Return to site

Inventive Step - "could-would" approach

T2482/22 - distributed to Chairmen

· EPO,EPCArticle56,EPOAppeals,InventiveStep,CouldWouldApproach

Introduction

The Board of Appeal in decision T 2482/22 addresses the inventive step of a patent concerning a cleaning robot and its control method. The key issue in the appeal was whether the invention involved an inventive step over prior art references. The appeal was filed by Aurigium Leischner & Luthe Patentanwälte (opponent), against the European patent owned by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The Board ultimately upheld the decision of the Opposition Division, which found that the claimed subject matter involved an inventive step under Article 56 EPC.

Summary of the Invention

The invention relates to a cleaning robot with a light emitter and a plurality of light receivers used for detecting obstacles. The innovation lies in the use of a rotatable support plate on which the light emitters and receivers are fixed. The robot detects obstacles based on signals from the light emitters and receivers, combined with rotational information from the support plate. This arrangement improves obstacle detection over conventional cleaning robots, which typically use a single light receiver and rely on mechanical tilting for height detection, leading to wear and tear.

Summary of the Decision

The Opponent (Aurigium Leischner & Luthe Patentanwälte) argued that the claims lacked novelty and did not involve an inventive step over prior art documents D1 and D2, both of which disclosed domestic cleaning robots with similar functionalities. The opponent also cited D3, a document concerning an autonomous vehicle using LIDAR sensors, to argue that the skilled person could easily adapt such a system for use in the cleaning robot.

The Patentee (Samsung Electronics), on the other hand, contended that the prior art did not disclose a plurality of light receivers or the specific configuration of their invention, which involved the use of multiple receivers to improve obstacle detection.

The Board ruled that while documents D1 and D2 disclosed cleaning robots, they did not teach or suggest the use of a plurality of light receivers in the manner claimed. Moreover, the Board found that D3 did not constitute a relevant combination with D1 or D2, since the LIDAR system in D3 was designed for long-distance obstacle detection in autonomous vehicles and was not suitable for the short-range environment of a domestic cleaning robot. The Board also emphasized that modifying the LIDAR system of D3 for use in a cleaning robot would require undue abstraction, going beyond the normal skills of a skilled person.

As a result, the Board upheld the Opposition Division’s decision and confirmed that the claimed invention involved an inventive step, thereby rejecting the appeal.

Legal Provisions Cited:

  • Article 56 EPC: Inventive step.
  • Article 13(2) RPBA 2020: Admittance of new facts and arguments after summons.
  • Relevant Case Law: G 7/95, T 0749/00, T 1989/18.

Lessons to Be Learned

The decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing features in assessing inventive step, particularly when dealing with prior art from different technical fields. In this case, the Board applied the "could-would" approach, reaffirming that while a skilled person could combine certain features, the inventive step lies in whether they would make such a modification with a reasonable expectation of success. The decision also highlights the limited admissibility of late-stage arguments in appeal proceedings under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

 

Contact

If you have any questions concerning intellectual property issuesor need assistance with patent applications, oppositions, or appeals, please do not hesitate to contact us at Novitech IP. Our team of experienced professionals is here to provide you with expert guidance and support. Reach out to us today to discuss how we can help protect your innovations and navigate the complexities of IP law.

To stay informed about the latest reviewsand updates in IP law, subscribe to our blog. Join our community and receive notifications whenever we publish new reviews and insights on important case law and developments in the field of intellectual property.

Legal Disclaimer

The information provided in this blog post is for generalinformational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary and analysis of the EPO case are based on publicly available information and are intended to offer insights into the decision and its implications. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.