The application underlying this decision relates to the coupling of list items according to a pinch-out operation. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since claim 1 mainly addresses the non-technical task of coupling list items, which allegedly referred to a mere representation of information. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1042/122 (Coupling of list items/SONY) of February 29, 2024. of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05:

Key takeaways

In the absence of a tangible and credible technical effect, ergonomic improvements with respect to GUI interactions relate to design improvements and are thus non-technical.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision provides a method for controlling the display of list item on a screen. Once a pinch-out operation is detected, elements of a sub-list are coupled to elements of a target list by gradually moving the sub-list closer to the target list. In contrast, when separating the lists, a new sub-list is created by arranging the list items gradually separated from the target list (cf. para. [0019] of the application). This way, a user is able to, before completion of the coupling/separation of lists, check in advance the list items to be coupled/separated (cf. para. [0020] of the application).

Fig. 1 of EP 2555104 A2

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D6 failed to disclose features 2.3, 2.4 and 4.

The Appellant argued that:

They enabled the user to recognize the list items to be inserted by the “coupling” before the completion of the “coupling of list items”.

Accordingly, the Appellant formulated the objective technical problem solved by these features as:

How to allow a user to perform “coupling of list items” in an easy, intuitive and time-saving manner.

Notably, the Appellant did not contest that the display of “animations” within the meaning of features 2.3 and 2.4 constitutes a “presentation of information“.

Instead, the Appellant referred to the decisions T 0336/14 and T 1802/13 and argued that the presentation of information at hand credibly assisted the user in performing a “technical task” by means of a continued and guided human-machine interaction process.

In view of the Appellant said technical task was about:

Controlling a device based on user input. In particular, the control of a device based on physical parameters such as the “amount of the pinch-out operation” and “thresholds” is a technical control operation. Furthermore, based on the “visual feedback” provided by the animations of features 2.3 and 2.4, the user has better control over the device and could, for example, “cancel the coupling of the lists” during the process and revert to the previous state without finishing the coupling
process.

Regarding feature 4, the Appellant further argued that it:

Eliminated the problem of the user having to reach a potentially hard-to-reach area of the display with their fingers.

However, the Board did nof follow these arguments and instead holds that:

The animations at hand have nothing to do with “controlling the display device”. Neither the animations displayed nor the user’s reaction to them are meant to “control” how the display technology behind the display device actually runs.

Instead, the “visual feedback” provided by the “animations” of features 2.3 and 2.4 is related to the so-called operation of “coupling of list items”, which is not a technical task.

The fact that it is performed on a screen does not make the task technical. To the contrary, GUIs and associated user experiences belong to the sphere of non-technical artistic activity, graphic design and animation (see T 1681/18, Reasons 2 and T 1762/18, Reasons 3).

For the same reasons, feature 4 is also not considered technical.

Based on its finding that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the main request did not contribute to its technical character, the Board dismissed the appeal due to a lack of an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1042/122 (Coupling of list items/SONY) of February 29, 2024.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy *
* = Required field

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!