Key points
- “The application concerns [a] method for aiding a design of wiring paths of wire harnesses”
- “Claim 1 concerns an apparatus for computer aided design of a wire harness wiring path which outputs "data on corrected wiring path" as a final result. It thus relates to a design process which uses computer-implemented simulation to produce numerical data describing a wiring path.”
- As seems typical with this kind of software patent applications, there is no relevant difference between the apparatus claim and the method. In practical terms, the subject-matter can be seen as a method.
- In practical terms, a wire harness is an (electric) cable in a vehicle and the method is for designing a path for a cable in a vehicle.
- “The claimed subject-matter is thus analogous to a computer-implemented simulation of a technical system. Its patentability is to be assessed taking into account the criteria established by the recent decision G 1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the patentability of computer implemented simulations ”
- “ G 1/19 presents its conclusions for the application of the COMVIK approach to simulations. It explains that the underlying models of the simulation may contribute to technicality if, for example, they form the basis for a further technical use of the outcomes of the simulation (e.g. a use having an impact on physical reality). In order to avoid patent protection being granted to non-patentable subject-matter, such further use has to be at least implicitly specified in the claim [].”
- “The board is however not convinced that the distinguishing features contribute to a technical effect in accordance with the criteria established by decision G 1/19.”
- “The only purpose of the wire harness wiring path design aiding apparatus according to claim 1 is to output "data on corrected wiring path data", which is numerical data about the wiring path design. As explained above, the distinguishing features result in wiring path data being output by the apparatus which takes into account the force of the worker's hand.”
- Force of worker's hand: see [0030] of the A2: basically the maximum curvature that a worker placing a though cable in a car can impose on the cable by hand.
- The Board, applying G1/19: "“Claim 1 does not specify any further use of the output wiring path data, further properties or specific data format that could limit the possible uses of the data. In view of that, other relevant uses of the output data for non-technical purposes, for example informational, study or training purposes, are within the scope of the claim. Since the data can be output in any form or format, it cannot be considered to be specifically adapted for the purposes of an intended technical use. In particular, the output data is not specifically adapted to be used in controlling a technical device or manufacturing a wiring path. It can thus be concluded that the data produced by the apparatus of claim 1 is not limited to a further technical purpose and does not contribute to an "implied" technical effect that is to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step.”
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/02/t-137116-applying-g-119.html
