Abstract on EPC2000 Art 056 for the decision T0814/20 of 20.03.2023

In T 814/20 the board was satisfied that the claimed method for the re-identification of objects captured by image cameras was a technical purpose because it was tantamount to an objective measurement in physical reality: is the object observed now the same as the one observed earlier? It remained to be appreciated whether the claimed method provided a technical effect over substantially the whole scope of the claim (see G 1/19, point 82 of the Reasons). The board held that the claimed method for the re-identification of objects captured by image cameras would not "work" under all imaginable circumstances. It was probably safe to say that no computer vision method does. For instance, the present method may fail to re-identify objects largely changing appearance. However, the skilled person would understand, from the present claims and the description, the kind of situations and its parameters for which the method was designed. The method credibly worked over that range of situations. In the board's judgment, this was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a technical effect be present over substantially the whole scope of the claims. On obviousness, in the board's view, the skilled person, starting from D3, may have considered Fisher Vectors to measure image similarity for classification purposes instead of the MAP adaptation method, but would not combine the two in the claimed manner. Thus, the claimed matter was not obvious in view of the prior art at hand and the board concluded the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step in the sense of Art. 56 EPC.