T 489/14 - Pedestrians simulation claims not inventive after G 1/19 (preliminary opinion)

The technical board in T 489/14 referred questions to the Enlarged Board in  G 1/19. The technical board substantially asked whether a computer-implemented simulation of a technical system (claimed as such) had technical character and whether it could support inventive step under the COMVIK approach. 

Now that the Enlarged Board has handed down its decision in G 1/19, the technical board in T 489/14 has summoned to oral proceedings, and they have given their preliminary opinion on inventive step of the claims underlying the appeal.

Not surprisingly, the technical board concludes that the simulation of pedestrians movement through an "environment" is a non-technical task and it sees no inventive contribution of the claimed simulation steps.

T 42/10 - Assessing players' performance is not technical

This appeal is directed against the decision of the examining division to revoke EP app. no. 06270014.1.

Claim 1 was directed to:

"A computer-implemented method of determining an indication of the relative skill (205) of at least a first player and a second player of a game based on the outcome of one or more such games involving those players said method comprising the steps of: ... [various method steps including the use of a factor graph and calculation rules]"

In the assessment of inventive step, the Appeal Board had to assess in how far the features of the claim had technical character (and so could contribute to inventive step). 

T 944/15 - Computer program excluded as therapeutic method (Art. 53(c) EPC)

T 944/15 (Monitoring patient position / Brainlab) of 3.11.2020 is a remarkable decision, as it applies the exclusion from patentability for therapeutic methods (Art. 53(c) EPC) to computer programs. Should this approach be followed by other decisions, this would have significant impact on the patenting of computer-implemented inventions.

The appeal in this case is against the decision of the examining division refusing EP appl. 10711384.7. Claim 1 of the Main Request then on file related to a method for controlling a process of monitoring the position of a part of a patient's body during radiation therapy.  The method claim was not allowed under Art. 53(c), because - although it did not contain any features explicitly defining steps of therapeutic nature - it was regarded "indissociable linked" to a method of therapy.  The patent was revoked. The appeal was directed against this decision to revoke.

T 1371/17 - First application of G 1/19 in a Technical Board of Appeals case

In a preliminary opinion, the Technical Board of Appeals in T 1371/17 made comments, which may be the first-ever application of the principles of G 1/19 by a Technical Board of Appeals.

By adopting the strict view on the technicality of simulation methods, this first application of G 1/19 could be an indication of how the EPO will examine simulation-based inventions in the future.  

G 1/19 - Patentability of computer-implemented simulations

When G 1/19 was issued on 10 March 2021, it was long awaited, because one expected that it clarifies whether the simulation of a technical system is a proper technical task, or whether the features of such simulation methods must be ignored in the assessment of inventive step under the COMVIK approach of T 641/00.

Before G 1/19, it was common practice at the EPO to accept that computer-implemented simulations have technical character, as long as the underlying simulated system was a technical one. This practice was mainly based on T 1227/05 (Circuit simulation I/INFENION), which found that:

"[s]imulation of a circuit subject to 1/f noise constitutes an adequately defined technical purpose for a computer-implemented method functionally limited to that purpose" (Headnote 1). 

The Board in T 1227/05 found this rather applicant-friendly approach justified, because simulations are nowadays part of the engineer's toolset and frequently applied in the engineering cycle. The Board stated:

"Simulation performs technical functions typical of modern engineering work. It provides for realistic prediction of the performance of a designed circuit and thereby ideally allows it to be developed so accurately that a prototype's chances of success can be assessed before it is built." (T 1227/05, point 3.2.2 of the reasons)

This applicant-friendly interpretation of the technicality requirement of the EPC was fundamentally put into question by decision T 489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/CONNOR) of 22 February 2019.