T 1561/19 (Monitoring equipment behaviour II/BLUE YONDER) of 19.7.2022

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the decision of the examining division refusing the present European patent application on the grounds of, inter alia, lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) and lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) with respect of the claims of a main request, a first auxiliary request and third to seventh auxiliary requests. A second auxiliary request was not admitted into the proceedings under Rule 137(3) EPC.

II. The appellant (applicant) was summoned to oral proceedings before the board. A communication was issued under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 including the board's negative preliminary opinion concerning clarity (Article 84 EPC) and inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

III. Oral proceedings before the board were held on 19 July 2022 by videoconference (jointly with related case T 1560/19). At their end, the board announced its decision.

IV. The appellant's final requests were that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of one of the main request and first to seventh auxiliary requests underlying the appealed decision.

V. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows (board's feature labelling; the board also underlined some of the differences vis-à-vis claim 1 of the main request in related case T 1560/19):

(a) "A processor core array (100, 700, 800) for characterizing behavior properties of equipment under observation (105),

(b) the processor core array (100, 700, 800) comprising a plurality of processor cores, wherein one or more of the processor cores implement an operation module (705) to select processor cores (MC 1, MC 2, MC X) of the plurality of microprocessor cores,

(c) wherein the selected processor cores are adapted to process input values ({a}, {b} ... {d}) to output values {b}, {c}, {d}, {e}) according to numerical transfer functions ({FI}, {FJ}, {FK}, {FL}, {FM}), with the numerical transfer functions having a mapping functionality, and with an input-to-output mapping specified by a configuration ({{C}}), with the input-output mapping relating input values to output values, and with each input value corresponding to a single determined output value,

(d) wherein the processor core array is adapted to load the configuration ({{C}}) prior to processing time, and

(e) wherein the operation module (705) is adapted to select the microprocessor cores (MC 1, MC 2, MC X) from the plurality of microprocessors according to the availability of the cores and according to presence of equipment data values ({a}) from the equipment under observation (105)".

VI. Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the main request, with the word "and" removed from the end of feature (d), and further includes, at the end, the following feature:

(f) ", and

wherein the operation module (705) is adapted to assign data structures in memory to operate as configuration buffers and to associate the data structures with the selected cores to receive the configuration ({{C}})".

VII. Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request, with the word "and" removed at the beginning of feature (f) and further includes, at the end, the following features:

(g) ", and

wherein the operation module (705) assigns a data structure to receive a configuration ({{C}} alpha) of a first processing context (alpha) and to receive a configuration ({{C}} beta) of a second processing context (beta), and

(h) wherein the processor core array (100, 700, 800) selects (191, 192) the cores to process data values accordingly during a time period that corresponds to the sampling rate".

VIII. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the second auxiliary request, with the clause "during a time period that corresponds to the sampling rate" removed from feature (h), and further includes, at the end, the following feature:

(i) ", wherein input data values are being processed in the first processing context and subsequently being processed in the second processing context".

IX. Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request and further includes, between features (c) and (d), the following feature:

(j) "wherein the numerical transfer functions have elements

indicative of a function type (t~),

indicative of input values (i~), and

indicative of output values (o~),".

X. Claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request and further includes, between features (j) and (d), the following feature:

(k) "the elements specified by the configuration,".

XI. Claim 1 of the sixth auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request and further includes, between features (c) and (j), the following feature:

(l) "wherein the configuration ({{C}}) is obtained by pre-processing historic data (114) from a plurality of master equipment (104) in relation to the behavior properties of the equipment under observation (105),".

XII. Lastly, claim 1 of the seventh auxiliary request includes all the features of claim 1 of the sixth auxiliary request but with feature (l) replaced with the following feature:

(m) "the configuration ({{C}}) being related to the behavior properties of the equipment under observation (105) so that some of the output values ({e}) represent the behavior properties of the equipment under observation (105),".

Reasons for the Decision

1. Technical background

The present application relates to monitoring a technical equipment's "behaviour". It does so in a way similar to the monitoring in case T 1560/19 (see Reasons 1 of the board's decision in that case), but implemented in the specific form of a "processor core array" having a plurality of microprocessor cores.

2. Main request: claim 1 - clarity

2.1 Concerning clarity of claim 1 of the main request, similar considerations as mentioned in Reasons 2.1 to 2.3 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19 apply.

2.2 In particular, regarding Reasons 2.1 and 2.2 of that decision, the board holds also for the present appeal case that

- the claims should essentially be read and interpreted by a skilled reader on their own merits, rather than with the aid of the description and drawings;

- the skilled reader to whom the present application is addressed is from the field of "data processing for monitoring technical equipment" (see also paragraph [001] of the present application as filed).

2.3 Moreover, similar to what was observed in Reasons 2.2 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19, the clause "for characterising behaviour properties of equipment under observation" (emphasis added) of present feature (a) is unclear for the reader skilled in the technical field mentioned in point 2.2 above because it is not apparent

- how the equipment's behaviour properties are characterised by the processor core array

and

- by whom or by which entity the equipment is under observation.

2.4 More specifically, the following unclarities are apparent:

2.4.1 Feature (e) is, apart from feature (a), the only feature in claim 1 that concerns the "equipment under observation". It requires merely to select the "microprocessor cores" of feature (b) based on whether equipment data values from the equipment under observation are present (i.e. available). It would however be unclear to the skilled reader whether the claimed "processor core array" can, in fact, characterise the "equipment's behaviour properties", i.e. describe the distinctive nature of these properties, particularly in view of the fact that, as was highlighted already in Reasons 2.3.1 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19, the equipment's behaviour could relate to a behaviour over a certain time span or to a behaviour in the past, the present or even the future, which are all to be characterised differently in order to describe their distinctive nature. Claim 1 is entirely silent in this regard.

2.4.2 Moreover, the claimed "processor core array" does not comprise any features that would enable an "observation" as required by feature (a). In particular, it does not indicate how to characterise behaviour properties of the equipment which cannot be directly observed, for instance, when a camera is used to observe the equipment comprising a protective casing, the (internal) behaviour of the equipment being discernible only when the protective casing is removed. It is emphasised here that the "input" of the

"input-to-output mapping" of feature (c) is completely arbitrary. The same applies to the "configuration" according to features (c) and (d).

2.5 In addition, features (b) and (e) suffer from an inconsistent terminology, referring to "a plurality of processor cores" and "the plurality of microprocessor cores" in feature (b) as well as to "the microprocessor cores", "the plurality of microprocessors" and "the cores" in feature (e).

2.6 As a consequence, claim 1 of the main request does not fulfil the clarity requirement of Article 84 EPC.

3. Main request: claim 1 - inventive step

3.1 A similar reasoning as provided in Reasons 2.4 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19 applies here.

3.2 As regards the presence of a credible technical effect, the appellant emphasised during the hearing before the board that the claimed "processor core array" comprises multiple microprocessor cores. This implied, in the appellant's view, that a selection must be made of which microprocessor core will perform which calculations. The appellant further explained that the operation module of features (b) and (e) was necessarily active at the same time when the microprocessor cores process the data. In the appellant's opinion, the expression "according to" of this latter feature implied that it was checked which microprocessor cores and which data values were available. The appellant also emphasised that the term "behaviour" implied that the equipment was not a "museum piece" but was necessarily doing something. The appellant concluded that, as a result, the equipment would unavoidably make the data values according to feature (e) available. In the appellant's view, the skilled reader would realise that this selection was to be done "on the fly" with the aim of "saving energy".

The appellant's line of argument does not imply, however, any technical effect that would be credibly brought about by features (a) to (e). The board agrees that the "plurality of microprocessor cores" of feature (b) requires the presence of a scheduler, i.e. an "operation module" according to features (b) and (e), to distribute incoming tasks over the microprocessor cores. However, features (a) to (e) are silent about how the operation module actually performs this distribution. In particular, they are silent about any selection "on the fly". The same applies to the aim of "saving energy". The board can therefore only come to the same conclusion as in Reasons 2.4 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19, namely that the claimed processor core array acts as a "black box" using abstract mathematical method steps, without achieving any credible technical effect.

3.3 Moreover, regarding the formulation of the objective technical problem, the appellant started from the assumption that the problem of "re-recognising certain signal patterns" as addressed in Reasons 2.4 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19 was solved. The appellant submitted that, with this underlying assumption, the skilled reader would realise that the microprocessor cores must be selected appropriately, namely according to the availability of a particular microprocessor core and of relevant data values. It was important, in the appellant's view, to appreciate that this selection must be done with the knowledge of the skilled reader at the present application's date of filing. The appellant concluded that the skilled reader would then realise that the objective technical problem to be solved was "how to avoid spending too many of the microprocessor cores".

However, features (a) to (e) leave the skilled reader in the dark on how to select the microprocessor cores "appropriately". Such an appropriate selection must evidently take into account the conditions that prevail in the claimed "processor core array" at the time of selection. Such conditions are not mentioned in features (a) to (e). The board notes in particular here that these features are, for instance, silent on the point in time and the frequency at which the availability of the microprocessor cores and of the data values according to feature (e) are verified.

3.4 Hence, even if claim 1 of the main request were clear, no inventive step could be acknowledged (Article 56 EPC).

4. First to seventh auxiliary requests: claim 1 - clarity and inventive step

4.1 Features (f) to (m) do not resolve any of the clarity deficiencies mentioned for claim 1 of the main request in point 2 above. In particular, the following is noted.

4.1.1 Regarding feature (h), the appellant submitted during the hearing before the board that the sampling rate was linked to the timing of the data values' availability. The appellant noted that the skilled reader would immediately understand that the term "equipment" was missing in front of "data values" in feature (h), such that it was readily apparent that the same data values as those in feature (e) were meant.

The board holds that none of features (a) to (h) provide any indication supporting the appellant's interpretation of the terms "sampling rate" and "data values" used in feature (h). This means that, in particular, the data values of feature (h) can very well differ from those of feature (e).

4.1.2 Furthermore, the board acknowledges that feature (l) may provide a link between the "configuration" of features (c), (d) and (k) and "behaviour properties of the equipment under observation" of feature (a). However, it would not be apparent for the skilled reader how a particular configuration would actually have been obtained: the skilled reader would not be able to verify whether such a configuration has in fact been obtained by pre-processing historic data from a plurality of master equipments.

4.1.3 Moreover, feature (m) merely requires the behaviour properties of the equipment under observation to be related to the configuration of features (c), (d) and (k). Similar to what has been set out in Reasons 2.3.1 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19, no details regarding the relationship between the equipment's "behaviour properties" and the "configuration" are provided in feature (m), other than the vague indication that some of the output values obtained via the configuration represent the behaviour properties. Due to the breadth of the terms referred to in feature (m), the skilled reader would consequently be in doubt as to whether (some of) the "output values" of feature (m) can, in fact, characterise the equipment's behaviour properties, i.e. describe the distinctive nature of these properties.

4.1.4 Regarding feature (m), the appellant emphasised that the term "some" simply related to a subset.

Nonetheless, the board holds that this term introduces a further lack of clarity because the skilled reader is not informed, by the wording of claim 1, about what happens with the other output values. Moreover, similar to what has been addressed in Reasons 2.3.1 of the board's decision in case T 1560/19, the skilled reader would not know how to achieve the result that "some of the output values represent the behaviour properties of the equipment under observation".

4.2 Moreover, features (f) to (m), as far as they can be understood, do not contribute to an inventive step, given that they constitute obvious implementation details to the skilled person.

4.3 Hence, the first to seventh auxiliary requests are also not allowable under Articles 84 and 56 EPC.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.