T 1073/06 – Purely Mental

This decision deals with an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) to refuse the application under consideration for lack of inventive step.

Claim 1 on file before the Board read:

Simulation apparatus for processing a simulation model including a first and a second object (54) between which a relationship condition exists, the apparatus comprising: a processor (502); a memory (503) storing modelling software (520) operable to cause said processor to perform simulation operations utilizing a constructed simulation model; input means (510;512) for receiving input data identifying a first object, a second object (54) and a relationship condition identifying a relationship between said first and second objects; and display generation means (80,82,84) for generating display data including respective first and second node representations (115,117) for the first and second objects (54) and a graphical link representation (118; ... ;128) linking said first and second node representations (115,117), characterized in that: said memory (503) is further configured to store data associating a plurality of different relationship conditions each with a graphical link representation (118; ... ;128) of a plurality of visually distinct graphical link representations (118-128); and in that said processor (502) is configured to: construct a simulation model including first and second objects between which a relationship condition exists on the basis of received input data; and utilize said data stored in said memory (503) to select a graphical link representation (118; ... ;128) to be displayed as linking a first and a second node representation (115,117) in a generated display so that the graphical link representation (118; ... ;128) in a generated display corresponds to the graphical link representation (118; ... ;128) associated by said data with the relationship condition between said first and second objects in said constructed simulation model.

The Board considered the graphical user interface (GUI) for generating a display of a simulation model, acknowledged as prior art in figure 1 of the application, to be the closest prior art. 

 It then continued:

[5.1] The subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of the closest prior art in the features that:

a. said memory is further configured to store data associating a plurality of different relationship conditions each with a graphical link representation of a plurality of visually distinct graphical link representations; and

b. said processor is configured to utilize said data stored in said memory to select a graphical link representation to be displayed as linking a first and a second node representation in a generated display so that the graphical link representation in a generated display corresponds to the graphical link representation associated by said data with the relationship condition between said first and second objects in said constructed simulation model.

[5.2] The effect of the above difference features is that, whilst in the closest prior art the graphical link representation displayed between the first and second objects in the constructed simulation model is independent of the relationship condition between said objects (see the arrows 16 in figure 1), according to claim 1 the processor utilizes the association data stored in the memory to cause the link between said first and second objects in the simulation model to be displayed with the associated graphical link representation. Figure 9 of the application shows examples of the graphical link representations, namely symbols “S” and “P” in links 126a and 120a, respectively.

[5.3] The appellant has argued that an objective technical problem can be seen in improving the ease with which a user can construct such a simulation model, the claimed solution avoiding the “drilling down” required in the prior art to understand the relationships between the objects in the simulation model. The improvement in the ease of constructing a model alleged is thus confined, in fact, to improving the ease of comprehension of a model, which is thus the actual problem allegedly solved.

The board judges however that an improvement in the comprehension of a model is a purely mental effect, so that the problem solved is not seen as being technical. Further, the solution is also not seen as having any technical implications beyond, possibly, routine implementation details, being simply a choice of where and in what form in a process of visualisation of a model to display certain information, i.e. an issue of “presentations of information”, as mentioned in A 52(2)(d).

[5.4] On its broadest interpretation, the simulation model, of which the relationship conditions between objects are a part, can be of a wholly abstract nature and thus a system of equations which are merely a mathematical method and thus non-technical.

Indeed the simulation model shown in figure 9 of the application is an example of such a non-technical simulation model in that it represents a predator-prey system involving wolves and rabbits. The claimed “graphical link representations” relate to the state of the simulation model, rather than to the state of the claimed simulation apparatus, and thus constitute presentations of information and are therefore also non-technical; see T 528/07 [3].

Thus there can be no argument made for a technical contribution to the prior art based on the fact that it is a model that is visualised rather than any other piece of data in a computer. Consequently the difference features set out above do not have a technical effect (going beyond those inherent in running any computer program) and thus lack technical character and cannot contribute to inventive step; see T 154/04, [5(F)].

[5.5] According to the appellant in the statement of grounds of appeal, various decisions had found that improvements of the sort achieved in the present case involved an inventive step; see T 605/93, T 333/95 and T 769/92. Detailed arguments based on these decisions were not made. The board has considered the decisions cited by the appellant, but finds that they are not relevant to the facts in the present case.

[5.6] Consequently the board finds that the subject-matter of claim 1 cannot be considered to involve an inventive step, A 56 EPC 1973.

Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.

To have a look at the file wrapper, click here.

You can find a post on a similar decision here.