Application of the steps of the problem-solution approach according to G‑VII, 5.4:
Step (i): The features contributing to the technical character are at first glanceidentified as a distributed system comprising a mobile device connected to a server computer which has a cache memory and is connected to a database.
Step (ii): Document D1, which discloses a method for facilitating shopping on a mobile device wherein the user selects a single product and the server determines from a database the vendor selling the selected product nearest to the user and transmits this information to the mobile device, is selected as the closest prior art.
Step (iii): The differences between the subject-matter of claim 1 and D1 are:
Differences (1) and (2) represent modifications of the underlying business concept, since they define producing an ordered list of shops to visit which sell these products. No technical purpose is served, and no technical effects can be identified from these differences. Hence, these features make no technical contribution over D1. On the other hand, difference (3) makes a technical contribution as it relates to the technical implementation of differences (1) and (2) and has the technical effect of enabling rapid determination of the optimal shopping tour by accessing previous requests which are stored in a cache memory.
Step (iii)(c): The objective technical problem is to be formulated from the perspective of the person skilled in the art as an expert in a technical field (G‑VII, 3). Such a person is not deemed to have any expertise in business-related matters. In the present case, he can be defined as an expert in information technology who gains knowledge of the business-related features (1) and (2) as part of the formulation of the technical problem to be solved, as would be the case in a realistic situation in the form of a requirement specification. The objective technical problem is thus formulated as how to modify the method of D1 to implement in a technically efficient manner the non-technical business concept defined by the differences (1) and (2), which is given as a constraint to be met.
Step (i): Underlying the claimed method is the following business method:
A method for brokering offers and demands in the field of freight transportation, comprising:
Such a business method is per se non-technical and excluded under Art. 52(2)(c)and (3). Brokering offers and demands is a typical business activity. Using the geographical location of users is the kind of criterion which a transportation broker could specify as part of a business method based on non-technical, business considerations only. This business method does not serve any technical purpose in the context of the invention and thus does not contribute to its technical character.
Therefore, only the features related to the technical implementation of this business method can be identified as the features contributing to the technical character of the invention:
Step (ii): As a suitable starting point, document D1, which discloses a method of order management in which a server computer receives location information from GPS terminals, is selected as the closest prior art.
Step (iii): The difference between the subject-matter of claim 1 and D1 is thus the computer implementation of the steps of the business method defined above.
The technical effect of this difference is merely the automation of the business method underlying claim 1. The conclusion reached in step (i) holds, since the only distinguishing feature making a technical contribution is the technical implementation of this business method.
Step (iii)(c): The objective technical problem is formulated as how to adapt the method of D1 so as to implement the business method of brokering offers and demands according to the user’s current location. The person skilled in the art is considered to be a software project team and is given the knowledge of the business method in the form of a requirement specification.
Obviousness: Adapting the method of D1 to execute the business method steps is straightforward and requires routine programming only. Therefore, no inventive step is involved in the sense of Art. 52(1) and Art. 56.
Remarks: In this example, it was clear from the initial analysis at step (i) that underlying the claimed method was a method for brokering offers and demands, which as such is a business method. The features defining the business method were easily separable from the technical features of its computer implementation. Therefore, this example illustrates a line of argument in which it was possible in step (i) to determine all the features which contribute to the technical character of the invention and all those which do not. This line of argument pertains more to the field of computer-implemented business methods and might be less suitable in other fields.
Application of the steps of the problem-solution approach according to G‑VII, 5.4:
Step (i): At first glance, all features appear to contribute to the technical character of the invention.
Step (ii): Document D1, which discloses a system for broadcasting video over an xDSL connection to the set-top boxes of subscribers, is selected as the closest prior art. The system comprises a database storing identifiers of subscribers’ computers and, in association with them, an indication of the maximum data rate for the data connection to each subscriber’s computer. The system further comprises means for transmitting the video to a subscriber’s computer at the maximum data rate stored for said computer.
Step (iii): The differences between the subject-matter of claim 1 and D1 are:
The purpose served by using an “available data rate” which is lower than a maximum data rate for the data connection to the remote client is not apparent from the claim. Therefore, the relevant disclosure in the description is taken into account. In the description, it is explained that a pricing model is provided which allows a customer to choose from several service levels, each service level corresponding to an available data-rate option having a different price. A user may select an available data rate lower than the maximum data rate possible with his connection in order to pay less. Hence, using an available data rate which is lower than the maximum data rate for the connection to the remote client addresses the aim of allowing a customer to choose a data-rate service level according to that pricing model. This is not a technical aim, but an aim of a financial, administrative or commercial nature and thus falls under the exclusion of schemes, rules and methods for doing business in Art. 52(2)(c). It may thus be included in the formulation of the objective technical problem as a constraint to be met.
The features of storing the available data rate and of using it to determine the rate at which the data is transmitted have the technical effect of implementing this non-technical aim.
Background: The claim is directed to a method carried out by a computer for the numerical simulation of the performance of an electronic circuit subject to 1/f noise, which is one of the main sources of noise in electronic circuits. Features (a)-(c) specify the mathematical model used in the numerical simulation. It involves a noise vector y of 1/f-distributed random numbers, i.e. random numbers having a particular statistical property typical of real (physical) 1/f noise. Steps (d1)-(d3) define the mathematical algorithm used for generating these random numbers. According to the description, this mathematical algorithm is particularly efficient in terms of computation time and storage resources required to generate the random numbers needed for the simulation.
Application of the steps of the problem-solution approach according to G‑VII, 5.4:
Step (i): The use of a computer to carry out the claimed method is a clearly technical feature. The question is whether the other features, in particular the mathematical algorithm of steps (d1)-(d3), also contribute to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter. Considered in isolation, steps (d1)-(d3) represent a mathematical method with no technical character. However, the claim is not directed to this mathematical method as such (which would be excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2)(a) and (3)) but is limited to a computer-implemented method in which this mathematical method serves the numerical simulation of the performance of an electronic circuit subject to 1/f noise, which is considered to be a technical purpose (G‑II, 3.3). Features (a)-(c) ensure that the claim is functionally limited to this technical purpose by specifying the mathematical model used in the simulation and how the generated noise vector y is used in it, i.e. they establish the link between the stated purpose of the method and steps (d1)-(d3). Furthermore, the mathematical model specified by features (a)-(c) defines how the numerical simulation is performed and thus also contributes to the above-mentioned technical purpose. As a result, all the steps relevant to the circuit simulation, including the mathematically expressed claim features (d1)-(d3), contribute to the technical character of the method to the extent that they are relevant for circuit simulation.
Step (ii): Document D1, which discloses a method for numerical simulation of the performance of an electronic circuit subject to 1/f noise with steps (a)-(c) but with a different mathematical algorithm for generating the 1/f-distributed random numbers, is selected as closest prior art.
Step (iii): The difference between the methods of claim 1 and D1 is the mathematical algorithm used to generate the vector of 1/f-distributed random numbers, i.e. steps (d1)-(d3). The algorithm defined by steps (d1)-(d3) requires less computer resources than that used in D1. In the context of the claimed method, this results directly in a reduction of the computer resources required for the numerical simulation of the performance of an electronic circuit subject to 1/f noise, which is the technical effect achieved over D1.
Step (iii)(c): The objective technical problem solved with respect to D1 is formulated as how to generate the 1/f-distributed random numbers used in the numerical simulation of the performance of an electronic circuit subject to 1/f noise in a manner which requires less computer resources.
Obviousness: No prior art suggests the algorithm defined by steps (d1)-(d3) as a solution to the objective technical problem. The invention as claimed is therefore considered to involve an inventive step.
Remarks: This example illustrates the situation addressed in G‑VII, 5.4, second paragraph: features which, when taken in isolation, are non-technical, but do, in the context of the claimed invention, contribute to producing a technical effect serving a technical purpose. Such features are considered to contribute to the technical character of the invention and may therefore support the presence of an inventive step.
Note that if the claim were not limited to the numerical simulation of an electronic circuit subject to 1/f noise, the mathematical algorithm defined by steps (d1)-(d3) would not serve any technical purpose and would thus not be considered to contribute to the technical character of the claim (requiring less computer resources than another mathematical algorithm being on its own not sufficient in this respect; see G‑II, 3.3).