T 0651/12 - Not merely abstract mathematical methods

Key points

• " Meant are in Article 52(2)(a) EPC, in the board's view, merely abstract mathematical methods, ie calculations for the sake of the calculation. In the present case, however, the outcome of the calculation is used for a technical purpose, namely to display information in an ergonomically improved manner." 
• " Generally, the view is taken that the reference to presentations of information in Article 52(2)(d) EPC is meant to relate exclusively to the information content and not to the way the information is presented."
• "In the board's opinion, ergonomics, understood as the applied science of refining the design of products to optimize them for human use, in the context of the map display of the present case, is a technical field. Displaying the three-dimensional bird's eye view map is, thus, considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem."

 T 0651/12 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Supplementary search

As noted above, the Supplementary European Search Report contained the following statement:

"The technical aspects identified in the present application (Art. 92 EPC) are considered part of common general knowledge. Due to their notoriety no documentary evidence is found to be required. For further details see the accompanying Opinion and the reference below. XP002456252"

The reference to an accompanying Opinion is of no use as no Opinion is on file.

The reference to document XP002456252 is confusing as according to its heading it concerns a statement in accordance with a notice from the EPO concerning business methods. The case at issue, however, clearly does not concern any business method.

Moreover, according to the statement, the claimed subject matter related to processes comprised in the list of subject-matter and activities excluded from patentability under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC. However, it remains unclear to which excluded subject-matter or activities the search division considered the claimed subject-matter to be related to and accordingly why no documents were cited in the Supplementary European Search Report.

3. Technical subject-matter

3.1 According to the decision under appeal, claim 1 related to a map display apparatus, considered to be technical, and further comprised the steps of a non-technical method essentially defining an abstract calculation on the basis of modelled map data.

Furthermore, according to the decision under appeal, "Claim 6 would be excluded from patentability under the provisions of Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, were it not for the fact that it has been amended to explicitly claim a "computer implemented" method. Apart from that feature, which implies automation, the claim deals solely with an abstract method of data presentation, defined by abstract data and calculation, i.e. a non-technical method as such" (cf Reasons, points 1.1, 1.2 and 2).

3.2 Since claim 1 according to the main request essentially relates to the technical implementation in a map display apparatus of the method for displaying a bird's eye view map of claim 6, it is considered expedient to consider claim 6 of the main request first.

From the above it would appear that the examining division essentially considered the method of claim 6 to relate to some combination of a mathematical method and presentation of information, both listed in Article 52(2) EPC as subject-matter or activities not to be regarded as inventions and, therefore, deemed to be non-technical.

As a first point, it is noted that the subject-matter of claim 6 is not excluded from patentability under Article 52(3) EPC, as it does not relate to such subject-matter or activities as such. Indeed, since claim 6 is directed at a computer-implemented method, it involves the use of technical means in the form of a computer and thus, according to established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC (cf T 258/03 OJ 2004, 575, Reasons 4.1 to 4.4 and "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO", 7**(th) Edition 2013, I.A.2.4.4.c).

In the board's judgement, however, the method of claim 6 does not relate to a mathematical method within the meaning of Article 52(2)(a) EPC. Meant are in Article 52(2)(a) EPC, in the board's view, merely abstract mathematical methods, ie calculations for the sake of the calculation.

In the present case, however, the outcome of the calculation is used for a technical purpose, namely to display information in an ergonomically improved manner.

It is noted in this respect that in the board's judgement, displaying the three-dimensional bird's eye view map, eg in a car navigation system, provides a more realistic view of the road to the user and supports the user in better orienting himself, ultimately assisting the user in taking the right turn, and thus adds to the ergonomics of the map display.

In the board's opinion, ergonomics, understood as the applied science of refining the design of products to optimize them for human use, in the context of the map display of the present case, is a technical field. Displaying the three-dimensional bird's eye view map is, thus, considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem.

Moreover, it is noted that in the context of eg a car navigation system, the immediate apprehension of the presented information results in the driver being less distracted from the road and traffic and, thus, also adds to safety. Accordingly, also in this respect, displaying the three-dimensional bird's eye view map provides a technical solution to a technical problem.

As such, the board sees no fundamental difference between the present case and a method for operating a computer-controlled machine where the outcome of some calculation is used for operating the machine in an improved manner, which is generally considered technical in all aspects.

Moreover, in the board's judgement, the method of claim 6 does also not relate to presentations of information within the meaning of Article 52(2)(d) EPC. Generally, the view is taken that the reference to presentations of information in Article 52(2)(d) EPC is meant to relate exclusively to the information content and not to the way the information is presented.

The principle of ruling out mere presentations of information is adopted from the PCT (cf Rules 39 and 67 PCT; Travaux Préparatoires, Minutes of the 9**(th) meeting of Working Party I, Luxembourg, 12 to 22 October 1971, BR/135/71, point 95). Although apparently the intent of the provision was to remove from what had to be searched, a presentation of information eg "in tabular form, particular ways of writing and that sort of thing", and, thus, arguably to some extent also the way the information is presented (cf Records of the Washington Diplomatic Conference on the PCT, 1970, WIPO, Geneva, 1972, page 650, points 1180 to 1183).

In the present case, however, the three-dimensional bird's eye view does not provide merely a more orderly or appealing presentation of map data, but a presentation which is ergonomically adapted to the needs of the user, eg a driver of a car.

As noted above, displaying the three-dimensional bird's eye view map is, thus, considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem.

3.3 It is, furthermore, noted that also the calculation as such has in the board's judgement clear technical aspects.

The calculation essentially consists of:

a) using a database device that includes at least a height data portion in which a plurality of height data respectively corresponding to altitudes of a plurality of areas into which a two-dimensional map is divided are respectively stored in correspondence to the areas, each one of the plurality of areas being assigned with only one of the plurality of height data, and a road data portion in which a road extending within the two-dimensional map is expressed with a plurality of element points (O, 1, 2, ..., n-1, n) and positional coordinates (X, Y) of each of the element points in the two-dimensional map are stored,
b) performing a calculation to determine in which of the areas each of the element points read out from the road data portion is located;
c) reading out height data corresponding to one of the areas ascertained through the calculation from the height data portion to use as height data for each of the element points; and
d) calculating coordinate values of each of the element points on the bird's eye view map to be displayed on a monitor screen based upon positional coordinates read out from the road data portion and the height data read out from the height data portion.

In the board's judgement, hereof steps a to c are technical. They produce the technical effect of reducing the need for data storage and enhancing the calculation speed, and are, thus, considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem.

It is noted in this respect that in the board's view although the choice of eg the shape and size of the areas, and thereby the acceptable level of data reduction for the height data, would rather fall within the competence of a cartographer concerned with map design and thus be non-technical, the fundamental choice to use data reduction for the height data stems from the technician in charge of building the apparatus concerned with data storage and calculation capacity and speed.

Step d is considered non-technical in the context of the present claim, as it lacks the application on a physical act such as displaying the calculated bird's eye view map on a screen.

Accordingly, claim 6 both concerning displaying the three-dimensional bird's eye view map and the calculation steps is considered to relate to technical subject-matter.

3.4 For the same reasons also claim 1, which essentially concerns the technical implementation in a map display apparatus of the method for displaying a bird's eye view map of claim 6, is considered to relate to technical subject-matter.

3.5 Accordingly, the claims presently on file, and at least some of the originally filed claims being the subject of the Supplementary European Search Report, relate to technical subject-matter.

The level of technical detail and complexity of this technical subject-matter goes beyond what can reasonably be held to be notorious.

Accordingly, specific prior art documents should have been searched and cited with respect to this technical subject-matter in the Supplementary European Search Report.

In view of the above, it is necessary to remit the case to the examining division to have an additional search done before any grant of a patent may be decided.

3.6 Before doing so, however, the board considers it expedient at this stage of the proceedings to carry out a first examination of the requests on file with the prior art available so far.

4. Main request

4.1 In the application as filed document D1' is cited as prior art (cf page 1, line 16 to page 2, line 14). Reference is made to the corresponding European application document D1.

Document D1 provides a bird's eye view of a two-dimensional topographic map. Document D1 itself does not consider height data related to points of the two-dimensional map.

Reference is, however, made in document D1 to document D2', stated to disclose a method in which a representation of a not necessarily flat terrain, stored in a data structure as a network of nodes, is transposed into a surface extending through the constituent nodes by interpolation, the surface being projected onto an auxiliary plane (cf D1, column 1, lines 17 to 31).

Reference is made to the corresponding US patent document D2.

In document D2, height data are available for nodes representing an area of approximately 65 m in latitude and 92 m in longitude. According to one embodiment, the height for a point (E) is taken to be the height of the closest node (D) (cf column 6, lines 26 to 42; figure 5). This means taking for each point in an area centered on each node the height data of the node. This corresponds to what is claimed in claims 1 and 6.

Accordingly, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 6 lacks novelty in the sense of Article 54(1) EPC 1973 over document D2.

The appellant's main request is, thus, not allowable.

5. Auxiliary requests

5.1 The first auxiliary request corresponds to the auxiliary request filed in first instance proceedings. This request was not admitted into the proceedings by the examining division under Rule 137(3) EPC on the grounds that it did not overcome the objection of lack of inventive step raised in that

- the display was already implicit in claim 1 of the main request and

- the abstract method underlying claim 1 of the auxiliary request was not of a different technical relevance than that underlying claim 1 of the main request.

However, as discussed above, in the board's opinion displaying the map is not provided in claim 1 of the main request. The inclusion of display means for displaying the map in the first auxiliary request, thus, in the board's view adds to the claim defining a technical solution to a technical problem as discussed above. Moreover, calculating and displaying colour or grey scale gradation further contributes to providing a more realistic view and, thus, adds to the ergonomics of the map display apparatus and, thus, to the technical solution.

The amendments, thus, constitute in the board's view a fair attempt to render the claimed subject-matter technical and to address the issues of novelty and inventive step.

The request, therefore, is admitted into the proceedings.

5.2 Claim 1 according to the first auxiliary request includes the additional feature with respect to the main request that the calculation means is configured to

"calculate graduation [sic] for each of the pixels in an area enclosed by points on the monitor screen in correspondence to heights of the points, and

display the bird's eye view map three-dimensionally by displaying the graduation [sic] for each of the pixels in the monitor screen".

In the board's judgement it is clear that document D2 already provides for displaying the map. Furthermore, displaying colour and grey scale gradation is also already addressed in document D2 (cf column 4, line 56 to column 6, line 25; figures 1 to 4).

In document D2, however, the colour and grey scale gradation is taken from a map, and thus differs from claim 1.

Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request is new over document D2.

However, since no proper supplementary search was carried out on the invention, the board considers itself not in a position to carry out a complete examination of the first auxiliary request, in particular concerning the issues of novelty and inventive step.

6. Accordingly, the board, exercising its power under Article 111(1) EPC 1973, considers it necessary to remit the case to the examining division for it to have an additional search done including all features deemed technical above and to carry out a subsequent examination of the first auxiliary request.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution, which shall include an additional search.