T 1769/10 – Non-technical Constraints

The applicant appealed against the refusal of its application by the Examining Division, for lack of inventive step over document D1.

Claim 1 before the Board read:

A gaming system comprising:

a plurality of game outcome servers (210), each game outcome server having stored thereon a plurality of selectable wagering games, each game outcome server (201) having a communication interface for allowing, in use, the game outcome server (201) to communicate with both a plurality of remote client devices (210, 216-228) and a physically separate and remotely located player management server (200, 202), each game outcome server (201) comprising:

a processor designed or configured to:

a) communicate with the client device (2 10-228) and with the player management server (200, 202) via the communication interface,

b) receive information (608) from the player management server (200, 202) allowing a communication session to be established with the client device,

c) in response to receiving information in process (b), send (603) to an identified client device (210) first commands, first instructions, first data or combinations thereof that allow an interface (601) for playing a wager-based game to be generated (605) on a client interface of the identified client device,

d) receive from the identified client device (210) information (607) indicating a request to play the wager-based game and a wager amount,

e) in response to receiving information in process (d), send (611) information to the player management server (200, 202) requesting authorization of the wager amount wherein the player management server (200, 202) maintains a player balance relating to game play on the identified client device,

f) receive an authorization message (617) from the player management server (200, 202) indicating the wager amount is authorized, whereafter a game outcome for the game is generated (631) and only an adjustment to the player balance calculated (631) by the game outcome server (201),

g) send to the identified client device second commands, second instructions, second data or combinations thereof (633) that allows a presentation of the game outcome to be generated on the client interface; and

h) send (641) the calculated adjustment to the player balance to the player management server (200, 202) to effect an update of the player balance maintained at the player management server,

wherein:

each game outcome server (201) functions as an application service provider that hosts games;

the player management server (200, 202) is remotely located from the game outcome servers by network infrastructure (206);the player management server (200, 202) functions to support account management of players stored in a player database

(259), the account management including player registration and banking data; each game outcome server not allowed direct access to the player database, with interactions with the player management server (200, 202) based on a transactional approach that allows the player balance maintained on the player management server to be updated by the game outcome server; and;

the player may navigate to each game outcome server (201) through a game access interface (282) offering game links to game outcome server-supported games at the game outcome servers (201), the game access interface (282) being supported by the player management server (200, 202) and displayable by the identified client device (210, 216-228), player navigation arising without the player having to register or log-on into the game outcome servers (201).

The Board found Claim 1 to be novel over D1 and then continued:

[4.1] Document D1 is considered to provide the closest prior art. The […] differences of the subject-matter of claim 1 over D1 allow maintaining player anonymity in the game transactions between the game outcome servers and the player management server. As stated in the application,

“One of the most important and valuable resources of an on-line casino may be its player database. The transactional approach described above may allow multiple on-line casinos to use functions provided by a game outcome server without having to worry that their customer database is revealed to the providers of the game outcome server or to another provider of another on-line casino” […].

Furthermore, the […] differences allow offering a player a wider variety of games running on different (game outcome) servers, possibly developed on different software platforms, without the need to provide a dedicated player management server in each case. Moreover, player’s convenience is served by not having to register or log-on into different game outcome servers.

[4.2] At least some of the above aims to be achieved are in the non-technical field of schemes, rules and methods of playing games and doing business, and may thus, in accordance with established jurisprudence, legitimately appear in the formulation of the technical problem to be solved, in particular as a constraint that has to be met (cf. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 6th edition 2010, I.D.8.1; T 641/00 [7]).

As far as the appellant’s allegation that the current case law of the boards of appeal was insufficiently developed and was in fact unclear and inconsistent as to when features in mixed inventions bestowed patentability is concerned, it is noted that the above established jurisprudence provides a methodology for applying the problem-solution-approach, generally adopted in the EPO for assessing inventive step, to inventions involving aspects in the non-technical field. In fact, the Enlarged Board of Appeal noted that, while numerous board of appeal decisions cited the earlier decisions defining this methodology, it was not aware of any divergence in this case law, suggesting that the boards were in general quite comfortable with it, and concluded that it would appear that the case law, as summarised in T 154/04, had created a practicable system for delimiting the innovations for which a patent may be granted (G 3/08 [10.13.2]).

Still, this does not prevent the application of this methodology to an individual case, on occasions, to be complex. This, however, is not different in the application of the problem-solution-approach in general.

It is furthermore noted that, contrary to what is argued by the appellant, also decision T 1051/07, issued by this board, follows the above methodology. In particular, the appellant’s contention that somehow the consideration in this decision of “how” the aim in the non-technical field is achieved in terms of a technical solution involving technical means would diverge from this methodology is unfounded.

In the problem-solution-approach, the objective technical problem to be solved is formulated based on the technical effect caused by the distinguishing features of the claim over the prior art, and thus depends on the individual case. This is also the case for inventions involving aspects in the non-technical field. Accordingly, depending on the available prior art and what is claimed, the objective technical problem to be solved may be formulated generally as to implement technically (the constraints as imposed by) the aim to be achieved in the non-technical field. In the case where some general form of implementation of the aim to be achieved in the non-technical field is already known from the prior art, the objective technical problem to be solved may be formulated more specifically as how to implement technically the aim in the non-technical field, or, reworded, to provide a technical solution involving technical means how to achieve the aim in the non-technical field.

[4.3] In the present case the requirements to be met deriving from the above aims in the non-technical field, are to improve the player’s access to games and to maintain confidentiality of the player’s data in the player database.

Accordingly, the objective technical problem to be solved may be formulated as modifying the system of D1 so as to improve the player’s access to games while maintaining confidentiality of the player’s data in the player database. Or, in other words, how to improve the player’s access to games while maintaining confidentiality of the player’s data in the player database in terms of a technical solution using technical means.

[4.4] The technical solution involving technical means as claimed to the above technical problem essentially is to let the server for maintaining the player database communicate with a plurality of game outcome servers, with respective, different games. The server for maintaining the player database is physically separate and located remote from the game outcome servers. The game outcome servers are not allowed direct access to the player database, such that confidentiality of the player database is maintained. Player access is improved by letting the player navigate to each game outcome server through a game access interface offering game links to game outcome server-supported games at the game outcome servers through a game access interface supported by the player management server and displayable by the identified client device and without the player having to register or log-on into the game outcome servers.

As indicated above, in the document D1 the “player management server” neither communicates with a plurality of “game outcome servers”, nor does it support a game access interface accessible by the player offering game links to game outcome server-supported games at the game outcome servers, without the player having to register or log-on into the game outcome servers. In D1, the “player management server” merely maintains the player database and the casino server has direct access to the player database. Accordingly, the above technical solution involving technical means as claimed is not rendered obvious by D1.

As it is also not suggested in any of the remaining cited prior art or otherwise rendered obvious to the skilled person, the subject-matter of claim 1 is considered to involve an inventive step in the sense of A 56.

To read the whole decision, click here. The file wrapper can be found here.