Abstract on EPC2000 Art 056 for the decision T2852/19 of 26.01.2023
Bibliographic data
- Decision
- T 2852/19 of 26 January 2023
- Board of Appeal
- 3.4.03
- Inter partes/ex parte
- Ex parte
- Language of the proceedings
- English
- Distribution key
- No distribution (D)
- EPC Articles
- Art 56
- EPC Rules
- -
- RPBA:
- -
- Other legal provisions
- -
- Keywords
- inventive step (no) - mixture of technical and non-technical features - technical effect
- Cited cases
- T 0279/05
- Case Law Book
- -
Abstract
In T 2852/19, the invention related to optimising the occupancy of an event. The aim was to avoid seats remaining empty if visitors could not reach the event location in time. The invention proposed to automatically determine whether visitors to an event were in a defined area at a certain distance from the venue. GPS data from visitors' cell phones was used for this purpose. If ticket buyers were not in said area shortly before the start of the event, an alert was sent to them, and their ticket was resold in case of cancellation. The board held that there were two effects: (i) was optimising the seat occupancy; and (ii) was to increase the profit by reselling seats shortly prior to the event in case a visitor had cancelled its venue. Effect (i) was held to be technical. Effect (ii) was held to be non-technical. The problem was therefore formulated as optimising the seat occupancy and prompting the user to indicate whether they plan to attend the event and offer the seat for sale. The board found, inter alia, that it was obvious in view of the prior art, that the size of the area was reduced (e.g. from a 5-mile radius at 7:30 PM to a 2-mile radius at 7:45 PM) as an event start time approached. In view of the prior art, it was also held to be obvious that the reminder sent to the attendee contained a link or a request to cancel the reservation if the appointment time could not be met. The claimed invention therefore lacked an inventive step.