Key points
- Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising "a first instrument sized [e.g. a catheter] and shaped for introduction into the [blood] vessel of the patient", a similar second instrument, and a computing device configured to "obtain pressure measurements from the first and second instruments while the second instrument is moved longitudinally through the vessel of the patient"
- The Board: "The contested patent relates to a system for assessing the severity of a stenosis in a blood vessel."
- The Board finds the claim to be sufficiently disclosed and inventive.
- Of note, Art. 53(c) is not discussed. Hence, a computer configured to perform calculations on output from a device that by way of surgery is introduced into the body of a patient is not excluded.
- This decision appears in line with established case law, see e.g. T 2136/19. For a different approach, see T 0944/15.
- The present decision also illustrates the difference in the effect of Article 52(2) and Article 53 on inventive step. Features defining subject-matter excluded under Art. 53(c) can very well contribute to inventive step.
- " it is common ground that D1 does not disclose feature 4.3 of claim 1, whereby the computing unit is further configured to "modify the visual depiction of the vessel to simulate one or more treatment options based on expected results of the one or more treatment options on the pressure differential". "
- This feature pertains to the presentation of information.
- " The appellant [opponent] formulated the objective technical problem to be solved starting from D1 as being to facilitate the selection of a treatment method."
- The Board seems to follow this formulation.
- " The Board first notes that D1 itself does not suggest that the "integrated graphical image output" may be used to simulate various treatment options. Without hindsight, the person skilled in the art proceeding from D1 alone would not implement feature 4.3 without an inventive step."
- The distinguishing feature is the presentation of information. Interestingly, the Board does not comment on the case law that " A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (T 336/14, T 1802/13 and T 1185/13). " (CLBA 10t hed. I.D.9.12.10.b).
- Implicitly, the method of treatment is a technical method and selecting the right treatment method is (apparently) seen as a technical problem, such that "facilitate the selection of a treatment method" is considered to be a technical problem.
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/2023/01/t-046720-moved-through-vessel-of-patient.html
