T 1234/17 - Customizing footwear

Key points

• "In the Board's view, the claimed invention can essentially be seen as two mappings: the first maps sensor acceleration data to gait category and the second maps the gait category to a "customized design". The first mapping is specified in the claim to be via a "model of human physiology", which according to the description, see [0041], might involve "suitable statistical processing". The model of human physiology is defined by physiological attributes[]. In the case of footwear [to be customized] the physiological attributes are a set of categories of human gait (e.g., supination, protination, over-protination, neutral)."
• "the Board considers that the basic idea of customising footwear depending on the model of human physiology, that is, the type of human gait, does not contribute to inventive step, but is a non-technical idea that would be given to the skilled person [by the notional business person, PJL].'
• "Regarding the first mapping, the recording of sensor data, such as time series of acceleration vectors, is no doubt technical. However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms. "
• " In T 1798/13 [] the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. "
• "the Board considers that the mere idea of mapping acceleration data to gait category does not contribute to inventive step either, but is an idea that would be given to the skilled person  [by the notional business person, PJL]. Only its implementation involving the sensors could contribute."
• The present decision does not refer to G 1/19. 

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171234eu1.html

2.11 Regarding the first mapping, the recording of sensor data, such as time series of acceleration vectors, is no doubt technical. However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms.

2.12 In T 1798/13 (Forecasting the value of a structured financial product/SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD), points 2.7 to 2.9, the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. In that case there were none. This was contrasted with T 2079/10 (Steuerung von zellulär aufgebauten Alarmsystemen/SWISSRE) where the invention was seen to lie in the improvement of the measurement technique itself, which involved technical considerations about the sensors and their positions.

2.13 Such a situation is conceivable in the present case, if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using considerations of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, the claim only specifies that the data "includes a time series of acceleration vectors" and that this data is "analyzed". There are no further details that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors.

Thus, the Board considers that the mere idea of mapping acceleration data to gait category does not contribute to inventive step either, but is an idea that would be given to the skilled person as stated out by the division. Only its implementation involving the sensors could contribute.