T 1468/21 () of 1.4.2025

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the examining division's decision to refuse European patent application No. 17 382 543 on the grounds that the subject-matter of the then sole request on file did not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

II. During the appeal procedure, the appellant submitted requests which were all withdrawn during the oral proceedings before the board, apart from the sole main request submitted during these oral proceedings.

III. At the end of the oral proceedings before the board the appellant requested that the impugned decision be set aside and that a European patent be granted on the basis of the following documents:

- Description: pages 1 to 11 received during oral proceedings before the board,

- Claims: No. 1 to 10 received during oral proceedings before the board,

- Drawings: sheets 1/3 to 3/3 filed in electronic form on 4 September 2017.

IV. Independent device claim 1 of the sole request has the following wording (feature numbering in square brackets has been added by the board in line with the feature numbering used in the impugned decision):

"[A] A system for the delivery and collection of goods, comprising at least:

- one locker (1) with a synchronized lock (12), comprising a door (11) and an electronic lock (12) provided with a keypad (121) for inputting opening codes, storage means (122) and processing means (123), where:

[B] the storage means (122) of the lock (12) store, by means of hardware/software,

[C] at least one set (A) of opening codes generated by a generation seed for generating said set (A) of codes;

[D] the locker (1) being characterized in that the lock (12) also comprises processing means (123) implemented by means of hardware and/or software, where said processing means (123) of the lock (12) are configured with a selection algorithm for identifying when the lock (12) of the locker (1) is open or closed, and

[E] for automatically assigning a new opening code from the set (A) to the lock (12) upon opening or closing said lock (12) of the locker (1),

[F] wherein the assignment of a new opening code is autonomous with respect to external communications and

[G] - one remote server (2) equipped with: storage means (21) configured for storing at least the corresponding generation seed for generating said set (A) of codes; and processing means (22) implemented by hardware/software, said processing means (22) being configured with the same opening code selection algorithm as the one comprised in the processing means (123) of the lock (12) of the locker (1)

- one or more terminals (4, 4') connected to the remote server (2) through a communication network (5);

[H] wherein the system is characterized in that

the opening code of the server (2) is synchronized with the opening code of the locker (1), such that said code can be communicated to the users (3, 3') of the system from the server (2), by means of the one or more terminals (4, 4'), wherein after establishing the new opening code, confirmation information is configured to be sent to the server (2) by means of a terminal of the one or more terminals (4, 4') through the communication network (5), where after sending the confirmation information to the remote server (2), the remote server is configured to update its active opening code in a manner synchronized with the lock (12) of the locker (1), the remote server configured to send the active opening code through the communication network (5) to a new user (3, 3') of the system."

Independent method claim 5 of the sole request has the following wording:

"A method for the delivery and collection of goods, which comprises using a system according to any of claims 1-4, and performing the following steps:

- establishing a first code as the active code of the lock (12), where said first code is stored in the storage means (122) or computed in the processing means (123) from the set (A);

- opening the lock (12) only once when said first code is input through the keypad 10 [sic] (121) and keeping it closed if any other code is input;

- establishing, by means of the selection algorithm of the processing means (123), a second code as the active code of the lock (12) and where said second code is stored in the storage means (122) or computed in the processing means (123) from the set (A);

- opening the lock (12) only once when said second code is input through the keypad (121) and keeping it closed if any other code is input; and

- returning subsequently to the first step;

wherein, after establishing the new opening code in the lock (12), confirmation information is sent to the remote server (2) of the system by means of a mobile terminal (4, 4') through the communication network (5), where after sending the confirmation information to the remote server (2) of the system, the latter updates its active opening code in a manner synchronized with the lock (12) of the locker (1) and sends it through the communication network (5) to a new user (3, 3') of the system."

V. The following document is referred to below:

D1: WO 01/39638 A1

VI. The appellant's arguments, insofar as they are relevant to the present decision, are summarised as follows:

The appellant was to be given the opportunity to respond to the examining division's surprising objection concerning the "broken technical chain fallacy" by filing an amended claim request. The objection concerning the "broken technical chain fallacy" was raised for the first time during the oral proceedings before the examining division and the precise reasoning only became clear upon reading the examining division's written decision.

In addition, the "broken technical chain fallacy" did not apply in the case in hand because the locker and the related units, such as the remote server and the terminal(s), were only used and controlled by the user, which is comparable to what a driver would do with a steering wheel when driving a car. As the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 was technical, was novel and was not obvious in view of the teaching of document D1 in combination with the common general knowledge, the claim request was to be considered to fulfil the requirements of the EPC and a European patent was to be granted accordingly.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Admission of the main request

1.1 The main request was filed for the first time during the oral proceedings before the board. It therefore constitutes an amendment to the appeal case, the admission of which into the proceedings is governed by Article 13 RPBA.

1.2 According to Article 13(2) RPBA, "[a]ny amendment to a party's appeal case made ... after notification of a communication under Article 15, paragraph 1, shall, in principle, not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons by the party concerned".

1.3 The examining division raised the objection with regard to the "broken technical chain fallacy" for the first time during the oral proceedings before the examining division. In so doing, the examining division put the appellant in a difficult situation, since the appellant could not respond correctly and promptly to this rather specific objection during the oral proceedings before the examining division. Moreover, the examining division's exact reasoning with regard to this objection only became clear to the appellant when it read the examining division's written decision. Therefore, the board concurs with the appellant that it should be allowed to submit a new set of claims in the appeal proceedings.

1.4 The appellant's substantive arguments put forward in its grounds of appeal as to why the "broken technical chain fallacy" did not apply to the subject-matter of claim 1 became fully comprehensible only during the discussion in the oral proceedings before the board. In response to this, the appellant submitted a new set of claims which did not require the board to examine any new issues and also overcame all the outstanding objections.

1.5 Under these circumstances the board considers that filing a sole request in which all the outstanding objections have been addressed and which does not give rise to any further objections constitutes exceptional circumstances in the sense of Article 13(2) RPBA.

1.6 Hence, the board exercises its discretion and admits the main request submitted during the oral proceedings before the board into the proceedings (Article 13(2) RPBA).

2. The invention

The present invention concerns a locker for delivery and collection of goods with an electronic lock. In order to provide secure delivery, the locker comprises a keypad which allows an opening code to be entered which is updated after each use. A valid opening code is transmitted to the user from a remote server synchronised with the valid code of the locker prior to the locker being opened by the user when collecting a delivered good. The locker is supposed to be entirely autonomous with regard to all other structural units, i.e. it is not supposed to communicate remotely with other structural units. This is achieved by storing the same generation seed for generating the opening codes in the locker and in parallel in a remote server. Once an opening code has been used to open the locker, the processing unit of the locker automatically generates and activates a new code in the electronic lock of the locker. In order to synchronise the remote server with the locker, the user who has opened the locker and collected or delivered goods provides feedback to the remote server via an additional external terminal, indicating that the previous code has been used. In response to this feedback from the user, a new code is also activated in the remote server, using the same generation seed as the one used in the locker, so that the updated codes in the locker and the remote server are identical. For the next delivery, the updated code can then be distributed to the next user by the remote server. An entirely autonomous locker is less at risk of an attack and provides increased security. In addition, an autonomous locker can be used in locations in which telecommunication is not available.

3. Inventive step

3.1 Closest prior art

3.1.1 Document D1 represents a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step.

Document D1 deals with a system for delivery and collection of goods using a locker whose electronic lock is controlled by a central control system remote from the locker. Telecommunication means established between the locker and the central control system allow information to be exchanged between the central control system, the users and the locker.

3.1.2 It is undisputed that document D1 discloses feature [A] (D1: Figure 1; page 9, lines 6 to 16), feature [B] (D1: abstract; Figure 1; page 10, lines 21 to 26) and feature [D] (D1: page 11, lines 20 to 30).

3.2 Differentiating features

3.2.1 Features [C], [E], [F], [G] and [H] are not disclosed in their entirety in document D1 and are consequently the differentiating features. The locker in document D1 is not autonomous, but is centrally controlled by the computer (40) / central control system. The opening codes are centrally generated in the central control system, which distributes every newly updated opening code to the locker and to the user. Hence, the locker in document D1 is not autonomous and document D1 does not disclose any specific details of how the opening codes are selected or created in the central control system (40).

3.3 Technical effect - objective technical problem

3.3.1 As identified by the appellant, the differentiating features solve the technical problem of providing a fully autonomous locker. The board agrees.

3.3.2 Feature [C] relates to a particular way of creating or determining the opening code and of storing it in the locker.

3.3.3 Features [E], [F], [G] and [H] relate to the specific set-up of an autonomous locker and its relationship with the remote server / central control system in order to correctly distribute the valid opening code to the user and synchronise the autonomous locker with the central control system.

3.3.4 Although the locker is autonomous with respect to other structural units like a telecommunication network or the central control system, the opening codes in the locker and the remote server need to be updated and synchronised after the delivered goods have been collected from the autonomous locker (or delivered to the locker). The new opening codes have to be generated and synchronised in both the locker and the remote server. The synchronisation between the remote server and the locker is essential in order to issue a new code to a new user only after the previous code has been used, i.e. after the delivered goods have been picked up from the locker (or after the goods have been delivered to the locker).

3.3.5 The five differentiating features [C], [E], [F], [G] and [H] are at least partially linked to the objective technical problem of rendering the locker autonomous; however, these features solve three separate technical "sub-problems" related to the cited technical problem.

3.3.6 The first sub-problem relates to the question of how the opening codes are created or selected.

3.3.7 The second sub-problem relates to the question of how to provide the same opening codes in the locker and the remote server, i.e. how to ensure that the same opening code is provided in the locker and the remote server which distributes the locker's opening code to the user.

3.3.8 The third sub-problem relates to the question of how to synchronise both separate units, namely the locker and the remote server, in order to ensure that both units use the same opening codes for one collection/delivery, i.e. that the correct opening code of the locker is remotely distributed to the user by the remote server only once the locker is available.

3.4 Obviousness

3.4.1 The above sub-problems immediately arise when the skilled person tries to render the locker known from document D1 completely autonomous. The board has illustrated this in Figure 1 of document D1 below by circling the locker to show that the locker has to be autonomous from external units, in particular from the central control system or the telecommunication network.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

3.4.2 Therefore, when looking at this figure, the technically skilled person realises that if the locker should be autonomous, the opening codes must be stored or provided separately but in parallel in the locker and in the central control system, i.e. in the remote server. It is consequently obvious to the skilled person that the same list of opening codes, i.e. the same or a corresponding generation seed, must be stored in the remote server and the locker in parallel. Therefore, feature [C] must be used in the same way in the locker and the remote server, resulting in feature [G].

3.4.3 Concerning the above-mentioned first sub-problem, i.e. the specific use of a generation seed to generate the opening codes as defined by features [C] and [G], document D1 discloses that the opening code is "generated" by the central computer using "security code generation means" (D1: page 2, line 24) or by the "system administrator" (D1: page 10, lines 12 to 14). On this basis, the use of a "generation seed" is considered to be a well-known technical implementation in relation to the general wording disclosed in document D1. Therefore, the use of a "generation seed" as defined in features [C] and [G] is part of the common general knowledge and cannot contribute to inventive step.

3.4.4 Features [C] and [G], relating to the first and second sub-problems formulated under points 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 above, are considered obvious when starting from document D1 in view of the skilled person's common general knowledge.

3.4.5 The claimed solution to the third sub-problem relates to the synchronisation of the opening codes provided in the locker and in the remote server (for being distributed to the user) as defined by features [E], [F] and [H]. The board considers that the solution to this sub-problem is not obvious to the skilled person when starting from document D1, for the following reasons.

3.4.6 In document D1, information of and relating to the opening code is transmitted from the remote server to the locker via the telecommunication network, including not only the opening code itself but also information concerning its activation, e.g. the time interval during which the opening code should be enabled (D1: page 10, line 14 to page 11, line 8). The central control system might also monitor whether the locker has actually been opened or closed by means of the telecommunication network (D1: page 6, line 29 to page 7, line 12). Implementing a similar or alternative method to that disclosed in document D1 in an autonomous locker is consequently not feasible, as the locker should not have any external link, meaning that no information should be transmitted via the telecommunication network from or to the locker. This is illustrated in the reproduced Figure 1 of document D1 above by the cross, which illustrates the prohibition of communication with the outside world.

3.4.7 In the present invention and as defined by features [E] and [F], the opening code in the locker is updated to a new opening code once the door of the locker has been opened and/or closed. A detection mechanism to detect the door being opened and/or closed after the use of the activated opening code is therefore implemented in the locker, as also taught by document D1 (D1: page 5, line 30 to page 6, line 5).

However, once the opening code is updated in the locker, the remote server has to be informed of this update, i.e. the locker and the remote server have to be synchronised, so that the remote server can also update the opening code to a new one. As long as the remote server is not informed of this change of the opening code to a new one in the locker, it cannot provide a new code to a new user.

Therefore, in the present invention, the synchronisation is attributed to the user who, after collecting the delivery (or after depositing the goods), inputs a single piece of information via the "one or more terminals (4, 4')", as defined in feature [H]. The "one or more terminals (4, 4')" allow this information to be transmitted to the remote server, notifying the remote server that the current code in the locker has been used. This enables the remote server to update the opening code to a new one.

3.4.8 The use of "one or more terminals (4, 4')" to provide the feedback to the remote server, as defined in feature [H], is not obvious when starting from document D1, however. Without any hindsight it cannot be demonstrated that document D1 indicates or suggests the specific synchronisation of opening codes as defined by feature [H]. In document D1 the synchronisation is obtained either by providing specific information via the telecommunication network to the locker (e.g. a predetermined time window for the opening code to be valid in the locker) or by direct monitoring of the locker from the central control system via the telecommunication network. The synchronisation as carried out in document D1 is therefore clearly quite different and the skilled person is not prompted to use the solution as implemented in the present invention. Therefore, the specific synchronisation via the user themselves using "one or more terminals (4, 4')", as defined by feature [H], is considered to be inventive.

3.4.9 With regard to the examining division's reasoning regarding the "broken technical chain fallacy", it is true that the locker and the "one or more terminals (4, 4')" are not technically linked to each other. The user's intervention is required to inform the remote server, via the "one or more terminals (4, 4')", that the locker door has been opened and/or closed; however, in the present case, contrary to cases T 1670/07 and T 1741/08, there is no "broken technical chain", since the user only enters a single piece of objective information on the "one or more terminals (4, 4')" without any subjective choice or specific mental activity on their part. They simply provide an objective piece of information required to synchronise the autonomous locker with the remote server in the same way as they enter the opening code on the locker's keypad to open it. No mental or subjective response by the user is necessary, but they only provide an objective piece of information ("delivered good collected from the locker") to the "one or more terminals (4, 4')".

3.4.10 In contrast to this, case T 1670/07 concerns optimising a shopping itinerary in which the vendors visited are selected according to the customer's user profile. The deciding board found that "the possible final technical effect brought about by the action of a user cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect because it is conditional on the mental activities of the user" (point 11 of the Reasons). In the deciding board's view, the technical effect, if present at all, depended on the user's reaction to the itinerary. The deciding board further explained, with reference to T 1741/08, that a user's reaction to a piece of (non-technical) information was considered to be a "broken technical chain fallacy".

3.4.11 T 1741/08 concerns a graphical user interface (GUI) designed to assist the user in making choices on the GUI. The user's reaction is not a simple confirmation of a status quo by the user to the technical system, but instead the user responds subjectively to the information provided on the GUI (points 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 of the Reasons).

3.4.12 In contrast to these decisions, it becomes evident that a "user's reaction to information" is more than simple "feedback" in response to an actual situation. A "user's reaction to information" involves a subjective mental act performed by the user that is clearly distinct from simple feedback. Moreover, the user will recognise the simple feedback as an essential element for correctly using a technical system, as in the present case in which the user has no choice (apart from deciding whether or not to provide the expected input). For example, case T 1741/08 is in contrast to this, in which a user's reaction to information consists of a selection from several given and offered possibilities.

It could be argued that the entire process is stopped by a missing or incorrect user input (i.e. simple "feedback"); however, in the present case, this process interruption should not be interpreted as a possible "broken technical chain" since it is not the technical chain that is broken by subjective intervention of a user involving its reaction to information; the technical chain is merely broken by the claimed technical system being incorrectly used by the user.

3.4.13 Therefore, inputting a single piece of information, which represents feedback on a factual, objective situation from a user within a technical process and does not require any mental activity on the part of the user, i.e. no specific reaction by the user to information, does not immediately lead to a "broken technical chain fallacy".

3.5 The board therefore concludes that the examining division's decision was incorrect and that the subject-matter defined in claim 1 is inventive when starting from document D1 in view of the skilled person's common general knowledge (Article 52(1) EPC in combination with Article 56 EPC).

4. Independent method claim 5 and dependent claims

Independent method claim 5 refers to apparatus claim 1 and defines the use of the autonomous locker in claim 1. It is therefore inventive for the same reasons as claim 1. Since all the remaining claims are dependent on either claim 1 or claim 5, they also meet the requirement of inventive step.

5. Conclusion

The board concludes that since

- the subject-matter defined in claims 1 and 5, and the invention to which it relates, is novel and involves an inventive step, since

- this conclusion also applies to the dependent claims, and since

- the application documents as a whole meet the requirements of the EPC,

a European patent can be granted on the basis of the application documents of the sole request.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the examining division with the order to grant a patent in the following version:

- Description: pages 1 to 11 received during oral proceedings before the board,

- Claims: No. 1 to 10 received during oral proceedings before the board,

- Drawings: sheets 1/3 to 3/3 filed in electronic form on 4 September 2017.