Imagine a factory where human operators control production devices. The system monitors each operator’s performance and restricts access based on their productivity. The idea is to prevent low-performing operators from causing further decreases in the system’s efficiency.
This idea forms the basis of European patent application No. 14879893.7. But does such a system involve an inventive step?
The Main Question
The central question in this case, T 2619/22, revolves around whether restricting an operator’s access to a production system based on their performance involves an inventive step. The board of appeal had to assess whether this method was a mere managerial decision or if it brought about a technical effect.
The Board’s Decision
The Board dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the examining division that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
The main arguments (see reasons no. 1.4 of the decision) were:
- The claimed invention automates the work of a manager. This includes observing workers individually, detecting performance issues, and restricting the type of work they are authorized to do.
- All these actions are non-technical requirements. Following the COMVIK approach, the technical problem is how to implement the non-technical requirements on the prior art computer system.
- The claim lacks any implementation details beyond using standard a computer. Carrying out the non-technical actions on a conventional computer, however, was obvious to a skilled person.
A Textbook Application of the COMVIK Approach
The board’s reasoning is a straightforward application of the EPO’s COMVIK approach, which has been the guiding principle for assessing software and AI-related inventions for over two decades. Under COMVIK:
- The invention is analyzed by distinguishing technical and non-technical features.
- Non-technical features (e.g., business logic, mathematical models) can be part of the problem statement but cannot contribute to inventive step.
- Inventive step is assessed based on whether the remaining technical features provide a non-obvious solution to a technical problem.
The COMVIK approach remains the cornerstone of assessing software inventions, espcially those relating to artificial intelligence (AI), and cases like T 2619/22 illustrate how the EPO consistently applies it.
If you want to become better at drafting software patents and making technical effect arguments, get on my mailing list. I’ll send you case studies like these, practical checklists for your daily work, and an exclusive 20% discount for my seminars.
All the best,
Bastian