T 0260/20 (Retrieving an object/KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA) 23-01-2023

Application

1. The application concerns an apparatus and method for determining the three-dimensional objects in a three-dimensional space which intersect ("collide" with) a two-dimensional surface (e.g. a quadric surface such as a cone, a column or a sphere) (see paragraph [0027] of the original application). This can be used, for example, to decide how to position a photovoltaic power generation device (panel) with respect to a building depending on the area of the building's shadow, where the area of the shadow corresponds to the surface (paragraphs [0006], [0028] and [0029]).

1.1 In order to determine whether the surface intersects a three-dimensional object, the invention determines first whether the surface intersects the three-dimensional minimum bounding box (MBB) of the object ("three-dimensional cuboid") (paragraphs [0027], [0039] and [0049] and original claim 1).

1.2 The apparatus according to one embodiment includes a query acceptance unit, which accepts as input a two-dimensional surface, and a collision decision unit, which determines whether the surface intersects a three-dimensional MBB (cuboid) (paragraph [0008] and original claim 1).

1.3 The collision detection unit uses decision functions for tests C0 to C3 ("zero-th to 3rd decision functions"). The surface is found to intersect the MBB if any of these tests C0 to C3 has a positive result (paragraphs [0049] to [0052] and original claim 1):

(C0) The zero-th decision function determines whether any of the 8 vertices (zero-dimensional points) of the MBB is "included" in the surface.

(C1) The 1st decision function determines whether any part of any of the 12 edges (one-dimensional lines) of the MBB is "included" in the surface.

(C2) The 2nd decision function determines whether any part of any of the six faces (two-dimensional rectangles) of the MBB is "included" in the surface.

(C3) The 3rd decision function determines whether the surface is inside the MBB.

Admittance - all requests

2. Exercising its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, the board decided to admit the requests submitted with the grounds of appeal, i.e. the main request, and the first and fourth to sixth auxiliary requests because they did not introduce major amendments and were directed to overcoming the grounds for refusal.

3. In reply to the board's communication, the appellant submitted the second, third and seventh to ninth auxiliary requests and argued that these requests were admissible because in its preliminary opinion the board had raised new objections under Articles 83 and 84 EPC which had not been raised before. Furthermore, the board's inventive-step objection in its preliminary opinion had been based on a technicality assessment following decision G 1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. This decision had been taken after the grounds of appeal had been submitted in the current case and had caused substantial changes to the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO. The requests attempted to better respond to the new case law.

4. The board confirms these circumstances of the current case as described by the appellant and considers these to be exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 justifying the admittance of the new requests submitted by the appellant in reply to the board's preliminary opinion. In view of this, the board decided to admit these new requests, i.e. the second, third and seventh to ninth auxiliary requests, into the appeal proceedings.

Main request

5. Clarity - claim 1

5.1 Claim 1 specifies in feature (c) that the collision decision unit decides whether the (N-1)-dimensional surface intersects the N-dimensional cuboid. However, in the examples described in the application in which the two-dimensional surface is a sphere (i.e. a spherical surface) with centre (x0,y0,z0) and radius r, with the equation

(x-x0)**(2) + (y-y0)**(2) + (z-z0)**(2) - r **(2)= 0,

the 0-decision function determines whether the vertices (x,y,z) of the three-dimensional MBB satisfy the equation

(x-x0)**(2) + (y-y0)**(2) + (z-z0)**(2) - r **(2)<= 0. (I)

This is the case with embodiment A described in paragraphs [0061] to [0088] with reference to Figures 6 and 7. This embodiment illustrates the collision determination between a unit cube with diagonally opposing vertices (0,0,0) and (1,1,1) and a sphere with centre (1,0,1) and radius 1/4 (see paragraph [0061] and Figure 7). The equation used is shown in paragraph [0062], which corresponds to equation (I) for the particular sphere with centre (1,0,1) and radius 1/4:

0 >= z**(2) - 2*z + y**(2)+ x**(2) - 2 * x + 31/16.

The vertex (1,0,1) of the MBB was found to "intersect" the sphere having centre (1,0,1) and radius 1/4 (paragraph [0082] and Figures 6 and 7).

5.2 If the result of equation (I) is positive, claim 1 specifies that the sphere (i.e. a spherical surface as two-dimensional surface) is considered to intersect the MBB. This means that if the MBB is inside the sphere (all vertices satisfy the equation), the collision detection unit will determine that there is an intersection, even though the spherical surface itself does not intersect the MBB. Therefore, the test is not whether the sphere (two-dimensional surface) intersects the MBB but whether the three-dimensional volume formed by the sphere intersects the three-dimensional MBB.

5.3 The term "included" in the phrase "whether at least a part of at least one of the X-dimensional face of the N-dimensional cuboid is included in the (N-1)-dimensional surface" of features (e) and (g) is unclear. Since a straight line cannot be part of a curved surface, it is not clear what it means to decide whether at least part of an edge (one-dimensional straight line) is "included" in a two-dimensional spherical surface. In the examples of the description in which the (N-1)-dimensional surface is a sphere, the term "included" could be interpreted as meaning "enclosed by" or similar, but the claim is not restricted to closed (N-1)-surfaces or quadric surfaces.

5.4 The appellant argued that the skilled person reading the claims would understand the claimed subject-matter. The application as a whole was clear. The embodiment of paragraphs [0061] to [0088] was only an example. With regard to the example above, the appellant clarified that a point was not considered on the surface if it was inside the surface and that a part of an edge could be a single point.

5.5 The board does not find the appellant's arguments convincing. For the reasons given above, the expression "is included in" in features (e) and (g) is unclear. Even assuming that the skilled reader would consider that a point is "part of the X-dimensional face" or "part of the edge", the expression "part of the X-dimensional face of the cuboid is included in the (N-1)-dimensional surface" is not a clear and precise manner of expressing that "the X-dimensional face of the cuboid intersects the (N-1)-dimensional surface". Furthermore, interpreting "is included in" as "intersects" is at odds with the embodiments described in the application in which the surface is a sphere, as explained under points 5.1 and 5.2 above.

5.6 Therefore, claim 1 of the main request does not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

First auxiliary request

6. Clarity - claim 1

6.1 The features of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request corresponding to features (c), (e) and (g) of claim 1 of the main request read as follows:

(c1)|a collision decision unit (107) configured to decide whether the two-dimensional surface intersects the three-dimensional cuboid positioned in the three-dimensional space; |

(e1)|the zero-th ~ 2nd decision functions are used for deciding whether at least a part of a two-dimensional face of the three-dimensional cuboid is included in the two-dimensional surface, and|

(g1)|wherein the collision decision unit (107) is further configured to output an identification of the three-dimensional cuboid in a case where at least a part of a two-dimensional face of the three-dimensional cuboid is included in the two-dimensional surface or the two-dimensional surface is included in the three-dimensional cuboid; and |

6.2 Features (c1), (e1) and (g1) use essentially the same wording as the corresponding features of claim 1 of the main request, except that "N-dimensional" and "(N-1)-dimensional" have been replaced with "three-dimensional" and "two-dimensional", and in feature (e), "X-dimensional" has been replaced with "two-dimensional". Therefore, the reasoning given above in the clarity assessment of claim 1 of the main request equally applies to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request.

6.3 It follows that the first auxiliary request does not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC either.

Second auxiliary request

7. Clarity - claim 1

7.1 Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request adds the following feature:

(h2) the collision decision unit (107) executes the plurality of decision functions from the zero-th decision function in order of smaller number, and, when decision of intersection is acquired at one of the plurality of decision functions, omits execution of the plurality of decision functions having numbers larger than the one.

7.2 The appellant argued that amended claim 1 of the second auxiliary request was consistent with the disclosure of the description, which described in, for example, paragraphs [0049] to [0052], [0057] and [0159] that the four tests C0 to C3 were performed starting from test C0 to decide whether there was an intersection between at least one of a peak, edge or face of the cuboid and the two-dimensional surface or the two-dimensional surfaces included within the three-dimensional cuboid. When collision was detected, the other functions were not executed. This feature made clear what the appellant considered implicit in previous claims.

7.3 However, the expressions "in order of smaller number", "when decision of intersection is acquired at one of the plurality of decision functions" and "omits execution of ... decision functions having numbers larger than the one" are unclear. In particular, it is not clear what "in order of smaller number" means. The test described as "when decision of intersection is acquired" does not have a precise meaning. Besides, even assuming that "the one" refers to "one of the plurality of decision functions", it is unclear which technical features are implied by the expressions "omits execution" and "decision functions having numbers larger than the one". The question of whether the meaning of claim 1 could be derived from the description is not relevant since claims must be clear in themselves when read by the person skilled in the art without any reference to the content of the description.

7.4 Therefore, claim 1 is unclear, and the second auxiliary request does not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

Third auxiliary request

8. Clarity - claim 1

8.1 Feature (h2) is also specified in claim 1 of the third auxiliary request.

8.2 Therefore, for the same reasons as given for the second auxiliary request, the third auxiliary request does not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC either.

Fourth to sixth auxiliary requests

9. Clarity - claim 1

9.1 Claim 1 of each of the fourth to sixth auxiliary requests also includes features (c1), (e1) and (g1) of the first auxiliary request, except that the text "three-dimensional cuboid" in (c1) has been replaced with "N-dimensional cuboid" in the corresponding feature of the fourth to sixth auxiliary requests. Therefore, for the same reasons as given above for the clarity assessment of claim 1 of the main request and the first auxiliary request, the fourth to sixth auxiliary requests do not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC either.

Seventh to ninth auxiliary requests

10. Clarity - claim 1

10.1 Claim 1 of each of the seventh to ninth auxiliary requests also specifies feature (h2).

10.2 Therefore, for the same reasons as given for the second auxiliary request, the seventh to ninth auxiliary requests do not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC either.

Concluding remarks

11. Since none of the requests is allowable, the appeal is to be dismissed.