T 1546/12 (Responsive object proxy/ AVAYA) 02-02-2018

1. Background

1.1 The invention provides a mechanism for monitoring the states of objects located inside a vehicle. In the following, it is assumed that the state of an object is the object's location, which is one of the examples mentioned in the published application (see paragraphs [0005] and [0014]).

The invention also comprises a scheduler for making reservations based on the objects' locations. For example, if the location indicates that an object might not arrive at its destination on time, alternative arrangements might have to be made.

1.2 The objects are capable of responding to inquiries about their locations. Because of that, the application calls them "responsive objects". Each responsive object comprises a location sensor ("a first sensor"), for detecting the object's location using, for example, GPS.

When a responsive object is located inside a vehicle, its ability to receive and respond to inquiries might be impeded (paragraph [0004]). Moreover, inside the vehicle, the responsive objects might not be able to receive a GPS signal.

1.3 The invention solves this problem by means of a proxy, which is better able than the responsive objects to receive inquiries (paragraph [0005]). The proxy is also better able than the responsive objects to receive location-determining signals by using its own location sensor ("a second sensor"). The proxy compensates for the unavailability of the responsive objects by responding to inquiries on their behalf (paragraph [0016]).

2. Main request, claim 1

Claim 1 of the main request specifies that the proxy intercepts a first inquiry that is directed to a first responsive object, when the first responsive object is sensed to be within the vehicle by a first responsive objects sensor, and responds to the first inquiry with the state of the vehicle as measured by the second sensor.

3. Main request, inventive step

3.1 The examining division started from D3, which is a document concerned with the same problem as the invention in claim 1 of the main request: the monitoring of objects that cannot receive or transmit radio-frequency signals because they are located inside a vehicle (page 3, lines 3 to 9).

3.2 The examining division identified the "group controller" (220) in D3 as the "proxy" in claim 1, and found that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from D3 by the following features:

a) the proxy responds with the location of the vehicle as measured by a second sensor comprised in the vehicle; and

b) a scheduler comprising hardware and software modules for making a reservation based on a response from the proxy.

3.3 The Board notes that the examining division's analysis of claim 1 did not include the "first responsive object sensor for sensing when the first responsive object is within the vehicle". However, the appellant did not dispute that this feature was disclosed in D3, and the Board sees no reason for finding otherwise.

Indeed, claim 1 of the main request defines the "first responsive object sensor" merely by reference to its function of detecting whether a responsive object is inside the vehicle. The particular configuration of the sensor remains undefined. It could be part of the responsive object, the proxy, or the vehicle, or simply refer to a function of the system as a whole.

In D3, it is detected whether an object is within communication range of the group controller (page 9, line 19 to page 10, line 4; page 11, lines 20 to 23). Since the purpose of the group controller is to act as a proxy on behalf of the objects located in a vehicle, it is evident that its communication range covers the vehicle. Therefore, the Board considers that the detection in D3 corresponds to the function of the first responsive object sensor in claim 1 of the main request.

3.4 The appellant argued that, apart from the differences a) and b) identified by the examining division, the invention as defined in claim 1 of the main request differed from D3 in that the proxy intercepted

inquiries directed to the responsive objects. The appellant referred to a dictionary definition of the word 'intercept': to prevent something from continuing to a destination. In the appellant's view, this definition excluded an arrangement as in D3, in which inquiries were directed to the network address of the group controller rather than to the individual address of each responsive object (see page 11, lines 7 to 10).

3.5 The appellant's arguments do not convince the Board. General-purpose dictionaries can certainly be a useful tool in patent-claim construction. However, the terms of a claim must be read through the eyes of the skilled person, in the technical context of the whole claimed subject-matter and of the application as a whole.

The application does not define how the proxy is configured to receive and respond to inquiries directed to the responsive objects. Indeed, there is nothing in the application to suggest that all network components use one and the same network address to communicate with a responsive object, irrespective of whether the communication goes via the proxy.

It is, however, clear from the context of claim 1, and of the application as a whole (see for example paragraphs [0005] and [0016]), that the proxy does the opposite of preventing inquiries from reaching the responsive object. It enables communication, by responding to inquiries of behalf of the responsive objects, when the responsive objects themselves are unable to respond to inquiries.

The group controller in D3 does exactly that. It acts as a proxy by communicating on behalf of the responsive objects (page 10, lines 1 to 4; and page 11, lines 2 to 7). Therefore, the Board does not see any distinction in how the claimed proxy and the group controller in D3 receive inquiries.

3.6 Thus, the Board comes to the same conclusion as the examining division that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D3 by features a) and b).

3.7 The examining division argued that features a) and b) solved different partial problems:

The problem solved by feature a) was to find an alternative solution to the problem of providing sensor information when the responsive object could not use its own sensor.

Feature b), on the other hand, was considered to provide an automation of a non-technical scheduling.

3.8 The appellant's arguments seemed to suggest that there was a synergy between a) and b): Since a) provided improved location information, the reservation based on that location information provided by b) was also improved.

3.9 The Board is not convinced that a relationship in which the output of one process provides the input to another process is sufficient to establish a synergy between those processes. A synergistic combination requires functional reciprocity, not just dependency. The features must interact such that the combined effect goes beyond the sum of the individual effects produced by each feature. There is no such interaction between features a) and b). Therefore, they must be assessed separately for inventive step.

3.10 Furthermore, the Board does not see that feature a) provides an improvement over D3.

D3 already solves the problem of providing location information when the responsive objects are inside a vehicle and cannot determine their own location using GPS (see: page 3, lines 4 to 9; and page 15, lines 21 to 22). Then, the group controller provides location information that it already has available (page 22, lines 11 to 13). In other words, D3 uses historic location data as an approximation if the object's current location is not available.

The invention in claim 1 also provides an approximation, that is the location of the vehicle. The Board agrees with the examining division that this is an alternative to the approximation in D3.

3.11 The examining division argued that the skilled person would have turned to D1 to find an alternative to the historic location data in D3. The Board sees no error in this approach. However, the Board considers that the solution of providing the location of the vehicle would have been obvious in view of D3 alone.

As already mentioned by the examining division in the decision, the group controller in D3 has its own GPS sensor, and it stores its own location in memory. The Board is of the view that it would have been straightforward and obvious to use that information as an approximation of the object's location.

3.12 Concerning feature b), the Board agrees with the examining division that making a reservation based on the object's location is not technical, and as such, it does not contribute to inventive step. The Board furthermore agrees with the examining division that the implementation of the scheduler for making the reservation using hardware and software modules would have been routine for the skilled person.

3.13 For these reasons, the Board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

4. Auxiliary request 1

4.1 In claim 1 of the first auxiliary request, the proxy intercepts the first inquiry which is directed to the first address of the first responsive object.

As already mentioned in connection with the main request (see point 3.5 above), the application does not provide any technical details of the proxy. In the Board's view, neither the word 'intercept' nor the expression "inquiries being directed to the responsive objects" in paragraph [0017] of the published application provides a direct and unambiguous basis for using the same network address to communicate with the responsive object and the proxy. Therefore, the first auxiliary request is unallowable for added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC).

5. Auxiliary request 2

5.1 Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request refers to a "second responsive object" for responding to a second inquiry formatted in accordance with "a second protocol". The second protocol is different from the first protocol used for the first inquiry directed to the first responsive object. The proxy responds also to the second inquiry about the second responsive object when the second responsive object is sensed within the vehicle.

5.2 The examining division considered, in connection with dependent claim 2 before it, that the second responsive object and the proxy being able to handle inquiries formatted according to different protocols was disclosed in D3. The appellant did not dispute this. Instead, the appellant relied on the same arguments as already provided in respect of the main request.

In any case, that the proxy is multilingual in the sense that it can communicate with the inquirer using the same protocols that are used to communicate with the responsive objects is not more than a requirement, i.e. a problem to be solved. In view of the requirement of supporting multiple responsive objects using different protocols, the solution to provide suitable means for doing so is obvious.

Therefore, the Board sees no reason to depart from the conclusion of the examining division that the feature added by the second auxiliary request does not provide an inventive step.

6. Third auxiliary request

Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request specifies that the proxy intercepts the inquiries directed to the second responsive objects. As already set out in connection with the main request, the Board considers that D3 discloses a proxy that intercepts inquiries directed to responsive objects. Therefore, the addition of this feature does not lead to an inventive step.

7. Fourth auxiliary request

Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request includes the feature of the first auxiliary request, which was found to relate to subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed (Article 123(2) EPC). Thus, the fourth auxiliary request contravenes Article 123(2) EPC for the same reasons.