T 1526/19 (Modifying search results based on context/LENOVO) of 15.12.2022

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division to refuse European patent application No. 16173805.9 for lack of inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request and each of the first to fourth auxiliary requests over prior art document

D3: I. Seher, "A personalised Query Expansion Approach Using Context", University of Western Sydney, Australia, 2007, pages 1-294.

II. In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request considered in the decision under appeal or the auxiliary request filed with the grounds of appeal.

III. In a communication accompanying a summons to oral proceedings, the board expressed its preliminary opinion that claim 1 of the main request was not inventive over document D3 and that claim 1 of the auxiliary request was unclear and lacked inventive step. In addition, the auxiliary request did not seem to be admissible.

IV. In a letter of reply, the appellant informed the board that it would not attend the oral proceedings, without providing any arguments with regard to the board's preliminary opinion.

V. Oral proceedings were cancelled.

VI. The appellant's final request was that the contested decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request or, in the alternative, the auxiliary request.

VII. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"A method, comprising:

capturing, using a processor, context characteristics relating to a user (301);

storing, using a processor, the context characteristics relating to a user (302);

receiving, at a device, a search query comprising verbal input (303);

performing a search based on the verbal input, wherein the search is modified based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query; and

displaying, on a display device, search results returned from the search (305);

wherein the verbal input comprises at least one ambiguous search term; and

wherein modifying the search based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query comprises clarifying the at least one ambiguous search term based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query, characterized in that the at least one ambiguous search term includes exophoric, endophoric, or anaphoric terms: [sic]".

VIII. Claim 1 of the auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that at the end of the claim the colon has been replaced with a comma, and the following text has been added:

"wherein the performing comprises receiving search results from the search based on the search query, and wherein the search is modified by narrowing the search results based upon the at least one context characteristic."

Reasons for the Decision

Application

1. The application concerns a method for assisting a user in finding a particular file or information relating to a desired subject-matter even if the user is unable to articulate unambiguous search terms (see original description, paragraph [0013]).

1.1 The search method according to the invention uses stored "context characteristics" relating to the user, for example recent file activity, email activity or a user's location (paragraphs [0016] and [0028]). When a search query comprising at least one ambiguous search term is received, the search is modified on the basis of these "context characteristics" (paragraph [0038]). For example, the user's calendar information is used to determine which meeting the user refers to in the search query "find the file I need for the meeting" (paragraphs [0016] and [0017], [0028], [0030], Figure 3). Ambiguous terms may include exophoric, endophoric, and anaphoric terms, for example "this", "that", "these" and "those" (paragraphs [0030] and [0035]).

1.2 A search can be modified by narrowing the search results (original claim 2) or by modifying the search query (original claim 3). In some embodiments, the search results are narrowed based upon the context characteristics (see e.g. paragraphs [0033] and [0038]). In some embodiments, the search query is modified using relevant "context characteristics" in order to clarify the ambiguous terms (paragraph [0034]).

Main request

2. Document D3 discloses search methods using query expansion in which contextual information related to the user is used to improve the search result. The contextual information may be information that is user, task, and domain-specific (see e.g. pages 47, 48 and 51) and is used by a query expander to improve the search results (see also page 54, figure 3.3).

2.1 As explained in the decision under appeal, document D3 describes user queries expressed in natural language (pages 48, 49 and 62). This corresponds to "verbal input" of a search query. This has not been contested by the appellant.

Moreover, document D3 describes user requests coming from a telephone call and the need to convert them to text (see page 51, first paragraph). This means that document D3 also discloses using audio input for entering the natural-language queries.

Document D3 gives examples illustrating how contextual information is used for disambiguating (which corresponds to clarifying) terms of a query in natural language. For instance, if the user input is "Find a place for lunch", which is a query expressed in natural language, the query expander will use the contextual information (e.g. the user's preferred meals, preferred restaurants, and location of the user) relevant to the query to expand (i.e. modify) the query to obtain improved search results (see section 3.2.5 on pages 59 to 61 and figure 3.5). The term "place" in this example can be considered an ambiguous term that was clarified by the query expansion based on "at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query".

2.2 The appellant argued that document D3 did not disclose the following features:

(a1) [the verbal input comprises] at least one ambiguous search term,

(a2) [modifying the search based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query] comprises clarifying the at least one ambiguous search term based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query,

(a3) the at least one ambiguous search term includes exophoric, endophoric or anaphoric terms.

The board however agrees with the examining division that features (a1) and (a2) are not distinguishing features.

2.3 With regard to feature (a1), document D3 discloses that "words in natural language have inherent ambiguity" (page 22) and that the domain of the query, which is part of the contextual information, is used for disambiguation of query terms (page 66). Therefore, document D3 discloses that search queries expressed in natural language may contain ambiguous terms, which means that feature (a1) is disclosed in D3.

2.4 As explained above, one way of "modifying the search", as specified in (a2), is to modify the search query (see also original claim 3).

In the example of document D3 given above, the user input "Find a place for lunch" is a query expressed in natural language. The query expander will use the contextual information (e.g. the user's preferred meals, preferred restaurants, and location of the user) relevant to the query to expand (i.e. modify) the query to obtain improved search results (see section 3.2.5 on pages 59 to 61 and figure 3.5). The term "place" in this example can be considered an ambiguous term that was clarified by the query expansion based on "at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query".

Therefore, feature (a2) is disclosed in document D3 in combination with the other features of the search method of Chapter 3 of document D3 (pages 47 to 75).

2.5 In view of the above, the board concurs with the examining division that feature (a3) is the only feature distinguishing the claimed invention from the disclosure of document D3.

2.6 The appellant argued that the distinguishing features contributed to a technical effect in that they improved the efficiency of the computer-implemented search process, the management of computer resources required or the rate of data transfer in a corresponding communication link. The objective technical problem could be formulated as "[t]o further improve the search feature disclosed in D3 in such a way, that a user is assisted in performing a relevant search and also assisted in defining ambiguous search terms, which include exophoric, endophoric, or anaphoric terms".

According to the appellant, the skilled person starting from D3 would not arrive at the claimed invention. Document D3 did not deal with the problem of providing a further improved search feature to assist a user in performing a relevant search within vast amounts of stored information based on a query with ambiguous terms as in feature (a3). On the contrary, as for example disclosed on page xxii of D3, it was an object of the method of D3 to provide a personalised query expansion and an architecture required for a Web application to carry out a personalised query expansion with contextual information.

The board does not find these arguments convincing. As explained above, the personalised query expansion of document D3 based on the contextual information corresponds to the claim's search modification based on "at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query".

The idea of taking into account the exophoric, endophoric, or anaphoric terms for disambiguation is purely linguistic. Adding feature (a3) to the method of D3 may arguably contribute to more accurately finding the information the user is actually looking for "within vast amounts of information". However, this is not a technical effect (see e.g. decisions T 598/14, Reasons 2.4; T 189/19, Reasons 4.7).

Moreover, the board does not recognise a technical effect in the form of a saving of computing resources indirectly achieved by returning search results which better meet the user's informational needs. Also in the present case, distinguishing feature (a3) does not result in a reduced usage of storage space or of any other computer resources. Whether such an effect is present depends on the user's cognitive and/or subjective reaction to the query results (see e.g. decision T 1741/08, Reasons 2.1.6).

2.7 Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is not inventive (Article 56 EPC).

Auxiliary request

3. Claim 1 of the auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request essentially in that the following text has been added at the end of the claim

(a4) wherein the performing comprises receiving search results from the search based on the search query, and wherein the search is modified by narrowing the search results based upon the at least one context characteristic.

3.1 These features correspond to the features of claim 2 of the main request and were specified in claim 1 of the refused third auxiliary request.

4. Admissibility

4.1 The auxiliary request can be seen as a legitimate attempt to overcome the ground for refusal of lack of an inventive step. In exercising its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, the board admits the auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings.

5. Clarity and claim interpretation - claim 1

5.1 Claim 1 specifies the step of "performing a search based on the verbal input, wherein the search is modified based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query" and that "modifying the search based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query comprises clarifying the at least one ambiguous search term" of the verbal input constituting the query.

This means that in the claimed step of "performing a search" the original search query (mentioned in the feature "receiving, at a device, a search query comprising verbal input") is modified to obtain a modified search query with clarified terms to be used. This claimed step of "performing a search" is thus a step of performing a modified search query.

5.2 Features (a4) further specify that the same step of "performing a search" comprises "receiving search results from the search based on the search query". Since the claimed step of "performing a search" to which features (a4) refers is a step of performing a modified search query, it is not clear whether "the search query" of features (a4) is to be interpreted as referring to the original search query entered by the user mentioned in the feature "receiving, at a device, a search query comprising verbal input" or to the search query modified "based on at least one context characteristic relevant to the search query" comprising clarifying "at least one ambiguous search term".

5.3 In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant argued that document D3 did not provide a hint or suggestion to the skilled person that there might be some improvement or advantage "if he would not use the context data to modify the search query and rather first perform a search based on the search query and thereafter modify the search results by narrowing the search results based upon the at least one context characteristic". Hence, the appellant takes the view that the "search query" of features (a4) refers to the original, unmodified search query. However, with this interpretation features (a4) contradict the earlier definition of the step of performing a search based on a modified search query.

5.4 Therefore, claim 1 of the auxiliary request does not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

Concluding remark

6. Since neither of the requests is allowable, the appeal is to be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.