Decision in T 1284/04 - Loan System/KING
Case number:
T 1284/0
Headword:
Loan System/KING Summary of Facts and Submissions:
- This appeal is against the decision of the examining division to
refuse the patent application on the ground that method claims
81 to 112 did not define patentable subject-matter (Article
52(2)© and (3) EPC). In an obiter dictum it was stated that
the invention according to all claims 1 to 112 would lack an
inventive step over common general knowledge (Article 56 EPC).
Document DE-A-41 36 320 was cited as evidence that computer
means and data processors had been used in the field of
financial activities before the priority date of the
application.
- The notice of appeal was received on 5 August 2004. The appeal
fee was paid on the same day. In the statement setting out the
grounds of appeal, received on 8 October 2004, it was requested
that the decision of the examining division be set aside and a
patent be granted on the basis of claims 1 to 112.
- In a communication annexed to a summons to oral proceedings, the
Board expressed doubts with respect to the allowability of the
amendments made to claim 81 before the examining division and
the inventive activity of the subject-matter defined by claims
1, 40 and 81.
- By letter dated 26 February 2007, the appellant filed an
auxiliary request in which claim 81 had been amended in order to
overcome the objections under Article 123(2) EPC.
- Oral proceedings were held on 7 March 2007. The appellant argued
that a new data processing architecture had been invented. The
so-called account management data processor must not be
considered as merely a general-purpose computer. It performed
the additional task of periodically adjusting the level of
compensation on financial contracts. According to the invention
only a single data processor was needed whereas a conventional
account management data processor would have to be combined with
a further data processor. Functions were grouped in a specific
way so that they could be re-used, thereby saving implementation
time, processor power and communication bandwidth. The
application of the “Comvik” approach according to decision
T 641/00 was criticized as not complying with the EPC because it
filtered out features not contributing to the technical
character from the assessment of inventive step, these features
being effectively considered as belonging to the prior art.
- The appellant requested that a patent be granted on the basis of
claims 1 to 112 as annexed to the decision appealed (main
request), alternatively that the case be remitted to the
department of the first instance for further prosecution (first
auxiliary request), or that a patent be granted on the basis of
the claims of the main request but with claim 81 being replaced
by the version submitted by letter of 26 February 2007 (second
auxiliary request).
- Claim 81 of the main request reads as follows:
A computer based method of supporting the creation,
servicing and payment of financial contracts and the
operation of a plurality of financial accounts connected
thereto having terms and conditions which provide
repayment of monies tendered by one entity to another on
a date or dates in the future, along with periodically
provided compensation thereon, for the purpose of
protecting the solvency of the issuing entity and
providing reasonable compensation to contractholders
said method comprising the steps of:
storing the negotiated terms and conditions of a
financial contract with an identified contractholder
into at least one electronic database;
periodically adjusting by an account management data
processor coupled with the at least one electronic
database the level of compensation on the financial
contract to produce a rate of compensation tied to an
external benchmark and to determined inputs based on
such terms and conditions, allowing the issuing entity
to establish a lower rate of compensation in any period
in which its solvency or deteriorating credit quality,
including with respect to the business activity to which
the contract relates, is otherwise threatened in
exchange for establishment of a higher rate of
compensation during periods in which the results of a
formula computation exceed certain preagreed levels;
the account management data processor creates and
maintains one or more accounts in the at least one
electronic database to which funds received on the
issuance of the financial contract are allocated; and
utilizing one or more computers to interact and update
said accounts maintained in said memory means and report
the data contained therein.
Independent claims 1 and 40 define computer-based data systems
processing financial contracts.
- In claim 81 according to the second auxiliary request
the last
feature reads as follows:
utilizing data processing means to interact and update
said accounts maintained in said memory means and report
the data contained therein.
- At the end of the oral proceedings, the Chairman announced the
decision.
Reasons for the Decision:
- Admissibility of the appeal
The appeal complies with the requirements referred to in Rule
65(1) EPC and is therefore admissible.
Main request
- ### Article 52(2) and (3) EPC ###
Claim 81 concerns a computer-implemented method. Pursuant to
decision T 258/03 – Auction method/HITACHI (OJ EPO 2004,575)
such a method has technical character and thus constitutes an
“invention” within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.
- Article 56 EPC
- According to the approach defined in decision T 641/00
– Two identities/COMVIK (OJ EPO 2003,352), an inventive
step can result only from claim features contributing to
a technical character. The Board regards this approach,
which has been applied explicitly or implicitly by the
Boards of Appeal for a long time (for references see
T 764/02 – Banking services/ONLINE RESOURCES, point 11,
not published in the OJ EPO), as well-established case
law.
The Board would nevertheless like to add that the COMVIK
approach does not consider the non-technical constraints
as belonging to the prior art, but rather as belonging
to the conception or motivation phase normally preceding
an invention since they may lead to a technical problem
without contributing to its solution. Such aspects have
never been taken into account for assessing inventive
step, irrespective of whether or not they were known
from the prior art (cf also the decisions cited in ”Case
Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent
Office”, 5th edition December 2006, chapter I.D.8.4).
In method claim 81, the operations of “storing” and
“adjusting” data using a computer comprising a data
processor and an electronic database are as such
technical. However, the other method steps only reflect
the concept of creating and administering financial
contracts for obtaining an improved adjustable rate loan
structure for financial institutions. That this concept
is non-technical is undisputed (cf the grounds of
appeal, point 2.5). Also the data on which the computer
operates (account data, compensation rates etc.) are
business-related.
- The appellant has argued that a new data processing
architecture has been invented (cf the grounds of
appeal, point 2.1). In particular, the so-called
“account management data processor” could not be
considered as merely a general-purpose computer since it
performed the additional task of periodically adjusting
the level of compensation on financial contracts. The
Board nevertheless doubts that merely naming a processor
“account management data processor” renders it
technically distinguishable from a general-purpose data
processor, the term “account management” being only a
label for the (non-technical) task the data processor
performs. In the Board’s view, no feature in claim 81
serves to define special computer architecture. Also the
description and the drawings are silent in this respect.
The closest prior art can therefore be taken to be a
general purpose computer of a kind used in the business
sector (see e.g. DE-A-41 36 320 describing a
computer-based method for implementing a financial
concept involving adjustments of a compensation rate,
cf the abstract or p. 1).
| - The appellant’s arguments in favour of an inventive step
are in the Board’s view not convincing. The financial
algorithm which the computer performs is in the Board’s
view a non-technical constraint as explained in decision
T 641/00. The specific grouping of functions (cf section
2.5.2 of the grounds of appeal) is regarded as part of
the financial concept. The application does not mention
any re-use of sub-routines. The appellant claims
advantages (implementation time, processor power,
communication bandwidth) which the invention would
obtain as compared with other possible configurations,
but since the application is silent also in these
respects such advantages (if any) cannot have been
surprising. The technical problem therefore is not to
provide a better system for adjusting a compensation
rate under the constraint of saving processor power, as
argued by the appellant at the oral proceedings before
the Board, but to implement the financial concept. A
computer implementation including one or more computers
and at least one electronic database is however
conventional.
- The subject-matter of claim 81 therefore lacks an
inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
Auxiliary request 1
- According to the approach defined in decision T 641/00
- The appellant has requested that the case be remitted to the
examining division if the Board finds that claim 81 of the main
request does not fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.
Since the Board refuses the main request under Article 56 EPC,
this request need not be considered.
Auxiliary request 2
- In claim 81 according to the second auxiliary request the term
“one or more computers” is replaced by “data processing means”.
This amendment does not change the technical content of the
claim. The claimed subject-matter thus lacks an inventive step
(Article 56 EPC) for the reasons already given with respect to
the main request.
Order:
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| T-04-1284 - Loan System - KING.pdf | 24.23 KB |