Providing an interactive seat map by building an overlay: technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for providing an interactive seat map showing the locations of available tickets in an event venue, built at a client computer using a base map, a coded image map, and ticket inventory data received from a network-based system. The decisive feature was the implementation of the interactive seat map by building an overlay on top of a raster graphics base map using an HTML coded image map, as opposed to using vector graphics technologies like Adobe Flash. The Board of Appeal considered this implementation choice to involve technical considerations, leading to remittal of the case for further search and prosecution.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0133/21 (Interactive seat map/STUBHUB) of 2 July 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The choice of how to implement an interactive map in a web browser, specifically using raster graphics combined with an HTML image map overlay instead of vector graphics such as Flash, involves technical considerations that go beyond mere presentation of information. However, the claim must be sufficiently specific to clearly achieve the associated technical effect; a broadly worded claim that does not exclude vector graphics fails to do so.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention concerns an online marketplace for tickets, which includes an interactive seat map displaying where tickets are available at an event venue. The venue has different sections, and ticket availability in the respective sections is shown using different colouring, such as fill colour, stroke colour, and transparent colour. The user can click on a section of the map to get more information about tickets. The interactive seat map is implemented by building, at the client computer, a map overlay on top of a base map of the event venue. The overlay has polygons aligned with the sections of the event venue depicted on the base map. The base map is a compressed raster graphics image, for example a JPEG image. The coded image map is defined using HTML area tags specifying clickable areas of the base image, including their shapes, coordinates, and associated hyperlinks. The map overlay itself is created using a JavaScript library called “Canvas” in a client-side web application. The overall aim was to implement the interactive seat map without using vector graphics such as Adobe Flash, which required browser plug-ins not available on all browsers, particularly mobile browsers.

Claim 1 of the First Auxiliary Request

A method for providing an interactive seat map (525) showing locations of available tickets in an event venue, the method comprising:

receiving, at the client computer (104) from a network-based system, a base map (405) illustrating locations of sections within the event venue, wherein the base map is formed using raster graphics;

receiving, at the client computer (104) from the network-based system, a coded image map (210) for building a map overlay (420) comprising a polygon for each section depicted in the base map (405), wherein the coded image map is in HTML;

receiving, at the client computer (104) from the network-based system, an inventory (200) for an event at the event venue, the inventory (200) providing, for each section, section data that includes available tickets for each section within the event venue;

displaying, at the client computer (104), the interactive seat map (525) by loading the base map (405) and building the map overlay (420) on top of the base map (405) so that each polygon of the map overlay (420) aligns with the respective section of the base map (405);

determining, at the client computer (104), one or more characteristics for a plurality of the polygons of the map overlay (420) based on the received section data corresponding to each of the polygons;

applying the one or more characteristics to each of the plurality of polygons of the map overlay (420), wherein other polygons of the map overlay (420) that lack any of the characteristics represent sections of the base map (405) that lack any available tickets;

linking each polygon of the map overlay (420) that includes available tickets to the section in the inventory (200);

receiving, at the client computer (104), a selection of one of the polygons by a user; and

in response to the selection, redirecting the user to a data block linked to the section aligned with the selected polygon (434).

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The examining division considered that claim 1 of the main request consisted of a mix of technical and non-technical features. The effect of the claimed method was said to be presentation of information. In particular, the interactive seat map consisting of a base map with sections and a map overlay on top of the base map did not provide a technical effect. The only features contributing to the technical character of the invention were the hardware features, namely a data processing system comprising a client device, a network, and another computer. D1 (US 2007/265892) was cited as an example of such a data processing system. D1 disclosed a system for providing an interactive map in which a client computer received a base map with sections, created overlays with specific colours corresponding to ticket availability, displayed the map, received user selections, and redirected the user to corresponding data blocks. The examining division did not explicitly identify the differences between the claimed method and D1, but merely stated that they related to the implementation of an administrative method and the corresponding presentation of information, which did not involve an inventive step under the COMVIK approach. The division further did not agree that claim 1 excluded the use of vector graphics, and considered that providing a combination of a base map and a coded image map defining polygons for sections of an overlay did not have a technical effect. The first auxiliary request (filed as the third auxiliary request before the examining division) was not admitted under Rule 137(3) EPC because it was found to contravene Article 123(2) EPC and not to overcome the inventive step objection.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that, in the prior art, interactive maps were implemented using vector graphics such as Flash, which required a browser plug-in that was not available for all browsers, in particular mobile browsers. The invention sought to implement the interactive seat map without using vector graphics, but rather using tools compatible with and common to all web browsers. The appellant explained that the base map was a raster graphics image (e.g., JPEG), the coded image map was defined in HTML (using area tags), and the map overlay was created using a JavaScript library called “Canvas” in a client-side web application. At the time of the invention, it was not possible to overlay an area of an image using HTML alone, so the combination of HTML image maps with JavaScript Canvas represented a specific technical implementation choice. This implementation involved technical considerations beyond mere information presentation.

The Board’s analysis

Overall technical character

The Board agreed with the examining division that the overall purpose of the interactive seat map was to provide the user with information, which was not technical per se. However, the Board found that the implementation of the interactive map involved technical considerations which went beyond the domain of the notional non-technical person (citing T 1463/11). The choice of implementation, whether to use vector graphics or raster graphics with an overlay in HTML/JavaScript, was a matter for the technically skilled person.

Main request

The Board agreed with the examining division that claim 1 of the main request was not clearly limited to a particular implementation. It did not exclude the use of vector graphics. The terms “base map,” “map overlay,” and “coded image map” were not defined in sufficient detail in the claim to give rise to a technical effect beyond providing an alternative implementation of an interactive map. The Board noted that the colouring of sections in D1 could, at a general and abstract level, be regarded as a form of “coding” and thus as involving a “coded image map,” with the colour constituting an “overlay” in a broad sense. Claim 1 of the main request therefore lacked inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

First auxiliary request

Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request added that the base map was formed using raster graphics and that the coded image map was in HTML. The Board found that these features were clearly not disclosed in D1 and could not simply be dismissed as non-technical. Furthermore, taking into account that the map overlay was built at the client side using the coded image map, the claimed solution was not clearly well known. The Board did not consider claim 1 of the first auxiliary request to be obvious in view of D1 or any of the cited prior art documents, because none of them dealt with implementations involving the combination of HTML coded image maps and overlays. However, the Board was not in a position to grant a patent because it had doubts whether the implementation based on HTML/JavaScript had been searched. The examining division had considered the concept of building an overlay on top of a base map using a coded image map to be non-technical, which indicated that this concept was not specifically searched. None of the documents in the search report dealt with HTML and JavaScript-based solutions for creating an interactive image map.

Conclusion

The decision under appeal was set aside and the case was remitted to the examining division for further prosecution, including a further search. The Board recognized that the specific technical implementation of building an interactive map overlay using raster graphics and HTML coded image maps involved genuine technical considerations that went beyond mere presentation of information. The examining division had treated these features as non-technical and consequently had not searched them, meaning no prior art was on file covering HTML and JavaScript-based solutions for creating interactive image maps. While HTML image maps were undoubtedly known at the priority date, no prior art on file showed how JavaScript Canvas was used in connection with HTML image maps to create an overlay. A further search was therefore necessary before the inventive step assessment could be completed.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0133/21 (Interactive seat map/STUBHUB) of 2 July 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy Yes, I consent to the collection, processing and use of my above-mentioned personal data for the purposes of processing my message and for the purposes of contacting me via email. The legal basis of the processing shall be formed by my consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR. The data will be deleted three months after expiry of the purpose, provided that longer retention periods are not required by law. I can revoke this consent with future effect at any time. I have taken note of the privacy statement and consent to it. With regard to the processing of my data, I am entitled to inalienable rights, information on which can be found in the privacy statement.

* = Required field