Key points
- The Board adds a headnote about the purpose of oral proceedings in ex parte cases, but I focus on the refusal under Art.52(2).
- “ The Board agrees with the examining division's conclusion that claim 1 is so abstract that it encompasses entirely non-technical subject-matter excluded under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.”
- “The claim essentially defines a method for collecting consumer feedback on the use of a product. This feedback is used to redesign the product such that it is better adapted to meet consumer needs.”
- “For that reason the Board does not agree with the appellant that step v) is technical. The determined parameters encompass non-technical data and, thus, cannot imply a technical effect in the sense of points 88 and 94 of G 1/19 as argued by the appellant.”
- “Accordingly, claim 1 is not an invention under Article 52(2) EPC.”
- As a comment, the Board does not expressly identify which one of the items listed under Article 52(2) applies or whether the Board relies on the 'in particular' phrase in the opening clause of Article 52(2) EPC (in other words, not so much on the non-exhaustive list of Art.52(2) but on the requirement of 'an invention' in Article 52(1).
Headnote
The purpose of the oral proceedings for the appellant is to better explain his case and for the Board to understand and clarify points which, perhaps, up to that point were not sufficiently clear. This is particularly relevant in ex parte cases where besides the applicant/appellant no other party is involved. If amendments resulting from such discussions were not possible, oral proceedings would be pointless. The new [substantially amended] auxiliary request was filed as a direct reaction following the exchange of arguments in the oral proceedings and addressing the objections and concerns the Board had. Furthermore, this request overcame the grounds on which the appealed decision was based. The Board considers the filing of such a request is justified by exceptional circumstances and therefore admits it into the proceedings. (See point 7 of the reasons)T 1790/17 -
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171790eu1.html
VIII. Claim 1 of the main request reads:
"A method for redesigning one or more product or process parameters of a first manufactured article, in order to provide different product or process parameters of a second, transformed, manufactured article, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
i) associating a unique identifier with individual first manufactured articles, or with groups of first manufactured articles;
ii) capturing and recording product data and/or process data relating to the first manufactured articles;
iii) soliciting and recording consumer feedback relating to in use performance of the first manufactured articles;
iv) correlating consumer feedback with product data and/or process data of a specific, individual, first manufactured article by means of the unique identifier;
v) determining different product or process parameters for a second manufactured article; and
vi) applying one or more different product or process parameters to the first manufactured articles to transform them into second manufactured articles, the second manufactured articles being better adapted to meet consumer needs than the first manufactured article."
Reasons for the Decision
The invention
1. The invention relates to a method for redesigning product or process parameters of a manufactured article (e.g. diapers) based on consumer feedback relating to the article's performance in use (see paragraphs [0005] to [0007] of the published application).
2. Claim 1 of the auxiliary request further specifies that a controller determines the redesigned process parameters and, based thereon, adjusts manufacturing parameters of a converting apparatus (assembly line) in order to produce the second articles ([0015]).
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/09/t-179017-not-invention-under-article-522.html
