The European Patent Office decided that displaying a 3D bird’s eye view map, e.g. in a car navigation system, and the associated calculation steps are technical. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0651/12 () of 14.4.2016 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03:
Key takeaways
Displaying information in an ergonomically improved manner is a technical purpose. Ergonomics, understood as the applied science of refining the design of products to optimize them for human use, in the context of the map display of the present case, is a technical field.
The immediate apprehension of the presented information results in the driver being less distracted from the road and traffic and, thus, also adds to safety. Accordingly, also in this respect, displaying the three-dimensional bird’s eye view map provides a technical solution to a technical problem.
The invention
This European patent application relates to a map display apparatus that three-dimensionally displays a two-dimensional map (plane map) as a bird’s eye view map. This is achieved by converting the two-dimensional map into a bird’s eye view display format, whereby ground levels and roads are displayed either depressed or elevated in correspondence to their altitudes.
The invention was reflected in claim 1 of the main request as follows:
-
Claim 1 (main request)
Is it patentable?
Firstly, the Board addressed whether claim 6 – a computer-implemented method for displaying a bird’s eye view map – was patent-eligible. Not surprisingly, claim 6 passed this hurdle already due to the presence of the phrase “computer-implemented”:
As a first point, it is noted that the subject-matter of claim 6 is not excluded from patentability under Article 52(3) EPC, as it does not relate to such subject-matter or activities as such. Indeed, since claim 6 is directed at a computer-implemented method, it involves the use of technical means in the form of a computer and thus, according to established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC (cf T 258/03 OJ 2004, 575, Reasons 4.1 to 4.4 and “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO”, 7**(th) Edition 2013, I.A.2.4.4.c).
Then, the question remained whether the calculations performed by the method were to be considered merely mathematical “as such” and thus irrelevant for assessing inventive step. The Board took the view that the calculations indeed serve a technical purpose:
In the board’s judgement, however, the method of claim 6 does not relate to a mathematical method within the meaning of Article 52(2)(a) EPC. Meant are in Article 52(2)(a) EPC, in the board’s view, merely abstract mathematical methods, ie calculations for the sake of the calculation.
In the present case, however, the outcome of the calculation is used for a technical purpose, namely to display information in an ergonomically improved manner.
It is noted in this respect that in the board’s judgement, displaying the three-dimensional bird’s eye view map, eg in a car navigation system, provides a more realistic view of the road to the user and supports the user in better orienting himself, ultimately assisting the user in taking the right turn, and thus adds to the ergonomics of the map display.
In the board’s opinion, ergonomics, understood as the applied science of refining the design of products to optimize them for human use, in the context of the map display of the present case, is a technical field. Displaying the three-dimensional bird’s eye view map is, thus, considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Moreover, it is noted that in the context of eg a car navigation system, the immediate apprehension of the presented information results in the driver being less distracted from the road and traffic and, thus, also adds to safety. Accordingly, also in this respect, displaying the three-dimensional bird’s eye view map provides a technical solution to a technical problem.
As such, the board sees no fundamental difference between the present case and a method for operating a computer-controlled machine where the outcome of some calculation is used for operating the machine in an improved manner, which is generally considered technical in all aspects.
In the end, the Board remitted the case back to the examining division for additional search and a subsequent examination.
More information
You can read the whole decision here: T 0651/12 () of 14.4.2016