Displaying numbers to a user: non-technical

The decision relates to displaying numbers to a user, particularly with varying sizes or colors based on their values. The examining division rejected the application due to a lack of inventive step from a known tag cloud or data cloud. The applicant argued that dynamically adjusting display sizes based on the values improved usability by helping users quickly identify significant data points. The Board disagreed and noted that the feature related to non-technical information presentation methods and did not provide a technical solution.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 2319/22 (Displaying numbers to a user/BISSANTZ) from July 9, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

The invention

The application relates to a computer system comprising means for displaying numbers to a user. The way in which the numbers are displayed allows the user to quickly assess at least some of the displayed numbers even if a high number of data items are shown on the display.

 

 

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division considered the subject matter obvious in view of document D5 (Tag cloud).

Document D5 is a Wikipedia article that discloses various visual representations of textual data on websites, such as keyword metadata (“tags”), and another example includes data clouds showing stock price movement, with the colour indicating positive or negative changes and the font size indicating percentage changes; see the reproduction below:

The Examinig division considered that the difference was only that the numbers were presented as such rather than by names representing them, which did not achieve a technical effect, but rather, it specified only a mere presentation of information which was non-technical.

The Applicant disagreed with the assessment and argued as follows:

2.3 The appellant disagreed with the examining division and argued that features C, D, F and G (see point VIII. above for the itemisation of the claim features) were the distinguishing features of claim 1. According to the appellant, these distinguishing features together achieved the technical effect that the system could display numbers (e.g. pertaining to an internal state of a device such as pressure, or an external state of a device such as speed) in a way that selectively drew the user’s attention to particularly relevant numbers (e.g. large pressure values or high speed values), allowing the user to operate the device (e.g. a control panel of a nuclear power plant or a cockpit of a plane) more safely and/or effectively on the basis of an improved information level. The invention was similar to that in the case on which decision T 643/00 was based, in which the manner of conveying information contributed to the solution of a technical problem since it enabled the user to perform their technical task (searching and retrieving images) more efficiently. In the current case the task was to search for values which are critical, e.g. in the context of a technical application.

Referring to the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, the appellant argued that it was irrelevant that the application documents as filed did not disclose explicitly and in detail an example of the invention being applied to e.g. a vehicle, as long as the person skilled in the art could “immediately grasp” that such a technical application was a “valid implementation” of the invention claimed (statement of grounds of appeal, page 15).

According to the appellant the objective technical problem was “to improve ergonomics in a human-machine interaction, e.g. of a user in front of a control panel, and to improve the quantity of information conveyed” (statement of grounds of appeal, page 17).

The skilled person could arrive at the claimed solution only through “independent, creative and hence inventive thinking” since document D5 explicitly taught away from displaying numbers at all, as these were “unhelpful tags” to be filtered out (see D5, page 4, last sentence; statement of grounds of appeal, pages 18 and 19).

The Board disagreed with the distinguishing features and considered that all these features were indeed disclosed, and the arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Feature C: The Board considered that percentage changes are numerical values, so D5 inherently discloses calculating font size based on numbers.
• Feature D: The Board noted that D5 adjusts font sizes based on numerical data, such as percentage changes, and the actual distinction is that the appellant’s invention displays numbers directly instead of using symbols.
• Feature F: The Board found that D5’s use of tag clouds, which treats numbers as “unhelpful tags,” is not restricted to technical tasks, making the appellant’s argument irrelevant since their claim does not specify a technical use.
• Feature G: The Board agreed that D5 calculates font sizes based on tag frequency but stated that in data clouds, it uses numerical values, like stock price changes, making this feature either disclosed or obvious from D5.

Therefore, the Board agreed with the Examining Division that the distinguishing feature was that the numbers were presented as such rather than by names (such as stock symbols) representing them, and thus the effect and the corresponding objective technical problem as formulated by the appellant cannot be recognised:

2.6 The board agrees with the examining division that the identified distinguishing feature does not achieve any technical effect. At best the effect, if any, may be that the attention of some users could be drawn to certain numbers (having a large display font size, for example) rather than to other numbers on the display. Given the generality of the claim wording, certain numbers may be displayed, for example, in a font size too small to be readable, meaning that the user’s attention will not be drawn to those unreadable numbers. In any case, the effect of drawing users’ attention to certain content (on a screen or on another substrate such as paper) is not a technical effect but concerns an alleged effect relating to the user’s mind/attention.

The appellant referred to decision T 1235/07, Reasons 11, which correctly states how the phrase “presentation of information” is to be interpreted. The responsible board argued that “parts of how the information, namely the form and way it is presented, may also be part of the presentation of information”. In other words, the manner of presenting information (the visual appearance), such as presenting the information in a specific tabular format (see Figures 1 to 12 of the current application), in a specific colour or in a chosen (font) size, relates to a presentation of information as such and usually does not achieve any technical effect.

Claim 1 of the main request does not specify any application context (providing e.g. a particular technical meaning to the data) or any interaction with the data displayed (feature E is limited to displaying data). For this reason alone, any arguments, such as improved ergonomics, relating to an actual or implied interaction with the displayed numbers are not convincing.

With regard to the main request, it is indeed “irrelevant that the application documents as filed did not explicitly and in detail disclose an example of the invention being applied to e.g. a vehicle”, since claim 1 is not limited to any application but rather is directed to a general system for visualising numbers.

In this context, the board notes that the established case law requires a technical effect over the whole scope of the claim (see e.g. decision G 1/19, points 82 to 84). Since claim 1 of the main request in hand is not limited by any features specifying that the claimed system is configured for a use of the displayed information, it is not credible that a technical effect relating to a technical application is achieved over the whole scope of the claim.

The Applicant also filed Auxiliary Requests, none of which were allowed. The amendments and the decision of the Board can be summarised as follows:

• First Auxiliary Request: Added that numbers are “technical data.” However, the Board considered this was too abstract and didn’t contribute to a technical character or inventive step.
• Second Auxiliary Request: Included input means for user input and recalculation of sizes. It was considered as an obvious implementation using known input methods without contributing to a technical effect.
• Third Auxiliary Request: Specified that the providing means is a processor providing data from a database. This was considered obvious and did not contribute any technical effect.
• Fourth Auxiliary Request: Included means to automatically assign units or abbreviations to numbers. This was considered as a straightforward automation of known formats without adding a technical effect.
• Fifth Auxiliary Request: Combined earlier features but restricted the automatic assignment to “units and other abbreviations.” The feature was consider as not provide a technical effect, similar to previous requests.

Therefore, the Board refused the application.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2319/22 (Displaying numbers to a user/BISSANTZ) from July 9, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!