9.2. Problem-solution approach when applied to mixed-type inventions
9.2.15 Mental acts / modelling
In T 914/02 the board held that the involvement of technical considerations is not sufficient for a method which may exclusively be carried out mentally to have technical character. Technical character may be provided through the technical implementation of the method, resulting in the method providing a tangible, technical effect, such as the provision of a physical entity as the resulting product or a non-abstract activity, such as through the use of technical means. The board rejected a claim directed to an invention involving technical considerations and encompassing technical embodiments on the grounds that the invention as claimed could also be exclusively performed by purely mental acts excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2)(c) EPC (see T 619/02, OJ 2007, 63; T 388/04, OJ 2007, 16, T 1073/06).
In T 930/05 the application was concerned with a method for modelling a process network. The board held that the method lacked technical character because though the claimed subject-matter comprised technical embodiments, implementations that could be deemed non-technical were also conceivable.
In T 1171/06 the application related to object-oriented modelling, namely a method and a device for modelling a mechatronic system in a motor vehicle. The board held that a model used in software development was not imparted a technical effect because it served documentation or communication, even if its subject-matter was a technical system. The board continued the approach established in T 354/07. In that case, which concerned the automatic generation of program code from a model, the board had noted that conceptual processes and meta methods for software production generally had no technical features relevant for patentability and thus could not provide a basis for inventive step unless it could be demonstrated, in a given case, that there was a direct causal connection with a technical effect relevant for solving a technical problem.
- T 182/20
Abstract
In T 182/20 the invention concerned predicting future malfunctions of mechanical or electrical components based on the current values of one or more parameters.
Beyond the server-based processing, the method in claim 1 comprised a number of technical features. Firstly, the method involved measuring specific parameters (e.g. temperature and lubricant condition in the bearings of a gas turbine), which the board considered to be inherently technical (G 1/19, points 85 and 99 of the Reasons). Furthermore, these measurements were used to predict specific malfunctions in particular components (e.g. a bearing defect in a gas turbine or an insulation defect in a transformer). The board considered that the choice of parameters for predicting the specified malfunctions reflected technical considerations about the functioning of the claimed mechanical or electrical components.
On the other hand, the mathematical calculations in steps 3) and 4), when considered in isolation, were non-technical. These computations generated numerical data, i.e. the conditional probability of a future malfunction in an electrical or mechanical component and the question remained, whether these calculations contributed to the technical character of the invention. With reference to G 1/19 the board saw the conditional probability obtained by the method of claim 1 as an indirect measurement of the physical state (i.e. a particular failure) of a specific physical entity (i.e. a specific mechanical or electrical component). The mathematical framework in the claim is rooted in stochastic modelling and simulation, specifically Markov chains, which are recognised for credibly capturing and predicting the transition dynamics of systems based on empirical data. The fact that the result is a probability does not detract from its ability to provide a technically meaningful estimate of the component's state. Making accurate predictions in the real world, given all its uncertainties, is rarely possible. The board also saw a credible causal link between the measured parameters and the predicted malfunctions. For instance, a bearing defect in a gas turbine is likely to generate more heat, degrade lubricant, and cause vibrations in the shaft and/or casing. Therefore, temperature, lubricant condition, and shaft or casing vibrations are suitable parameters for predicting a bearing defect. In summary, the board was satisfied that the calculated probability provided a credible estimate of the future physical state of a specific physical entity and, therefore, could be seen as an indirect measurement.
For these reasons, the board judged that the mathematical steps in claim 1 were part of a technical measurement method. The board remitted the case for further examination.