T 1699/13 (Point-sequence approximation method and apparatus/TOYOTA) of 7.9.2017

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This appeal is against the decision of the examining division refusing European patent application No. 06017195.6, publication number EP 1 755 014 A.

The refusal was based on the grounds that claims 1 and 7 of a main request, claims 1 and 5 of a first auxiliary request and claims 1 and 7 of a second auxiliary request were not clear (Article 84 EPC) and that claims 1 and 7 of a third auxiliary request and claims 1 and 5 of a fourth auxiliary request contained subject-matter that extended beyond the content of the application as filed (Article 123(2) EPC).

II. In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of a main request or, in the alternative, on the basis of one of first to fifth auxiliary requests, all requests as filed with the statement of grounds of appeal.

III. In a communication following a summons to oral proceedings, the board, without prejudice to its final decision, raised objections under Article 84 EPC (clarity) and Article 123(2) EPC (added subject-matter).

IV. In response to the communication, the appellant filed, together with a letter dated 16 August 2017, a substantive response and claims of an amended main request and amended the first to fifth auxiliary requests.

V. Oral proceedings were held on 7 September 2017.

In the course of the oral proceedings, the appellant submitted additional claims as a sixth auxiliary request.

The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of the main request or, in the alternative, on the basis of the claims of one of the first to fifth auxiliary requests, all as filed with the letter dated 16 August 2017, or on the basis of the claims of the sixth auxiliary request as filed during the oral proceedings.

At the end of the oral proceedings, the chairman announced the board's decision.

VI. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"A point-sequence approximation method for a parking assist system of a vehicle, the method approximating a detected point sequence constituted of a plurality of points by a line, said plurality of points showing the position of a side of another vehicle characterized by comprising:

a determination step (S108) of determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region;

an evaluation step (S110) of, if it is determined that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of the curve approximation region, repeatedly performing random setting of candidates of an approximation straight line, and evaluation of approximation accuracy of the respective candidate of the approximation straight line based on distances between the respective candidate of the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence; and

a straight-line approximation step (S110) of performing straight-line approximation by using the candidate of the approximation straight line with the best result of evaluation of the approximation accuracy as an approximation straight line."

VII. Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that, at the end, the following wording has been added:

"and a curve approximation step (S110) of detecting a sequence of points that have been excluded from the straight-line approximation using the approximation straight line, based on distances between the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence, and then performing curve approximation of the sequence of points that have been excluded from the straight-line approximation, so as to separate a sequence of points within the straight-line approximation region and a sequence of points within the curve approximation region".

VIII. Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that, at the end of the second paragraph, the following wording has been added:

", a) either by determining whether the parallel-parking assist mode has been selected as a result of the operation of an assist-mode changing switch,

b) or by

setting candidates of an approximation straight line by using two points that are respectively randomly selected from among the points constituting the point sequence,

calculating distances between the respective set candidate of the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence,

deriving a number of such points for which the obtained distances are within a predetermined threshold value, and

determining that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high, provided that there is a candidate of the approximation straight line for which a proportion of such points that [sic] the distances from the candidate of the approximation straight line are within the threshold value to all the points constituting the point sequence is equal to or greater than a predetermined value",

and in that in the penultimate paragraph, i.e. beginning with "an evaluation step", in the wording "approximation accuracy of the respective candidate" "respective" has been deleted.

IX. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request combines claims 1 of the first and second auxiliary requests.

X. Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary reads as follows:

"A point-sequence approximation method carried out in a parking assist system of a vehicle while a parking assist control of the vehicle is performed, the method approximating a point sequence constituted of a plurality of points by a line for determining the position of another vehicle, and comprising:

a step of determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region, wherein the step of determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region,

either comprises determining whether a parallel-parking assist mode has been selected, and, if the parallel-parking assist mode is selected, determining that a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region,

or comprises

automatically determining whether the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of the curve approximation region, based on a score, wherein candidates of an approximation straight line are randomly set, and a proportion of the points from which the distances to the respective candidate of the approximation straight line are less than a predetermined threshold value to all the points, that is, the respective score is calculated, and, if there is a candidate of the approximation straight line having a score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, it is determined that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high, whereas, if there is no candidate of the approximation straight line having a score equal to or greater than the predetermined value, it is determined that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is low,

an evaluation step (S110) of, if it is determined that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of the curve approximation region, repeatedly performing setting of a candidate of an approximation straight line by randomly selecting two points from among the points constituting the point sequence, and evaluation of approximation accuracy of the candidate of the approximation straight line based on distances between the candidate of the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence; and

a straight-line approximation step (S110) of performing straight-line approximation by using the candidate of the approximation straight line with the best result of evaluation of the approximation accuracy as an approximation straight line."

XI. Claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request reads as follows:

"A point-sequence approximation method carried out in a parking assist system of a vehicle while a parking assist control of the vehicle is performed, the method approximating a point sequence constituted of a plurality of points by a line for determining the position of another vehicle, and comprising:

a step of determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region, said step comprising

a step of setting a candidate of the approximation straight line by using two points that are randomly selected from among the points constituting the point sequence,

a step of calculating distances between the set candidate of the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence, and

a step of deriving a number of points of which the obtained distances are within a predetermined threshold value, wherein

when there is a candidate of the approximation straight line for which a proportion of points, of which the distances from the candidate of the approximation straight line are within the threshold value, to all the points constituting the point sequence is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, it is determined that a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region;

an evaluation step (S110) of repeatedly performing setting of a candidate of an approximation straight line by randomly selecting two points from among the points constituting the point sequence, and evaluation of approximation accuracy of the candidate of the approximation straight line based on distances between the candidate of the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence; and

a straight-line approximation step (S110) of performing straight-line approximation by using the candidate of the approximation straight line with the best result of evaluation of the approximation accuracy as an approximation straight line."

XII. Claim 1 of the sixth auxiliary request reads as follows:

"A point-sequence approximation method for a parking assist system of a vehicle, the method approximating a detected point sequence constituted of a plurality of points by a line, said plurality of points showing the position of a side of another vehicle characterized by comprising:

determining that a parallel-parking assist mode has been selected as a result of the operation of an assist-mode changing switch,

an evaluation step (S110) of repeatedly performing random setting of candidates of an approximation straight line, and evaluation of approximation accuracy of the candidate of the approximation straight line based on distances between the respective candidate of the approximation straight line and the points constituting the point sequence; and

a straight-line approximation step (S110) of performing straight-line approximation by using the candidate of the approximation straight line with the best result of evaluation of the approximation accuracy as an approximation straight line."

Reasons for the Decision

1. Main request - claim 1 - clarity

1.1 Claim 1 includes the wording

"a determination step (S108) of determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region".

The term "proportion" refers to a relationship between two quantities. However, claim 1 does not specify to which quantity the straight-line approximation region and the curve approximation region are respectively related. Hence, the meaning of "proportion" in the context of the claim is unclear.

Further, the terms "straight-line approximation region" and "curve approximation region" are not defined and do not have a commonly accepted meaning. Hence, these terms are also unclear.

The board further notes that the wording "high as compared to" does not, unlike e.g. "higher than", clearly specify the relationship between the two quantities being compared.

1.2 The appellant essentially argued that a straight-line approximation region was a region suitable for a straight-line approximation. Further, the first pages of the description made it clear that at the determination step at issue, it was evaluated as to whether there is a region suitable for either a straight-line approximation or for a curve approximation. The first page of the description also made it clear that this determination was important to trigger the remaining steps of the claim.

1.3 The board is, however, not convinced by these arguments. Even if, for the sake of argument, it were clear that the purpose of the determination step was to determine whether there is a region suitable for either a straight-line or a curve approximation, the meaning of the term "proportion" and, hence, the corresponding determination and comparison would still be unclear. In this respect, the board notes that the description does not provide a definition of "straight-line approximation region" or "curve approximation region".

1.4 For the above reasons, the board concludes that claim 1 of the main request is not clear and, consequently, does not comply with Article 84 EPC.

1.5 The main request is therefore not allowable.

2. First auxiliary request - claim 1 - clarity

2.1 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request includes the same wording as that objected to in point 1 above.

The features added in claim 1 of the first auxiliary request compared to claim 1 of the main request make no reference to a "straight-line approximation region" or a "curve approximation region" and, hence, do not clarify these terms.

2.2 For these reasons and the reasons given in point 1, the board concludes that claim 1 of the first auxiliary request is not clear and, consequently, does not comply with Article 84 EPC.

2.3 The first auxiliary request is therefore not allowable.

3. Second auxiliary request - claim 1 - clarity

3.1 Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request includes the same wording as that objected to at point 1 above. The claim further adds two alternatives, a) and b), for carrying out the determination step (see point VIII above).

3.2 Using alternative a), the determination that concerns the proportion of the two approximation regions (first determination) is carried out by a second determination as to "whether the parallel-parking assist mode has been selected as a result of the operation of an assist-mode changing switch".

The above wording, in the board's opinion, expresses that the result of the second determination is equivalent to the result of the first determination. However, the second determination does not clarify the first determination, which the board objected to as being unclear (see point 1.1 above regarding the meaning of the terms "proportion", "straight-line approximation region", "curve approximation region" and "high as compared to").

For the same reasons, alternative b) does not clarify the first determination either.

3.3 Further, alternative b) includes the feature of "determining that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high, provided that there is a candidate of the approximation straight line for which a proportion of such points [sic] that the distances from the candidate of the approximation straight line are within the threshold value to all the points constituting the point sequence is equal to or greater than a predetermined value".

Firstly, this feature refers to a determination that "the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high". This is different from the above-mentioned first determination as to whether "a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve approximation region" and does not, therefore, clarify the first determination (underlining by the board).

Secondly, in the board's view, the condition introduced by "provided that" refers to the execution of the preceding determination "that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high" and only indicates when it is carried out. It does not therefore clarify what is meant by the proportion of a straight-line approximation region being "high".

3.4 The appellant argued that the condition introduced by "provided that" was not for carrying out the determination that the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high, but for explaining it.

The board does not accept this argument. The aforementioned determination is a method step, terminated by a comma and followed by the condition in question. There is no doubt that the condition "provided that ..." is to be understood as an instruction to execute the determination step if the condition in question is met.

3.5 For the above reasons, the board concludes that claim 1 of the second auxiliary request is not clear and, consequently, does not comply with Article 84 EPC.

3.6 The second auxiliary request is therefore not allowable.

4. Third auxiliary request - claim 1 - clarity

Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request combines claims 1 of the first and second auxiliary requests. The reasoning given above in points 2 and 3 thus applies mutatis mutandis.

Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request is therefore not clear either and does not comply with Article 84 EPC.

The third auxiliary request is therefore not allowable.

5. Fourth auxiliary request - claim 1 - clarity

5.1 Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request includes the the step of "determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve-approximation region". Further, claim 1 includes the feature that this determination is conditional, namely "if the parallel parking mode is selected" (see point X above).

As in claim 1 of the second auxiliary request, the determination objected to has thus been supplemented with a condition for its execution (see above, point 3.3, last paragraph), whilst what is meant by "determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve-approximation region" remains unclear.

5.2 The board therefore concludes that claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request is not clear and, consequently, does not comply with Article 84 EPC.

5.3 The fourth auxiliary request is therefore not allowable.

6. Fifth auxiliary request - claim 1 - clarity

6.1 Claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request includes the step of "determining whether a proportion of a straight-line approximation region is high as compared to that of a curve-approximation region". Further, it includes the feature that this determination is subject to a condition, namely "when there is a candidate of the approximation straight line ... equal to or greater than a predetermined value" (see point XI above).

The reasoning given above in point 5 thus applies mutatis mutandis.

6.2 The board therefore concludes that claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request is not clear and, consequently, does not comply with Article 84 EPC.

6.3 The fifth auxiliary request is therefore not allowable.

7. Sixth auxiliary request - admissibility

7.1 This auxiliary request was filed during the oral proceedings before the board. It is thus an amendment to the appellant's case within the meaning of Article 13(1) RPBA, which stipulates that any amendment to a party's case after it has filed its grounds of appeal may be admitted and considered at the board's discretion.

7.2 A well-established criterion used by the Boards of Appeal for deciding whether to admit late-filed requests under Article 13(1) RPBA is whether the new claims are prima facie allowable.

7.3 In the present case, claim 1 (see point XII) gives prima facie rise to objections under Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC:

Claim 1 includes the feature of "determining that a parallel-parking assist mode has been selected as a result of the operation of an assist-mode changing switch". However, this feature is claimed in isolation, i.e. it is unclear (Article 84 EPC) how, if at all, this determination or its result is linked to any of the other features in the claim.

According to the application as filed, the determination as to whether the proportion of the straight-line approximation region is high, compared to that of the curve approximation region, is always linked to either the selection of the parallel-parking assist mode as a result of the operation of an assist-mode changing switch or to a score as a result of the execution of a RANSAC (Random Sample Consensus) algorithm (see the application as published, paragraphs [0061] to [0063], and claim 16). However, in the present claim, since the feature of determining that a parallel-parking assist mode has been selected as a result of the operation of an assist-mode changing switch is claimed in isolation, the claim defines subject-matter which constitutes an intermediate generalisation of the above disclosure. Since the application documents as filed do not prima facie provide a basis for this intermediate generalisation, it is an unallowable intermediate generalisation, resulting in the claimed subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed (Article 123(2) EPC).

7.4 Bearing in mind that the sixth auxiliary request was filed during the oral proceedings and considering that claim 1 did not prima facie comply with Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC, the board did not admit the request into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(1) RPBA).

8. Conclusion

As there is no allowable request, it follows that the appeal is to be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.