T2055/22 - Is a method of displaying predictive information considered inventive under Art. 56 EPC?

Patents EPO Case Law

In T2055/22, the Board of Appeal discussed the allowability of claim 1 which was denied by the Examining Division (ED). In the decision under appeal, the Board determined that while certain features of the claim were not disclosed in D6 (US 4,825,374 A), such as specific configurations with landing gear and flaps, these features did not sufficiently contribute to the technical character of the invention. The Board concluded that the claim primarily related to the presentation of information, which did not translate into a credible technical contribution to the art due to the lack of specifics on how these landing locations were determined or how they reflected the aircraft's technical conditions.

Background

In the decision under appeal, the decision of the ED to refuse the patent application 15196390.7 “based on the lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC)” was appealed.

Independent claim 1 of European Patent application is directed to displaying a “conformal cue” in response to detecting a loss in engine thrust. The main issue under consideration was whether the claimed invention in the patent application involved an inventive step.

The “conformal cue” of claim 1 included

Displaying the “conformal cue” of claim 1 included:

the location where the aircraft will land in relation to the runway if the current aircraft configuration (210) is not altered,
the location where the aircraft will land in relation to the runway if only landing gear (214) is deployed,
the location where the aircraft will land in relation to the runway if landing gear and flaps (218) are deployed;

The Board found that the features (i) – (iii) for displaying the conformal cue for different scenarios do not require the method to display an actual location on a map because the Board interpreted “cue for the location” to encompass ANY information.

The Board found that D6 does not disclose features (ii) and (iii) for displaying a conformal cue when the aircraft has only deployed landing gear and for displaying a conformal cue when landing gear and air flaps are deployed, respectively.

Appellant relied on T 336/14 and T528/07

Appellant relied on T 336/14 and T528/07 that providing cognitive information about a state of a technical system already implied a prompt to the user to trigger an action from the user in accordance with the provided information. In particular, that the provided information assisted a user in safely landing an aircraft during loss of engine thrust. Applicant further argued, that D6 could not disclose this solution because D6 disclosed an action of increasing engine thrust.

The Board relied on T641/00

The board was not convinced by those arguments because even if “safely landing an aircraft” is a technical task, the features of claim 1 are not suitable to assist a pilot in safely landing an aircraft after detecting a loss in engine thrust. Because the Board found that claim 1 was silent as to how the locations are actually determined upon detecting a loss in engine thrust, the locations of claim 1 could be guesses. Analysis of the claims showed that the claim 1 does not invoke a mathematical operation or measurements. Therefore, the board found that the locations do not reflect any technical conditions or information as argued by Appellant.

The Board relied on T641/00 to apply the COMVIK approach to claim 1 and found that claim 1 was mere preferences and did not require any technical expertise and lacks inventive step. In particular, using the COMVIK approach to evaluate the claims, the board found that the features (i) – (iii) were non-technical because displaying landing locations along a target runway are notoriously known in the prior art. Without the need of any technical expertise, claim 1 merely displays an undefined landing location on a map with other information.

The decision was upheld by the Board

Additionally, the Board found that the claim language “loss of thrust” did not imply any restriction as argued by the appellant. The Appellant argued that “loss of thrust” meant an irreversible loss of the ability to generate engine thrust. The Board stated that the term “loss of thrust” in claim 1 is not limited to an “engine out emergency” because the term "loss" does not imply any restriction as to its cause and therefore the term “loss” does not limit the claim and could include a user intentionally powering down an engine.

The prior-art document D6 (US 4 825 374 A) was found to be the closest prior art. The Board determined that claim 1 lacked inventive step over D6, which related to technology in avionic display systems and aircraft landing guidance.

In the decision under appeal, the decision of the ED to refuse patent application 15196390.7 was upheld by the Board in this case T2055/22.

Summary written by the NLO EPO Case Law Team.

Meet the Case Law Team here