T 0905/21 (Providing targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device … of 27.5.2024

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This appeal is against the decision of the examining division to refuse the European patent application No.18196762.1 pursuant to Article 97(2) EPC on the ground of lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

II. This contested decision was issued according to the state of the file, as requested by the then applicant.

III. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted based on the main request, or alternatively, upon one of the first or second auxiliary requests, all filed with the grounds of appeal.

IV. In a communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the Board set out its preliminary opinion that the invention did not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

V. In a reply the appellant informed the Board that he would not be attending the oral proceedings.

VI. The oral proceedings took place as scheduled. The appellant requests were as initially filed with the grounds of appeal. After due consideration of the appellant's arguments presented in the written procedure, the Chairman announced the decision.

VII. Independent claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"1. An apparatus comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the memory comprising instructions that cause the processor to configure the apparatus to:

receive claim information associated with a subscriber and a covered wireless device, the claim information indicative of a claim associated with a wireless device protection program; and

employ a predictive model to determine a plurality of options for fulfilment of the claim via a targeted fulfilment engine, the predictive model defining an aggregated weighted value for the plurality of options, the aggregated weighted value comprising: a first component weighted value corresponding to a cost associated with each option of the plurality of options, the cost comprising a total cost to a provider of the wireless device protection program to provide each option; a second component weighted value corresponding to a predicted benefit associated with each option of the plurality of options, the predicted benefit comprising a numeric indicator representing a desirability of each option to a wireless carrier, wherein the wireless carrier provides wireless service to the covered wireless device is not the provider of the wireless device protection program; a third component weighted value corresponding to a functionality of the covered wireless device; a fourth component weighted value corresponding to a functionality of a device with upgraded functionality relative to the covered wireless device; anda fifth component weighted value corresponding to a predictive outcome of using each of the plurality of options to fulfil the claim, wherein the predictive outcome defines a likelihood of the subscriber expanding use of subscribed services in response to each option being used to fulfil the claim;

rank the plurality of options based at least in part on the aggregated weighted value of the plurality of options;

select a subset of the plurality of options based on the aggregated weighted value associated with each of the plurality of options;

present the selected subset for selection in an interface for selecting a claim fulfilment option; and

cause the claim to be fulfilled according to at least one of the plurality of options such that the predicted benefit associated with the at least one of the plurality of options is provided." Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request 1 is based on claim 1 of the main request, thereby replacing the term "apparatus" in line 1 with "client terminal" and adding the step "receive a targeted fulfilment engine and a predictive model from at least one server via a data network" in line 9, and reformulating the employment step in "employ the predictive model on the client terminal via the targeted fulfilment engine ...". Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request is based on claim 1 of the main request, thereby adding the step "prior to receiving claim information, calculate pre­determined options for claim fulfilment for a subscri­ber" in line 5 and reformulating the employment step in "employ a predictive model to modify the predetermined options to determine a plurality of updated options for fulfilment of the claim ...".

Reasons for the Decision

1. Background of the invention

1.1 The invention concerns the provision of targeted fulfilment with respect to a wireless device protection plan, see [0001]. Wireless device protection plans or programs come in the form of insurance and warranty programs. They involve the payment of a premium by a user to cover for simple repairs or replacement of the insured device. These plans or programs include the ability to receive a replacement device of like kind and quality within a short period of time.

1.2 The invention addresses the issue that customer satis-faction is a key component in managing an effective wireless device protection program. It is desirable to provide improved mechanisms of providing fulfilment of claims in a wireless device protection program in order to have an increased likelihood of maintaining or im­pro­ving customer satisfaction, see [0004].

1.3 The solution is the provision of a targeted fulfilment engine for execution of a predictive model that defines an aggregated weighted value that accounts for factors affecting multiple parties using a series of component weighted values. The model and apparatus increase the timeliness of the computer processing in­volved in the claim fulfilment process to meet the rigorous time requirements of claim fulfilment.

2. Main request - Article 56 EPC

2.1 The claims of the main request correspond to those of the refused main request, subject to corrections to claims 2 and 11 to correct typographical errors, see page 2 of the grounds.

2.2 The application was refused for a lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC), because the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was an obvious implementa­tion of a commercial scheme of processing user claims associated with a wireless device protection program on a notoriously known networked computer system, compri­sing client terminals.

The commercial scheme was seen to be defined by the functional features of claim 1 which were considered to be non-technical, whereas the features "apparatus com­prising a processor coupled to a memory, the memory comprising instructions that cause the processor to configure the apparatus to" were seen to be technical.

The examining division argued that the fact that user claims have to be processed in a short period of time was a commercial constraint rather than a technical issue, see points 4.2, 4.3 and 6 of the impugned decision, and the provision of a model taking into account time con­straints and other factors such as processing ability were not deemed to be technical solutions. Accuracy of fulfilment was understood as commercial accuracy and rigorous time requirements of a claim fulfilment was a business constraint.

The examining division further considered the use of an interface for presenting infor­mation to be notoriously known. Receiving information from a client terminal was seen to be well-known in the art and the reception of claim information in such a way was seen to be an obvious choice.

2.3 The appellant contested the non-technical interpreta­tion of the claimed scheme of processing user claims asso­cia­­­ted with a wireless device protection program. While greater customer loyalty might be a non-technical ad­vantage of the invention, the appellant argued that they are a consequence of technical improvements of a reduced computer processing time and of the sharing of processing functions between multiple devices.

The appellant argued that claim 1 addresses the objective technical problem of how to provide rapid and accurate claim fulfilment, while maintaining a required level of complexity. The solution is a targeted fulfilment engine which is part of the opera­tion of the apparatus itself, see [0024] of the patent application. It executes a unique predictive model. The unique model and appa­ra­tus increase the timeliness of the computer processing involved in the claim fulfilment process to meet the rigorous time requirements of a claim fulfilment. They make the apparatus operate more quickly.

The appellant thus considered that the manner in which the time limit is met relates to the actual behaviour of the computer system and is therefore technical. The claims require specific, in some in­stan­ces, distinct apparatuses that improve the computa­tio­nal efficiency of the claimed apparatuses and systems by carrying out the steps of the claims.

2.4 The appellant's arguments are not convincing. The application mentions time to correspond to the contract life remaining as part of the contractual commitment, see [0036] of the application. While [0044] and [0045] mention to reduce computation times for the fulfilment of a claim, which is achieved by the options manager, a part of the fulfilment engine (Figure 2), modify­ing pre­deter­mined options and by providing updated tar­geted fulfilment solutions or options for a subscri­ber. In this context, as explained in [0045], the rapidness or the time of fulfilment appears to depend on the type of customer, in other words, certain customers are selected for receiving claim fulfilment faster than others.

2.5 The Board therefore agrees with the examining division that time is - in this context - a mere business con­straint. Furthermore, if a model and an en­gine for claim fulfilment are set up in a unique manner, that claim fulfilment may be achieved faster, for example, in that the apparatus operates faster, then this is a mere bonus effect of a busi­ness model.

2.6 Claim 1 of the main request does therefore not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

3. Auxiliary requests

3.1 The claims of the first auxiliary request correspond to those of the refused first auxiliary request.

3.2 The appellant argued that in view of the predictive model referred to in claim 1 customer claim fulfilment can be performed at the client terminal without using signifi­cant computational processing power in the client terminal. The reduction of minimum processing power required by the client terminal was a technical problem.

3.3 The appellant's arguments are not convincing.

The replacement of the term "apparatus" in claim 1 of the main request with the term "client terminal" does not lead to any surprising technical effect by opera­ting the apparatus as a client terminal, or by simply naming it as such, and the appellant did not provide any new convincing arguments. It is well-known in the art that client terminals, such as mobile terminals, may have a limited battery life and may be provided with only minimum processing power, compared to stand-alone, wired computer systems.

3.4 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request does therefore not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

3.5 The claims of the second auxiliary request correspond to those of the refused second auxiliary request, subject to additional amendments to address typogra­phical errors, see page 6 of the grounds.

3.6 The appellant argued that the features of calculating predetermined options for claim fulfilment before receiving claims information, introduced in claim 1, provide the technical effect of "reducing computa­tion times later on when a claim is initiated", see [0048] of the applica­tion. The pre-calculation of options was not a business idea, but a technical problem of how to reduce the on-demand computation required to determine the options for claim fulfilment without sacrificing accuracy.

3.7 The Board is not convinced by the appellant's argum­ents. In T 1148/18, reasons, points 12 and 13, the Board, in a diffe­rent composition, found that a proper data selec­tion may have an impact on and is important for pre­dic­tion accu­racy, which is, however, neither technical nor surpri­sing. The "data selection" in that case has the purpose of reducing the number of input variables which is comparable to the pre-calculation of the present invention. The Board shares the view expressed in T 1148/18, that the fact that less data requires less pro­cessing power is an inevi­table bonus effect resulting from the business related cal­cula­tions and, thus, cannot support an inventive step. The Board judges that this also applies to the pre-calculation of options according to present claim 1 and the effect of reduced processing power derived therefrom.

3.8 Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request does therefore not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

4. In conclusion, the main, first and second auxiliary request are not allowable under Article 56 EPC.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.