EPO Board acknowledges further technical use in vehicle body optimization case T 0799/24

Case Law | 13.11.2025

In a recent case before the EPO’s Board of Appeal, Stephanie Rupp, one of HOFFMANN EITLE’s experts on computer-implemented inventions, represented JFE Steel Corporation. She succeeded in overturning the Board of Appeal’s very negative preliminary opinion on inventive step concerning a “method and device for analyzing optimization of vehicle body joint position”.  The Board of Appeal’s written decision was recently published - see T 0799/24. This decision provides an important example of a further technical use as discussed in G1/19 and the possibility of obtaining a patent for inventions in which analysis results are displayed, wherein the final step of applying the analysis results is not explicitly defined in the claims.  

The invention relates to an analysis apparatus for optimizing a joint location of an automotive body to improve the performance of an automotive body during driving. Analysis results of an optimization analysis are displayed by the analysis apparatus for automotive body designing. According to the Examining Division during the examination proceedings, the claim merely specifies that a model and results of an algorithm are displayed, wherein the presentation of a model is exclusively aimed at the user for subjective evaluation or non-technical decision-making. In the Examining Division’s view, this further use of the design does not provide a technical effect.

In their preliminary opinion, it seemed that the Board of Appeal would follow the negative position of the Examining Division under inventive step. However, during the oral proceedings, Stephanie was able to convince the Board of Appeal that the claimed subject-matter involves an inventive step. The Board of Appeal agreed that the formulation in the claim that additional welded points are “to be added” to the automotive body to improve its stiffness during driving at least implicitly specifies a further technical use. At the end of the oral proceedings, the Board of Appeal decided that the case is to be remitted to the Examining Division with the order to grant a patent based on the claims of the main request.

Read more about the Board of Appeal’s argumentation in the written decision T 0799/24, available here.

back