This decision concerns a European patent related to a head-mounted display system that captures and processes eye images. The Opposition Division (OD) maintained the patent in an amended form according to auxiliary request 1. However, the opponent appealed, and the proprietor defended the patent with additional auxiliary requests 2 to 7. Ultimately, the Technical Board of Appeal revoked the patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 0371/23 dated January 20, 2025, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.
Key takeaways
Implementing user consent categories for sharing biometric information in head-mounted display systems is considered an administrative scheme and does not contribute to the technical character of an invention.
The invention
The patent pertains to a head-mounted display system designed to capture eye images of the wearer, determine biometric information from these images, and present a user interface requesting consent to share this information. The system allows users to select consent categories, and based on their input, it controls the transmission of specific biometric data.
Fig. 2 of EP3433707
Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 1)
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 2)
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 3)
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 4)
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 5)
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 6)
-
Claim 1 (auxiliary request 7)
Is it patentable?
D1 (US 2014/0139551 A1) was considered as the closest prior art.
- Auxiliary request 1
The Board disagreed with the OD and found that the subject matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 lacks an inventive step because the distinguishing features merely implement an administrative scheme and do not contribute to the technical character of the invention:
1.4 The board does not agree with the opposition division. As the opponent rightly observed, the human-machine interaction in the case at hand does not control in any manner how the technical transmission of data actually takes place. The user’s consent does not change the way how information is technically transmitted. Instead, it merely gives the user’s approval to the categories of information which can be shared with third parties. However, it is not a “technical task” to give consent to sharing of information. In the absence of a technical task, the opposition division’s application of the test of T 336/14 and T 1802/13 fails from the very beginning. Instead, as the opponent again rightly argues, distinguishing features F1.4.3 to F1.4.8 are merely the implementation of an administrative scheme which cannot contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention.
- Auxiliary requests 2 to 7
The Board found no inventive step in auxiliary requests 2 to 7:
2.2 As to their substantiation, the proprietor briefly stated for each auxiliary request that it “addresses the objection of insufficiency of disclosure”, “addresses the objection of added subject-matter” or “addresses inter alia the objections of inventive step”. However, it did not further substantiate how these requests actually addressed the opponent’s objections.
2.3 In its preliminary opinion issued under Article 15(1) RPBA, the board stated that, irrespective of admittance issues, the board agreed with the opponent that the objection of lack of inventive step against auxiliary request 1 applied mutatis mutandis to auxiliary requests 2 to 7.
2.4 The proprietor did not reply in substance to the board’s preliminary opinion. After reconsideration, the board sees no reason to change its preliminary opinion.
- Outcome
The Board found that claim 1 of all auxiliary requests lacked an inventive step. Hence, the Board dismissed the appeal and the patent is revoked.
More information
You can read the whole decision here: T 0371/23 dated January 20, 2025, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.