EP 3 158 513 A1 filed as PCT/IB2015/054631 and published as WO 2015/193853 A1relates to a system for managing a vehicular mission of a goods delivery vehicle.
The aim is to delay the delivery of rain-sensitve parcels until it stops raining, by re-routing the parcel delivery vehicle according to rain forecasts.
Brief outline of the case
The ED refused the application for lack of IS over a conventional general purpose networked computer system. The decision also mentioned that technical means disclosed in the application were known from a series of documents with inter alia, D3=US 2004/0054468.
In the communication accompanying the summons to OP, the board expressed its preliminary view that all requests on file lacked IS over D3.
Since none of the applicant’s requests were allowable for lack of IS, the refusal was confirmed.
The applicant’s point of view on the technical character of the invention
The features distinguishing the invention from the closest prior art D3 have technical character.
Firstly, the prevention of damage to physical objects was a fundamental technical problem that was addressed throughout various areas of technology.
Recognising that a parcel could be damaged by rain and avoiding such damage was a specific example of addressing this problem.
To deny that this solution was technical in nature would be similar to arguing that protecting electrical circuits from overload damage was not technical – a clearly unsound conclusion.
Secondly, as was set out in T 2035/11, Reasons 5.2.1 and 7.4, the calculation of a route, along which a vehicle was guided in real-time, based on real-world conditions, in that case congestion information, was a technical task.
Since water-sensitivity features of parcels and rain forecast were real-world conditions comparable to congestion information, recalculating a delivery route based thereon had technical character.
Thirdly, using a distinction made in decisions T 1194/97 and T 424/03, the water-sensitivity features and rain forecast were functional data having an inherent technical character, rather than non-technical cognitive data.
In T 1194/97, Reasons 3.3, it was established that data was functional if its loss impaired the technical operation of a system in which it was used. The water-sensitivity and the rain forecast met this criterion, since their loss would make it impossible for the navigation system to recalculate the route.
Fourthly, the parcels’ water-sensitivity features were of a technical nature because a server received them from RFID tags attached to the parcels.
The board’s decision
Since claim 1 defines a vehicle navigation system presenting rain forecasts along a route travelled by the vehicle, the board preferred to start from D3 which discloses these features and is much closer to the invention than a general purpose computer.
The board, defined a series of differences over D3 and agreed with the ED that the distinguishing features implement a non-technical logistics scheme.
The point of dispute was whether the rescheduling of the delivery based on the parcels’ sensitivity to water and the rain forecast also formed part of this scheme.
Contrary to the applicant’s view, the board judged that the requirement to ensure that parcels do not get damaged forms part of the logistics scheme.
Considering that logistics is about the delivery of intact goods, there are evident business reasons for this requirement.
The labelling of certain parcels as rain-sensitive and not delivering such parcels in the rain is a common-sense measure to meet this requirement. The board judged that this kind of interacting with and exploiting knowledge about the physical world falls under a business activity, cf. T 154/04, Reasons 20.
Applying this common sense measure does not require technical considerations, for example appreciation of why rain can damage some things while being harmless to others.
This distinguishes the present case from the appellant’s example, where protective measures against overload damage to an electric circuit could only be taken after certain technical aspects had been understood.
The board was also not convinced by the argument that the technical effects in the present case are similar to those in case T 2035/11.
Firstly, in that case, technical character was found to result from the dynamic recalculation of a route along which a vehicle was guided. In contrast, in the present case there is no recalculation, but merely a rescheduling which covers following the same route, but not dropping some parcels off.
Secondly, even assuming that rescheduling parcel delivery involves some route modification, this still does not help the applicant’s case. T 2035/11 stated that a route recalculation has technical character only insofar as it is based on technical considerations.
However, the route recalculation in the present case would be based on the avoidance of rain damage to parcels, which is not a technical consideration.
Furthermore, the board was not convinced by the argument that information about a parcel’s water-sensitivity is functional technical data in the sense of decisions T 1194/97 and T 424/03, because its loss would impair the technical operation of the system.
In T 1194/97, Reasons 3.3, the board held that data was functional if its loss impaired the technical operation of a system in which it was used.
It is self-evident that if a piece, either technical or non-technical, of any invention is taken out, it would not work as designed.
In the board’s view, what T 1194/97 is saying is rather that the loss of functional data would make the system inoperable at the technical level.
In contrast, if cognitive data is lost, the system would still work but possibly produce results that would be unintended for non-technical reasons.
In the present case, the loss of water-sensitivity information would not cause the system to stop working; the vehicle would still be guided, and parcels would be delivered.
However, it would result in leaving water-sensitive parcels standing in the rain – an unintended operation comparable to producing a television picture that resembles snow. The reasons why these outcomes are unintended are non-technical.
In T 1194/97, it was the cognitive meaninglessness of the television picture to a human viewer; in the present case, it is the prevention of rain damage to a parcel. Hence, judged by the consequence of its loss, the water-sensitivity data is equivalent to cognitive rather than functional data.
Applying the COMVIK approach, T 641/00, once the business requirement has been given to the skilled person to implement, enhancing the server of D3 to calculate routes including multiple parcel destinations and acquiring rain forecast for those destinations would have been obvious.
It would also have been obvious to store the parcels’ water-sensitivity features at the server and to adapt it to reschedule parcel delivery in case of rain.
Adapting the terminal of D3 to provide a warning message in such a case directly follows from the requirement specification.
Comments
The present decision is an anthology of earlier decisions, all revolving around the technical character or not of certain features of a claim.
With the best of wills, it not possible to consider protecting parcels from rain at their delivery place as being technical.
Comments
Leave a comment