T 0489/14 (II) - Pedestrian simulation

Key points

• This is the follow up to G 1/19. Inventive step of the claimed "computer-implemented method of modelling pedestrian crowd movement in an environment" is at issue.
• " The main purpose of the simulation is its use in a process for designing a venue, as shown in Figure 22 []. Essentially, the designer creates or imports an architectural venue design, specifies the constituents of a pedestrian population that is typical for the venue being designed, and performs a number of simulations of pedestrian flows which the designer can specify at a high level (in terms of sources (entrances), sinks (exits) and supply rate). The simulation results are then examined and the design is revised if necessary." 
• The Board summarized G 1/19.
  The Board: " Hence [according to G 1/19], in the case of a computer-implemented invention, a technical effect relevant for the assessment of inventive step exists if the features of the claim directly achieve a (real) technical effect on physical reality (including both external physical reality and the "internal" physical reality of the computer system in which the invention is implemented).
• In addition, an "implied" technical effect relevant for the assessment of inventive step is present if the claimed invention or the data produced by it necessarily achieves a real technical effect when it is put to its intended (and only relevant) use. In contrast, merely providing calculated data which corresponds closely to technical effects of physical entities is not a technical effect relevant for the assessment of inventive step." 
• Turning to the claim at hand: " It follows that 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 presented to a human for obtaining knowledge about the modelled environment, to give just two examples of non-technical uses that are within the scope of the claim."
• " The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request therefore lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC)."
• 
  
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t140489eu2.html