Abstract on Article 056 EPC for the decision T0847/24 of 25.03.2026

In T 847/24 the contested patent related to a method for configuring a surgical guide and an associated implant for maxillofacial osteosynthesis, both customised to a patient. The board found that feature 1.6 was the only feature distinguishing the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request from the method disclosed in D2. Feature 1.6 was non-technical when considered in isolation since it merely corresponded to the generation of abstract data representing a 3D structure for an implant.

Manufacturing an implant having the 3D structure determined in accordance with feature 1.6 would undisputedly allow this feature to have an impact on physical reality and thus to contribute to achieving a technical effect, for example by leading to a physical implant having the advantages mentioned by the appellant. However, the outcome of the claimed method was not a physical implant but merely abstract data defining a 3D structure for such an implant. Notably, claim 1 of the main request did not refer to any manufacturing step.

The board noted that the step of configuring the implant may involve further processing of the 3D structure determined in accordance with feature 1.6. However, even in that case, the configuring step would still merely produce further data defining the configured implant. The fact that the data produced by the claimed method, in defining the 3D structure of the configured implant, may reflect the properties of a physical object that may exist at some later point, namely the implant once manufactured did not change that conclusion. Rather, this physical object remains purely hypothetical as long as an implant having this structure is not manufactured. In the absence of a manufacturing step in claim 1, the data remains, first and foremost, mere data, which can be used in many different ways (see G 1/19).

In accordance with G 1/19, only those technical effects that are at least implied in the claim should be considered in the assessment of inventive step. If the claimed process results in a set of numerical values, whether a resulting technical effect can be considered in the assessment of inventive step depends on the further use of such data. If such further use is not, at least implicitly, specified in the claim, it is to be disregarded for this purpose. The board acknowledged that manufacturing the implant was a possible, even probable, use of this data. However, that was not sufficient for the data to contribute to the technical character of the claimed method.

The indication in feature 1.1 that the implant was "for maxillofacial osteosynthesis" does not imply a technical use of the data resulting from the claimed method but merely indicates the suitability of the implant for that medical use. Moreover, the data resulting from the claimed method is not defined in claim 1 as being specifically adapted for a technical use. This might have been the case, for example, if the claim had required the data to be formatted so as to be directly readable by, or usable in, a specific manufacturing apparatus, such as a 3D printing device. Claim 1, however, contains no such limitation. Furthermore, the board held that other uses which do not have any technical effect can also be realistically envisaged. For example, a comparison with existing implants. In such a case, no impact on physical reality would result from carrying out the claimed method.

The argument that the pre-operative 3D model was generated using data indicative of the anatomy of a real existing patient (feature 1.2) and that the implant configured by the method was customised so as to achieve a desired maxillofacial reconstruction for that patient, anchored the claimed method in physical reality and thus rendered the data produced by the method itself technical in nature was not persuasive.

Indirect measurements, in which the physical state of an object is typically calculated, are still related to physical reality and thus are of a technical nature, regardless of what use is made of the results (G 1/19). However, claim 1 is not directed to determining, by calculation, the physical state or a physical property of an existing object. Rather, it is directed to determining abstract data defining the 3D structure of an implant which does not yet physically exist. The fact that the method starts from data indicative of a pre-operative anatomy does not change the nature of the data ultimately produced by the claimed method, nor does it imply any further technical use of this data.

The board therefore concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request did not involve an inventive step.