EPO appeals board to assess patentability of computer-implemented inventions

Door Philippe Vigand,

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal is to consider the patentability of computer-implemented inventions in the context of appeal T0489/14, concerning a European patent application to protect a computer simulation invention.

The application seeks to patent an invention simulates crowd movement in spaces such a train stations and stadiums. It had been set aside to examine patentability by the Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) in August 2013 on the basis of Article 97(2) of the European Patent Convention (“the application or the invention to which it relates does not meet the requirements of this Convention”). On appeal, the EPO’s Board of Appeal decided in February 2019 to submit a number of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for clarification.

A fast-evolving field

As a result of the continuing growth in the number of computer-implemented inventions (CIIs) filed at the EPO, the Office regularly updates its Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications, also seeking to ensure that they are in line with the rulings of the Boards of Appeal.

In T0489/14, the main claim concerns a computer-implemented method for modelling the movement of pedestrians in crowded spaces. This includes simulation of the movement of each pedestrian via a provisional path, through a model of the environment, to an intended destination, wherein determining [the] preferred step comprises determining a dissatisfaction function (“the cost of deviating from a given direction and a frustration function expressing a cost of deviating from a given speed”) in light of obstructions, such as other pedestrians and fixed obstacles.

Questions to be considered

The issue on appeal was in the assessment of the non-technical characteristics and the extent to which these characteristics participate in the result obtained in the case of a simple simulation. In the discussions, reference was made to a previous decision T1227/05 (circuit simulation), which recognised the technical nature of such simulations. Although the invention at issue is somewhat analogous to that earlier decision, the Board of Appeal was uncertain, however, about the reasoning; ie, whether the technical character of a simulation claim can be recognised if the simulated object is technical (similar doubts were raised in cases T0531/09, T1265/09 and T1630 /11), and wished to clarify this interpretation by submitting the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

  • 1. In the evaluation of inventive step, can the computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect which goes beyond the simulation’s implementation on a computer, if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as such?
  • 2. If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the relevant criteria for assessing whether a computer-implemented simulation claimed as such solves a technical problem? In particular, is it sufficient that the simulation is based, at least in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process?
  • 3. What are the answers to the first and second questions if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process, in particular for verifying a design?

We look forward to the decision of the wise men of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, as well as what their answers could mean for future attempts to patent computer-implemented inventions.

Philippe Vigand is Managing Director – Patents, Novagraaf Group.

Laatste inzichten

Nieuws en opinie

Ontwerpers opgelet: deponeer jouw model binnen twaalf maanden ook na (accidentele) openbaring op social media

Op grond van  het modellenrecht kan je  een exclusief recht verkrijgen op de vormgeving van een product – oftewel  model. Het is zeer waardevol om jouw model te registreren, zodat je als enige dit model kan produceren, leveren en verkopen dan wel verhuren.

Ontwerpers opgelet: deponeer jouw model binnen twaalf maanden ook na (accidentele) openbaring op social media
Nieuws en opinie

Hoe octrooieerbare uitvindingen geheim te houden: contracten, publicatieclausules en voorlopige aanvragen

Of je er nou voor kiest om een octrooiaanvraag in te dienen of om de nieuwe uitvinding geheim te houden, het is van essentieel belang stappen te ondernemen om de risico's van openbaarmaking te minimaliseren. Onze collega Rose-Marie Ehanno van ons kantoor te Frankrijk zet dit uiteen.

Door Rose-Marie Ehanno,
Hoe octrooieerbare uitvindingen geheim te houden: contracten, publicatieclausules en voorlopige aanvragen

Voor meer informatie neem gerust contact met ons op.

Cookie policy

Om de bezoekers van de website de best mogelijke ervaring te bieden, maakt Novagraaf gebruik van cookies. Door op "Accepteren" te klikken of door de site verder te gebruiken, gaat u akkoord met ons privacybeleid, inclusief ons cookiebeleid.