Decision in T 52/85 - Listing semantically related linguistic expressions/IBM

does not give rise to an objection under this Article since the

originally claimed method already implied the system as claimed

now for carrying out that method.

claimed does not concern an invention within the meaning of

Article 52(1) EPC.

The considerations on which this conclusion is based will be

set forth below.

linguistics such as text processing and that activity is

carried out by a processing system including a processor. The

preferred embodiment described is a program controlled

conventional general purpose computer, the program instructions

causing the processor to carry out the processing.

The issue to be decided in the present case is whether this

subject-matter is excluded from patentability under Article

52(2) and (3) EPC.

sought for a system (intended and suitable) for automatically

generating a list of expressions semantically related to an

input linguistic expression.

technical nature but a matter of the meaning of those

expressions, i.e. of their abstract linguistic

information content; it does not relate to any

physical entity. A semantical relationship can be

found by performing mental acts only, with no technical

means involved.

This does not necessarily mean that any system

automatically concatenating, in place of a human being,

semantically related expressions to a list is excluded

from patentability. Rather, this will depend on whether

the manner in which it is automated, involves features

which make a contribution in a field outside the range

of matters excluded from patentability under Article

52(2) and (3) EPC.

2. According to the “means” part of the precharacterising

portion of Claim 1, the system comprises: an input

device, a (first) memory, and a display device.

The input device is intended for inputting the

linguistic expression. The (first) memory stores a

vocabulary of linguistic expressions (including a

pre-sorted index of said vocabulary, each linguistic

expression including address code keyed to said index).

The display device is intended for displaying

linguistic expressions (this is understood as meaning

the list of semantically related expressions).

An input device, a memory and a display device, all

being conventional parts of a computer, and the

function of these elements always being that of

inputting, storing and displaying data, the

contribution made by their aforementioned functions

relates only to the kind of data so treated. Those data

are, however, featured only by their linguistic

properties, namely their semantical relationship. So,

these features do not make a contribution in a field

outside the linguistic significance of the data stored.

3. According to the characterising portion of Claim 1, the

system comprises a second memory and (not expressly

mentioned) further storing means, and a number of

logics.

Memories and other storing means as well as logics are

conventional means in any computer, and storing,

comparing etc. are all conventional functions of

memories or logics, respectively. So it is left to

examine what contribution is made by the particulars

in the individual functions defined in the

characterising features:

• A second memory stores data linking the address

  codes of the linguistic expressions stored in

  said first memory, being arranged as a logical

  representation of the matrix type with N inputs

  where N is equal to the number of linguistic

  expressions of the vocabulary stored in said

  first memory.

• Comparison logic compares the input linguistic

  expression to said pre-sorted index for finding

  the address location of said input linguistic

  expression in said first memory.

• Storing means (not expressly mentioned) stores

  the address code associated with the stored

  linguistic expression when an equal occurs.

• Access logic is intended for accessing said

  second memory at the address specified for the

  stored address code.

• Decode logic is intended for decoding the data

  stored at the accessed address into address

  codes for said first memory.

• Utilisation logic is intended for utilising

  the corresponding address codes to access said

  linguistic expressions stored in said first

  memory.

• Concatenation logic is intended for

  concatenating the accessed linguistic

  expressions located at the address codes in

  said first memory into said display device.

In effect, these features show the following sequence

of functions: for an input linguistic expression, its

memory address is looked up; then the second memory is

accessed with it; with the read out data the first

memory is accessed; all the linguistic expressions so

gathered are displayed.

These functions as such are all conventional: storing

data; comparing input data with an index for finding

an address location; storing the address; accessing

with it a memory; decoding the addressed data;

utilising the decoded data as an address for

accessing another memory; displaying the addressed

data. All that goes beyond these functions relates

merely to the linguistic meaning of the words stored,

compared, etc. in coded form, namely to their property

of either being, or not being, semantically related to

other stored words, the second memory having been

“pre-programmed” with the semantical relationship to be

applied.

It follows that the functional features of the

individual system elements relate to the linguistic

evaluation, on the basis of a linguistic relationship,

of input linguistic data, for the purpose of displaying

a linguistic result, the actual processing involving

only conventional techniques of storing, accessing etc.

coded data.

No contribution is therefore made in a field outside

linguistics nor outside the field of conventional

computer performance.

4. Moreover, the functioning of the computer is, in the

only embodiment which has been described (page 3,

lines 23 to 28) and which is preferred (page 7,

lines 26 to 29), under control of an appropriate

program.

No contribution is consequently made in a field

outside computer programming either.

5. The present case is, for the above reasons, to be

distinguished from cases where a program controlled

computer is used for processing data or signals

which represent physical entities in a technical

process. In such cases a contribution is made in a

field outside the range of matters excluded from

patentability, in particular outside computer

programming. For instance, in one case already

decided ([node:25, title=“T 208/84”], OJ EPO 1987, 14), this

contribution consisted in enhancing or restoring the

technical quality of digitally processed images; in

another ([node:67, title=“T 26/86”], OJ EPO 1988, 19), it consisted in

controlling an X-ray tube so as to ensure optimum

exposure with efficient protection against

overloading of the tube.

In contrast to such cases, the claimed system

displaying semantically related linguistic

expressions has no comparable technical effect and

makes no contribution, based on such a technical

effect, to the art.

6. No different conclusion can be drawn from the fact,

expressed in the description (page 7, lines 29 to

31), that the claimed invention can be implemented

as combinational logic forming a special purpose

processor or as micro-code rather than as a

programmable general purpose computer which is the

preferred implementation.

In the absence of any indication to the contrary,

such an implementation as micro-code, which is

understood as meaning an implementation by the

“operating system” or “system software” rather than

by a user program, or even as a special purpose

processor would only reside in the straightforward

realisation of an algorithm expressing the

linguistic relationship to be applied to the

linguistic data in the same way as it is realised

by a user program for a general purpose computer.

Nothing in the disclosure would point to a

contribution made by this implementation which goes

beyond the fields of linguistics and computer

functioning directly derived, like a program, from

the linguistic relationship to be applied.

7. The argument in the Statement of Grounds of Appeal,

that this invention comprises two functionally

separate memories which are controlled by the

micro-code of the operating system is not

considered, in the circumstances, as proving that

new reconfigured hardware is involved.

The distinction suggested by the Appellant between

“logical” configuration of the memory by an

application program input by the user, and a

“controlled” configuration by the micro-code of the

operating system, appears artificial as far as the

exclusion of software from patentability is

concerned. In both cases, a single physical memory

can be used which would be reconfigured only

functionally either by user software or by system

software.

8. The Appellant has further maintained that the

invention as now claimed is a technical solution

of a technical problem.

As regards the problem, the finding of semantically

related linguistic expressions has to do with the

linguistic significance of words and is thus a

linguistic problem. No technical problem of the

computer is to be solved.

As regards the solution, technically the computer

does not seem to work in an unusual way.

Functionally it works in the following way: an

input expression is examined as to whether there

are other expressions with which it is semantically

related, the semantical relationship having been

pre-stored in a memory. This is, in effect, nothing

else but what a human being searching for

semantically related words would do, namely check

his memory for any such words. The solution claimed

is thus the straightforward automation of said

linguistic problem.

It remains, of course, true that internally a

computer functions technically and this applies also

to its display device. However, the effect of this

function, namely the resulting information about the

existence of semantically related expressions, is a

purely linguistic, i.e. non- technical result.

The Appellant agrees that the claimed system can be

implemented by pure software and this implementation

is the only one described and preferred. No new

reconfigured hardware has been shown to be used in

this case. As said before, the two memories can be

different sections of a single (conventional) memory.

In the opinion of the Board, this new reconfiguration

by software is not a technical contribution here.

No other conclusion can therefore be drawn than that

the subject-matter of Claim 1 does not contribute

anything to a field not excluded from patentability

by the provisions of Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.

System Claim 1 can therefore not be allowed.

For instance, Claim 2 only more clearly defines the quadratic

matrix of the second memory which can be configured by

software. It has not been shown that, in the case of a pure

software implementation, new reconfigured hardware is

involved by this software controlled memory partitioning and

configuration. The operation of the processor is not being

changed by the said software.

elements defined in Claim 1 and adds nothing in substance to

them.

For this reason, its subject-matter contributes no more to the

art than the subject-matter of Claim 1.

Method Claim 11, and its dependent Claims 12 to 20, can

therefore not be allowed either.

[node:206, title=“T 38/86”] dated 14 February 1989 (to be published).