Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)
    Image
    Patent Academy catalogue

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • Technologies
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • Core activities
          • Stories and insights
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation against cancer
        • Assistive robotics
        • Space technologies
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
        • Research universities and public research organisations
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 0722/15 (Performance monitoring and identifying upgrades for wind turbines/GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY) 09-12-2021
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0722/15 (Performance monitoring and identifying upgrades for wind turbines/GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY) 09-12-2021

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T072215.20211209
Date of decision
09 December 2021
Case number
T 0722/15
Petition for review of
-
Application number
10382075.9
IPC class
F03D 11/00
G05B 23/02
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 427.23 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Systems and methods for performance monitoring and identifying upgrades for wind turbines

Applicant name
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Opponent name

RWE Innogy GmbH

Senvion GmbH

Vestas Wind Systems A/S

ENERCON GmbH

Board
3.5.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 100(b)
Keywords

Identity of an opponent - transfer of opponent status (yes)

Inventive step - identification of upgrades for performance improvements on the basis of benchmark data (no

Inventive step - obvious in view of prior art)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0004/88
T 0653/89
Citing decisions
-

I. This appeal is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office revoking European patent No. 2372479 pursuant to

Article 101(3)(b) EPC with regard to prior-art publication:

E3: WO 2006/119112 A1.

II. The revocation of the patent in suit in the decision under appeal was based on a lack of novelty objection under Article 100(a) and 54(2) EPC with regard to prior art publication E3 (former main request) and a lack of inventive step objection under Article 100(a) and 56 EPC with regard to prior art publication E3 combined with the skilled person's common general knowledge (former first auxiliary request). A second auxiliary request was held inadmissible in the contested decision.

Furthermore and with regard to objections under Articles 100(a), 52 and 100(b) EPC raised by several opponents, the opposition division held that claim 1 as granted met the requirements of Articles 52, 83 and 123(2) EPC. In particular the subject-matter of claim 1 was considered to have technical character, since it was directed to a system (see point 4 of the decision) and to be sufficiently disclosed and specified by using functional features, which would enable the skilled person to calculate performance data and profiles (see e.g. points 3.3 to 3.5 of the contested decision).

III. In the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, dated 22 June 2015, the proprietor (appellant), General Electric Company, requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form according to the main request (corresponding to the former first auxiliary request) or according to a first, second or third auxiliary request, all submitted therewith. Oral proceedings were requested on an auxiliary basis.

IV. The opponent 01 (respondent), RWE Innogy GmbH, requested that the appeal be dismissed. Oral proceedings were requested on an auxiliary basis.

The opponent 02 (respondent), Senvion GmbH, requested that the appeal be dismissed. Oral proceedings were requested on an auxiliary basis.

The opponent 03 (respondent), Vestas Wind Systems A/S, requested that the revocation of the patent should be maintained. The Board took this as a request that the appeal be dismissed.

The opponent 04 (respondent), ENERCON GmbH, requested that the appeal be dismissed. Oral proceedings were requested on an auxiliary basis.

V. In its communication, subsequent to the summons to oral proceedings, the Board expressed its preliminary opinion that all requests lacked inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

VI. Oral proceedings were held by videoconference on 9 December 2021 during the course of which the appellant withdrew the second auxiliary request.

The parties' final requests were as follows:

The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request or the first or third auxiliary request, all filed with the grounds of appeal.

The respondents (opponents) requested that the appeal be dismissed.

After due consideration of the parties' arguments the Chair announced the decision.

VII. Independent claim 1 according to the main request reads as follows:

"A system (200) for indicating a performance of a wind turbine (100), the system comprising:

a database system (208) for storing performance data (1002) for a plurality of known wind turbines; and

a server system (206) coupled to the database system, the server system (206) configured to:acquire, from the database system (208), performance data corresponding to one or more target wind turbines to create target performance data, the target wind turbines including a subset of the known wind turbines;acquire, from the database system (208), performance data corresponding to one or more baseline wind turbines to create baseline performance data, the baseline wind turbines including a subset of the known wind turbines not included in the target wind turbines; and provide, to a client system (204), a relative performance profile relating the target performance data to the baseline performance data;

characterised in that:

the server system (206) is further configured to define the baseline wind turbines by identifying known wind turbines (100) having at least one attribute that is substantially similar to an attribute of the target wind turbines, the at least one attribute comprising at least one of the following: a geographic attribute and an environmental attribute, wherein the server system (206) is further configured to:

for a first target wind turbine (100) of the target wind turbines, identify an available upgrade not included in the first target wind turbine; compare target performance data corresponding to the first target wind turbine to baseline performance data corresponding to a known wind turbine including the available upgrade to determine a predicted performance improvement (1008); and provide the predicted performance improvement to the client system."

In claim 1 of the first auxiliary request the preamble is changed to:

"A system (200) configured for comparing performance data for one or more wind turbines (100) to performance data for other wind turbines and evaluating potential performance-enhancing upgrades, the system comprising:".

The server system in the first characterising feature is said to be configured "automatically".

The determined predicted performance improvement in the last feature is qualified with "that may be achieved upon implementation of the available upgrade".

Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request adds at the end of the pre-characterising portion of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request:

"wherein the performance data (1002) include fault occurrence data, and the server system (206) is further configured to compare target fault occurrence data from the target performance data to baseline fault occurrence data from the baseline performance data to create the relative performance profile".

The determined predicted performance improvement in the last feature is qualified with "wherein the predicted performance improvement is expressed as an increase in availability or a reduction in fault occurrences".

VIII. Regarding the identity of the opponents, the appellant objected during oral proceedings and with letter dated 7 December 2021 that, contrary to the entry in the European patent register, respondent (opponent 02) was not Senvion GmbH.

The appellant argued that claim 1 according to the main request was a combination of claims 1 and 2 as granted. Therefore the additional aspect of an upgrade to the target turbine and the prediction of performance improvements caused further differences over the disclosure of E3 that were not considered by the opposition division in the contested decision.

The appellant essentially argued that E3 did not disclose automation of a performance improvement, but instead a System Integrator would be needed to manually do so. Furthermore, E3 was directed to improved supply chain management rather than to improving wind turbines. While according to E3 target turbine and baseline turbine could be the same, since target data was included in the aggregated performance database, this was different in claim 1. According to claim 1 a target system with an upgrade was different from the baseline turbines. E3 therefore did not properly predict performance gains, since benchmark data included the upgrade (see e.g. page 11 of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal).

Crucial differences over E3 were how upgrades were identified and the possibility of predicting how much the performance could be improved. According to table 8 of E3, however, with the indication of "+", "-" or "0" performance improvements could not be quantified. The appellant further expressed doubts as to whether E3 disclosed the use of different components for an upgrade. Rather improved installation procedures etc. were addressed by E3, which was different from the claimed subject-matter.

The subject-matter of claim 1 according to the main request was therefore not rendered obvious by E3 when combined with the skilled person's common general knowledge.

Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request was submitted as a fallback position and clarified that the system was configured to compare performance data for evaluating potential performance enhancing upgrades. A predicted performance improvement might be achieved upon implementation of the available upgrade. Baseline wind turbines were automatically defined. Claim 1 was new and inventive over E3 for the same reasons as in the main request.

Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request further incorporated the features of claim 6 as granted (claim 8 as originally filed) and thereby achieved the effect of an increase in availability and a reduction in fault occurrence. By adding the feature of fault occurrence data the claimed subject-matter was further delimited from E3, in particular tables 7 and 8, which referred to the number of errors, but however related to the quality of an installation team. E3 therefore could not render the claim obvious.

IX. Opponent 01 essentially raised objections under Article 100(a) EPC based inter alia on E3 for lack of inventive step. The claimed subject-matter amounted to nothing more than a well known process of improving the performance of technical systems in general. With regard to E3, on which the contested decision was based, it was argued that table 8 of E3 disclosed performance data of OEM components X, Y and Z. When referring to "future projects" (see [0044]), E3 disclosed what components were to be used for future installations, which also comprised optimisations of existing systems. Table 8 of E3 indeed showed a prognosis of performance by comparison with benchmark data. Supply chain management was addressed in E3, but it was clearly disclosed that the measures in E3 were also directed to improving system performance metrics. Reference was made to claim 7 of E3. Claim 1 therefore lacked inventive step (Article 56 EPC) in view of the disclosure of E3.

With regard to the auxiliary requests opponent 01 essentially argued:

First auxiliary request: The amendment infringed the requirement of Article 123(3) EPC because claim 1 no longer required that the system was suitable for indicating a performance. Therefore the scope of protections was broader in this regard. Furthermore, it was unclear how a baseline wind turbine could be automatically defined (Article 84 EPC). A mere automation could not involve an inventive activity (reference was made to decision T 775/90).

Third auxiliary request: E3 also disclosed detection of error data, which were to be considered part of the performance data (E3, [0027, 0038]). Improvement of the performance by reduction of the number of errors was therefore obvious in view of E3 (Article 56 EPC). No special synergy could be recognised or had been credibly shown.

X. Opponent 02 explained during oral proceedings that opponent 02 was indeed Senvion GmbH by referring to the German Handelsregister, copies of which had been provided during the appeal proceedings.

Objections were raised under Article 100(a) EPC for lack of novelty and inventive step. The claimed subject-matter consisted of the technical features of a database, a server and a client. The rest of the features were non-technical. In view of the fact that a performance improvement was not necessarily an electrical improvement, but also security features such as a guard rail, the subject-matter of claim 1 was anticipated by a Client-Server-System with an Excel-Sheet, which was updated by setting a marker for a guard rail to "yes".

With regard to E3, the subject-matter of claim 1 was anticipated or at least obvious in view of the skilled person's common general knowledge. According to the wording of the claim, a target and a baseline turbine could still be the same. In view of replacements of old worn components the temporal aspect would have to be considered as well. Replacement of a used component by a new one of the same type of turbine would therefore be covered by the claim. Future projects also comprised upgrades, OEM components comprised parts of a system. In particular the "Component Selection Decisions" in E3 covered upgrades. Since a performance improvement according to the patent in suit was also achieved by providing a security feature such as a guard rail, table 8 with "+1" would anticipate the corresponding feature of claim 1.

With regard to the auxiliary requests opponent 02 essentially argued:

First auxiliary request: The amendments to claim 1 introduced a lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) and did not fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. In particular, [0064] of the description of the present application did not disclose an automatic definition of baseline wind turbines. The claimed subject-matter would be an intermediate generalisation of what is disclosed in figure 6 of the application.

Third auxiliary request: The added feature regarding an increase in availability or reduction in fault occurrences would be an intermediate generalisation of what is disclosed in [0063] of the application. In particular, the processor and the central server system had been omitted. This constituted an intermediate generalisation and introduced a lack of clarity, which was in contrast to the requirements of Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC. Furthermore, claim 1 still lacked inventive step in view of inter alia E3 when combined with the skilled person's common general knowledge (Article 56 EPC).

XI. Opponent 03 essentially argued that the main request did not fulfil the requirements of Articles 100(a) EPC because of lack of inventive step in view of the disclosure of E3 when combined with the skilled person's common general knowledge.

Performance data according to claim 1 could be any data describing the operation of one or more wind turbines. Target performance data and baseline performance data would not have a technical distinction. A predicted performance improvement could also be a guard rail to improve security and, hence, amounted to nothing more than a suggestion to change an element in order to improve the system.

E3 was directed to the installation and the operation of renewable energy systems and therefore was not solely directed to supply chain management. E3 disclosed highlighting OEM manufacturer components and thereby identifying an available upgrade, e.g. component X, since component X was not included in any of the systems using components Y or Z (see E3, [0037] in conjunction with [0044] and table 7). Components X, Y and Z were substitutes. Since target performance data might also be errors according to claim 1, table 7 of E3 disclosed a comparison between target systems in the form of systems including components Y and Z, and baseline performance data including an available upgrade in the form of component X (see page 3 of the letter dated 23 October 2015).

The only difference of claim 1 over E3 was the one identified in the contested decision of providing the predicted performance improvement to the client system (see point 8.1 of the decision). By providing a plurality of output means (see E3, [0016]), the results of table 7 of E3 could be provided to another computer, e.g. a client. This would have to be regarded as obvious in view of the skilled person's common general knowledge.

With regard to the auxiliary requests opponent 03 essentially argued:

First auxiliary request: The amendment merely concerned a modified purpose statement with no limiting effect in view of the fact that the system merely had to be "suitable for" such a purpose. A mere automation of the process of defining the baseline wind turbines could not involve an inventive step in view of the established case law. Without further distinguishing the claimed subject-matter over the prior art on file, this request should be rejected under Rule 80 EPC.

Third auxiliary request: By listing errors, tables 7 and 8 of E3 would include fault occurrence data as performance data. The corresponding additional feature therefore did not further distinguish the claimed subject-matter from E3. Claim 1 of this request was a mere juxtaposition and, hence, obvious, since no functional interaction or synergetic effect was achieved.

All requests therefore lacked an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

XII. Opponent 04 essentially argued that the main request did not fulfil the requirements of Articles 100(a) EPC, because of lack of novelty in view of the disclosure of inter alia E3, and lack of inventive step when combined with the skilled person's common general knowledge.

In particular, E3 disclosed that baseline and target turbines were different from each other when comparing data of systems of different geographical regions like Europe and North America. Because of the possibility to highlight OEM components as a result of exceeding benchmark metrics (see E3, [0014]), an upgrade could be identified and the corresponding feature of claim 1 was disclosed by E3 in view of the fact that it merely required the system to be suitable for doing so. A system integrator or VAR according to E3 would have to be regarded as belonging to a client system. Since services would also be applicable to OEM components, which are technical components of the wind turbine, E3 was not only directed to supply chain management, but also to modifications of the wind turbines as such. Additional development according to E3 (see [0044]) would also comprise updates or upgrades of components. Tables 7 and 8 of E3 clearly showed that the existence of an upgrade could improve the performance.

With regard to the auxiliary requests opponent 04 essentially argued:

First auxiliary request: The request should not be admitted, because paragraph [0001] of the application as filed was no antecedent basis for the amendment "configured for" and [0065] did not disclose how an automatic definition of baseline turbines was performed. This resulted in an intermediate generalisation. Mere automation would not involve an inventive activity.

Figure 2 of E3 disclosed in step 204 that if data was above benchmark, benchmark data was improved (step 209). Therefore, the system disclosed in E3 was configured to evaluate improvements and anticipated the subject-matter of claim 1 of this request, or at least rendered it obvious.

Third auxiliary request: Claim 1 of this request was not convergent with the first auxiliary request. E3 disclosed in tables 7 and 8, indication of errors and as a result an analysis. The number of errors was therefore corresponding to fault occurrence according to claim 1. It was therefore obvious for the skilled person to compare the occurrence of faults in wind turbines. Claim 1 was therefore obvious in view of E3.

1. Identity of opponent 02

Concerning the appellant's objection that, contrary to the entry in the European patent register, respondent (opponent 02) was not Senvion GmbH, for the purpose of these proceedings, the Board relies on the European patent register. The facts presented during oral proceedings by opponent 02 revealed that the opposition was assigned as part of the opponent's business assets together with the assets in the interests of which the opposition was filed. Thus the requirements established for the transfer of an opposition (see G 4/88, OJ EPO 1989, 480) are met. Since these facts were plausible to the Board, the Board did not have a reason to put the correctness of the European patent register into question and follows the principle that it is decisive for the proceedings what the register says (see T 653/89, point 1 of the reasons).

Main request

2. Article 100(b) EPC

With regard to the objections under Article 100(b) EPC the Board concurs with the decision under appeal that claim 1 as granted meets the requirements of Articles 83 and 123(2) EPC. This is also the case for present claim 1 of the amended main request (corresponding to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request in the contested decision).

3. Article 100(a) EPC

3.1 Technical character of the claimed invention

With regard to the question of technical character and the objections under Articles 100(a) EPC the Board concurs with the decision under appeal that claim 1 as granted meets the requirements of Article 52 EPC. This is also the case for present claim 1 of the amended main request. The Board is of the opinion that the subject-matter of claim 1 as a whole has technical character.

3.2 Inventive step

3.3 Claim 1 defines a system for determining the effect of an upgrade on the performance of a wind turbine. The preamble of the claim essentially identifies target performance data from a set of "target wind turbines" and baseline performance data from a disjoint set of "baseline wind turbines". The first characterising feature qualifies the baseline wind turbines to be similar (in location or environment) to the target wind turbines. The second characterising feature compares the performance of a turbine from the target set with one from the (similar) baseline set that has an "available upgrade". This gives a predicted performance improvement of making the upgrade.

The subject-matter corresponding to claim 1 of the main request was held to lack an inventive step in view of E3, which was considered to be the closest prior art on file (see point 8 of the contested decision).

3.4 The Board concurs with the opponents' view that the subject-matter of claim 1 at least lacks inventive step in view of E3.

E3 concerns the installation and the operation of renewable energy systems (see e.g. the Title and [0002]). Contrary to the appellant's view, therefore, its content cannot be limited to supply chain management. E3 concerns wind turbines (see [0026] and claim 11) and deals with system performance (see e.g. table 2) and establishing benchmark metrics (see e.g. [0038] and claim 7).

3.5 Much time was spent during the oral discussing exactly how the invention differed from E3. Opponent 02 (and opponent 04 in the written proceedings) even argued that there was no difference at all.

The discussion can be grouped into two main aspects, which were the subject of claims 1 and 2, respectively, of the granted patent. Firstly the nature of the target and baseline performance data in the pre-characterising part and first feature of the characterising part of the claim. Secondly, determining the performance improvement of an upgrade to a target wind turbine in the last feature of the claim.

However, there is little interaction between these aspects in the claim. The upgrade aspect merely compares "target performance data corresponding to the first target wind turbine to baseline performance data corresponding to a known wind turbine including the available upgrade". Thus providing that the single target and known turbine have the required characteristics, namely at least one similar attribute, but not the upgrade, then the other details of the performance data are irrelevant to the upgrade aspect. This reduces the strength of the appellant's argument about the hindsight of combining features from E3 as these additional details need only be disclosed, but not necessarily in combination with the upgrading aspect.

3.6 Concerning the definition of the target and baseline turbine data, the Board considers that target performance data and baseline performance data do not have a technical distinction, but are distinguished by their purpose, namely having features relevant to the desired comparison. In view of the formulation in claim 1 that baseline data "including a subset" of the known wind turbines not part of the target data, baseline performance data can comprise all the target data plus one more turbine of the known wind turbines.

Thus the Board concurs with the opposition division and respondents that E3 does disclose the claimed details of the performance data of the target and baseline wind turbines, including have a similar attribute, such as geographical region (see e.g. [0036] and [0038]).

3.7 The contested decision identified the following features of claim 1 as distinguishing features over the disclosure of E3:

- for a first target wind turbine of the target wind turbines, identify an available upgrade not included in the first target wind turbine;

- compare target performance data corresponding to the first target wind turbine to baseline performance data corresponding to a known wind turbine including the available upgrade to determine a predicted performance improvement; and

- provide the predicted performance improvement to the client system.

3.8 E3 also discloses providing predicted improvement to a "client system", for example personal computers ([0016] and end of [0050]).

3.9 According to the appellant the objective technical problem underlying the combination of these features was to provide the user with information to improve the performance of an existing system. The Board agrees with the formulation of the problem to be solved.

3.10 E3 discloses solving the problem of providing the user with information to improve the performance of an existing system inter alia by highlighting OEM manufacturer components and thereby to identify an available upgrade, for example at [0014]:

"...the aggregated data may be used to offer services to the System Integrators and VARs that improve the use and performance of the various OEM components used [in] their installed systems. Data across the network may be used to establish benchmark metrics for OEM component performance. Typically, data from new installations are collected, analyzed and compared to the benchmark metrics. The services may typically highlight OEM components that are deserving of ... selection because their performance metrics exceed the benchmark metrics [and vice versa]."

3.11 Concerning the "upgrade", the Board first notes that according to the description of the patent in suit the expression performance improvement can be interpreted broadly so that a predicted performance improvement could also be a guard rail to improve security (see [0080] of the application as filed) and covers a suggestion to change an element in order to improve the system as was argued by the opponents.

The appellant argued that an upgrade according to the invention would be different from repair or maintenance. However, the Board does not agree with this point of view in the light of the fact that the description of the application even mentions consumable components such as a lubricant (see [0017]) to be an upgrade in the context of the patent in suit. Hence, also the term "upgrade" in claim 1 can be interpreted broadly. Moreover E3 specifically mentions the possibility of performing upgrades during the service of the system, i.e. not just at installation ([0025], [0027]).

Furthermore, in [0030] E3 discloses aggregation of data from systems with similar features comprising OEM component identification. The same suggestion is found in [0036] which discloses "benchmark metrics from data collected only from their region", in combination with OEM component identification.

Thus, the Board judges that the skilled person would consider providing the user with information about possible upgrades by comparing data from wind turbines with benchmark data from similar turbines.

3.12 E3 also gives details about how such comparisons might be done. Specifically, paragraphs [0037] and [0044], figure 2, claim 7 and tables 7 and 8 are particularly relevant, because they deal with the comparison of alternative OEM components X, Y and Z. Tables 7 and 8 concern solar energy systems, but in the context of E3 the skilled person would recognise that the same could be carried out for other kinds of renewable energy systems such as wind turbines mentioned in E3 as well (see [0002]).

The comparison is in terms of "Errors" (Table 7, last column), but since target performance data can also be errors according to claim 1 (see "fault occurrence data" according to the third auxiliary request; see also [0018] of the application as filed), E3 discloses a comparison of performance data. The comparison is between target systems in the form of systems including components Y and Z, and baseline performance data including an available upgrade in the form of component X (see e.g. opponent 03 on page 3 of the letter dated 23 October 2015). In particular, the Board agrees with the opponent's argumentation that, for example, a 100kW system with component Y installed as shown in line 6 of table 7 as a target system could be replaced with component Z of line 7 or line 9, both also being 100kW systems, but producing fewer errors, which is a performance improvement. E3 teaches that data of a particular component are compared with those not having said component to build a comparative

table 8. The information that component Z is advantageous is found in the last three lines of table 8 of E3, which reveals that component Z produces fewer errors than component Y.

The appellant argued, based on [0040], that tables 7 and 8 of E3 only disclosed measures for installation of a system. However, the Board does not agree, because, apart from the above-mentioned passages, E3 teaches to favour better performing OEM components in future projects (see [0044]) as well as to use the benchmark for "proper corrective actions" (see [0039]). The Board therefore agrees with the opponents' argumentation that the skilled person would use the comparative information such as that in tables 7 and 8 of E3 to decide which components to use for correcting existing installations or improving upgrade future projects.

3.13 The distinguishing features, even if not disclosed in combination in E3, and thus claim 1, are therefore rendered obvious in view of E3 combined with the skilled person's common general knowledge (Article 56 EPC).

First auxiliary request

4. With regard to the first auxiliary request, the Board does not regard an automation of the process of defining the baseline wind turbines as involving an inventive step. The Board does not concur with the appellant that claim 1 according to this request defined a fully automated system. As argued by the opponents it is rather merely the definition of the baseline wind turbines that is automated, not the whole process. Furthermore, E3 discloses a computer implemented, i.e. an automated process for establishing improved benchmark metrics (see claim 7 of E3). The other modifications to claim 1 merely rephrase existing features, but do not add substantive subject-matter that could further distinguish claim 1 from the disclosure of E3.

Therefore claim 1 of the first auxiliary request does not add inventive matter over E3 and is obvious for the same reasons as given with regard to the main request.

Second auxiliary request

5. This request was withdrawn during oral proceedings.

Third auxiliary request

6. E3 discloses an indication of errors as a result of an analysis. By listing errors, tables 7 and 8 of E3 disclose fault occurrence data as performance data. The appellant argued that claim 1 was limited to operational faults, whereas according to E3 only errors in past installations were mentioned. The Board, however, does not agree, but concurs with the opponents' view that by listing also a guard rail as an upgrade and safety improvement to a wind energy system (see [0080]) a missing guard rail had to be considered a missing security feature which was an installation error. Claim 1 according to this request therefore is not limited to operational errors. The number of errors in tables 7 and 8 of E3 therefore corresponds to target and baseline fault occurrence data according to

claim 1. The corresponding additional feature therefore does not further distinguish the claimed subject-matter from E3.

6.1 Being a combination of claims 1 of the first and second auxiliary requests, claim 1 of this request is a juxtaposition. The Board finds no indication that there is a functional interaction or synergetic effect achieved as alleged by the appellant.

7. As none of the appellant's requests fulfil the requirements of Articles 100(a) and 56 EPC, the appeal must be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility