 (see decision G 1/19 of 10 March 2021, sections 82 and 95).
- T 1158/17
Catchwords:
A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denyinCatchwords: A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denying a technical contribution of a claim feature applied in a technical context and involving technical considerations. Put another way, technical considerations in the technical context cannot be negated merely on the basis of a non-technical analogy. ... The analogy to a post office, essentially invoked by the contested decision, is used in technical literature in order to describe functionality of the transport layer (layer 4) of the OSI model. However, in the Board's view, it would not be sound to assert, only based on this analogy, that communication protocols implementing this layer's functionality lack technical character. (See points 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of the reasons).
- 2023 compilation “Abstracts of decisions”
- Annual report: case law 2022
- Summaries of decisions in the language of the proceedings