Key points
- Another decision highlighting that also for inventive step of a software invention, the (further) technical effect must be 'proven'.
- “such further technical effect must be specifically and sufficiently documented in the disclosure of the invention [i.e. in the application as filed, see r. 5.5.1] and be reflected in the claim wording”
5.3.6 The Appellant argued that in the proposed algorithm rather than processing all received electronic messages on each individual user computing device, the invention used a client mail server. Design and implementation of innovative algorithms and data structures went beyond a particular mathematical formulation of the task of classifying electronic messages. The invention utilised a cluster rating system to obtain and analyse metadata of the unknown messages and classify these unknown messages using a cluster index tree data structure. The cluster rating was dynamically changing during the course of the filling of all clusters with various metadata of incoming electronic messages. The invention analysed mass messages sent by various sources over time and updated cluster ratings and therefore allowed to classify unknown messages more accurately. The method therefore facilitated an improved performance of a computer and computer network. Therefore, the method achieved the technical effects mentioned in section VIII above.
5.3.7 The Board agrees in so far with the arguments of the Appellant as the combination of comparing digital text content by similarity preserving hashing and dynamic cluster rating may be considered an algorithm optimised for the computer hardware and may have a technical contribution. However, this mere assumption is not sufficient. The Board is of the opinion that
(a) the implementation of an algorithm in a method for filtering spam messages must have a proved further technical effect or specific technical considerations;
(b) such further technical effect must be specifically and sufficiently documented in the disclosure of the invention and be reflected in the claim wording;
(c) the algorithm must serve a technical purpose.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/10/t-214716-proven-further-technical.html
