T 1234/17 (Customization based on physiological data/ADIDAS AG) du 04.03.2022
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T123417.20220304
- Date de la décision
- 4 mars 2022
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1234/17
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 12196928.1
- Classe de la CIB
- G06F 3/01A63B 24/00G06Q 30/06
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Customization based on physiological data
- Nom du demandeur
- Adidas AG
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 56
- Mots-clés
- Inventive step - customisation of footwear are based on human gait (no
Inventive step - no technical features)
Inventive step - mapping acceleration data to human gait (no
Inventive step - not technical) - Exergue
- However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms.
In T 1798/13 (Forecasting the value of a structured financial product/SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD), points 2.7 to 2.9, the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. In that case there were none. This was contrasted with T 2079/10 (Steuerung von zellulär aufgebauten Alarmsystemen/SWISSRE) where the invention was seen to lie in the improvement of the measurement technique itself, which involved technical considerations about the sensors and their positions.
Such a situation is conceivable in the present case, if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using considerations of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, the claim only specifies that the data "includes a time series of acceleration vectors" and that this data is "analyzed". There are no further details that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors.
(See points 2.11 to 2.13 of the reasons)
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.