9.2.5 Non-technical features
In T 1784/06 the board confirmed the Comvik approach and held that it would appear paradoxical to recognise an inventive step on the basis of a non-technical innovation (such as an organisational, administrative, commercial or mathematical algorithm) having no technical implication other than the (obvious) desire for its implementation on a general-purpose computer. Where an intrinsically non-technical solution (here: a mathematical algorithm) seeks to derive a technical character from the problem solved, the problem must be technical. Otherwise, the solution remains non-technical and does not enter into the examination for an inventive step (T 566/11). The board agreed with the statement that a non-technical problem can have a technical solution. However, where an intrinsically non-technical solution (mathematical algorithm) seeks to derive a technical character from the problem solved, the problem must be technical.
In T 1145/10 the board stated that it may be acceptable to start the inventive-step assessment of a particular invention including a mix of technical and non-technical features from a "general-purpose computer system". However, the inventive-step reasoning should normally mention which features, especially which technical features of the invention, are anticipated by that well known prior art. Where specific technical features or functionality of the standard computerised system are required to implement the non-technical features, those specific well-known technical features and functionality should be clearly identified (see also T 1930/13).
In T 1379/11 the board held that the closest prior art is usually chosen on the basis of the technical problem to be solved and/or the technical features of the invention. The closest prior art does not normally have to include non-technical features of the claim. On the other hand, features which would, when taken in isolation, be considered non-technical may nonetheless impose technical requirements or contribute to the technical character of the invention. Such features should be taken into account when choosing a starting point for assessing inventive step.
In T 483/11 the board held that a feature does not automatically inherit the technical character of the context in which it occurs. The feature must, itself, make a contribution to the technical context or the technical aspects of the invention (see also T 1722/12).