• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • M&C Reacts

AI Inventions and Sufficiency at the EPO

17 December 2020
Julian Asquith
Print
Share

The EPO grants many patents for inventions involving machine learning. However, a recent EPO Board of Appeal decision (T0161/18) highlights the importance of drafting such applications carefully so that sufficient details of the training dataset are included. A failure to do so can result in refusal of the application on the grounds of both sufficiency and lack of inventive step.

The invention and claims

The invention concerned a device in which aortic heart pressure were calculated from blood pressure measurements using a neural network.

Independent method claim 1 contained the following characterising portion:

" ..... characterized in that the transformation of the blood pressure curve measured at the periphery is converted into the equivalent aortic pressure with the help of an artificial neural network, the weighting values of which are determined by learning."

A corresponding independent device claim was included comprising a measuring device for detecting blood pressure and a computing unit. This claim contained the following similar characterising portion:

" ..... characterized in that the computing unit for transforming the measured blood pressure curve (7) has an artificial neural network (8) whose weighting values were determined by learning."

Sufficiency

The Board of Appeal first considered whether the invention was sufficiently disclosed. "Sufficient disclosure" is a requirement of patent applications which arises from Article 83 of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Article 83 is a short article, which states very simply:

The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

The board stated that, for this purpose, "the disclosure of the invention in the application must enable the person skilled in the art to reproduce the technical teaching inherent in the claimed invention on the basis of his general specialist knowledge".

With regard to the training of the neural network, the present application stated that the input data should cover a wide range of patients of different ages, genders, constitutional types, health status and the like so that the network did not become specialized.

However, the application did not disclose which input data were suitable for training the artificial neural network according to the invention, and the application did not disclose at least one data set suitable for solving the technical problem of the invention.

The board stated that, "The training of the artificial neural network cannot therefore be reworked by the person skilled in the art, and the person skilled in the art cannot therefore carry out the invention."

The board therefore concluded that the invention was not sufficiently disclosed and thus did not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC above.

Inventive step

Interestingly, the board also considered the invention to lack an inventive step for the same reason, i.e. the invention was not sufficiently disclosed.

The appellant saw the problem solved by the invention as creating a method and a corresponding device which guaranteed a precise determination of the cardiac output, whereby the computational effort was kept within reasonable limits thus enabling integration into a mobile and appropriately handy device.

The board was not convinced that the artificial neural network according to claim 1 provided the advantages asserted by the applicant, since neither the claim nor the description contained details regarding the training of the artificial neural network.

In particular, the board stated that, "The mere indication that weight values are determined by learning does not go beyond what the expert understands by an artificial neural network."

The board therefore considered that the claimed neural network was not adapted for the specific, claimed application. The board stated that there was therefore, "only an unspecified adaptation of the weight values, which is the nature of every artificial neural network."

Conclusion

Patent applications in the field of machine learning must be drafted carefully to ensure that sufficient details of the training dataset are included, and must clearly disclose which input data are suitable for training the artificial neural network.

Next Story
  • Cook v Boston – practicalities relating to the Shorter Trial Scheme and costs budgeting
  • Patenting DLT innovations in Europe
  • Applications of DLTs
  • Windtech International: Will European IP be the key for overseas countries in meeting their Net Zero targets?
  • What makes a good Patent Attorney?
More insights

Latest Insights

Photo: Gavel and Justice Scale
Article
- 11 August 2022

Cook v Boston – practicalities relating to the Shorter Trial Scheme and costs budgeting

The Shorter Trial Scheme (STS) was set up with the purpose of providing parties with an avenue to achieve earlier, shorter trials for reasonably sized litigation at a proportionate cost. The judgment in proceedings between Cook and Boston contains a few practical points on the STS and other case management issues.
Read more
News
- 10 August 2022

Marks & Clerk’s trade mark team also celebrates exam success!

In addition to our excellent patent team results in July, we are also thrilled to announce that several members of the Marks & Clerk Trade Mark team are enjoying exam success.
Read more
Blockchain/cryptocurrency concept: 3D cubes
Article
- 05 August 2022

Patenting DLT innovations in Europe

In Europe, inventions that utilise distributed ledger technology will generally fall under the heading of “computer-implemented inventions (CIIs).”
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq