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.

This is said in points 5 and 6 of the annex to the summons:

5. In point 128 of the decision, the Enlarged Board explains that calculated numerical data reflecting the physical behaviour of a system modelled in a computer usually cannot establish the technical character of an invention in accordance with the COMVIK approach. Only in exceptional cases may such calculated effects be considered implied technical effects; for example, if the potential use of such data is limited to technical purposes.

In the board's view, this means that, in the present case, the data produced by the method of claim 1, which reflects the behaviour of a crowd moving through an environment, does not contribute to a technical effect for the purpose of assessing inventive step. Indeed, the potential use of such data is not limited to technical purposes as it can be used in computer games or be presented to a human for obtaining knowledge about the environment, to give just two examples of non-technical uses that are within the scope of the claim.

6. Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 appears to lack inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

This this is a further example of a strict application of the findings of G 1/19 to claims relating to computer-implemented simulation methods. It seems that, as soon as non-technical uses of the simulated data are conceivable (e.g., computer games or simply "knowldedge-gain"), the simulation method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention, in particular not over the entire scope of the claim. (Another example of a strict application of G 1/19 is commented here.)

The full text of the annex to the summons in T 489/14 can be found here.