Double-pressing a physical input mechanism to activate a payment mode: technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for enabling contactless NFC payment on a mobile phone directly from the lock screen by using a double press on a home button with an integrated fingerprint sensor. The key feature under scrutiny was whether the specific interaction of double-pressing the physical input mechanism to activate payment mode, as distinguished from a single press to unlock, constitutes a mere non-technical “user requirement” or a technical contribution. The Board of Appeal found this feature to be technical, as it involves technical considerations that go beyond a simple input-to-function mapping.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0035/20 (Double press to pay/APPLE) of 17 May 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention concerns simplifying contactless payment with a mobile phone by removing the need for the user to unlock the device and open the payment app. By enabling payment from the lock screen, the device remains protected while the user pays. The phone has an input mechanism (a “home button”) containing an integrated fingerprint sensor. To activate the payment mechanism from the lock screen, the user double presses the home button. The device detects the first press, reads the fingerprint, and determines whether the read fingerprint matches an enrolled fingerprint. The device also detects if there is a second press within a predetermined time (e.g., 300 ms) after the first press. If there is no second press, the device merely unlocks. If, however, both conditions are met (fingerprint match and double press), the device is enabled for contactless NFC payment while remaining locked. Thus, the user input required to pay (a double press) is distinguished from the user input to merely unlock the device by simply placing a finger on the fingerprint sensor, optionally combined with a single press on the home button.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division considered that the claimed invention represented a user requirement definition of “when and how” to enable the payment functionality of a well-known smartphone. It referred to the Guidelines for Examination at G-II 3.7.1, treating the entire specification of user interactions (double clicking within a certain time, using the unlocking authentication for payment instead of a separate authentication in a payment app) as non-technical user requirements. According to the Examining Division, these user requirements were simply given to the skilled person to implement, and the implementation itself would have been obvious. Therefore, the Examining Division concluded that an inventive step was lacking under Article 56 EPC.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the distinguishing features produced technical effects, namely faster activation of the payment functionality and improved security. On this basis, the Appellant formulated the objective technical problem as “how to provide a more efficient electronic device for contactless payments with enhanced transaction security.” The Appellant further explained that using the home button on the iPhone for activating payment from the lock screen was not without technical difficulty, as the same button and fingerprint sensor were already used for unlocking the device. The home button was “overloaded,” meaning it already served multiple functions, which would have deterred the skilled person from assigning yet another function to it. The Appellant also pointed to the absence of any prior art showing an input means with an integrated sensor having the claimed dual function.

The Board’s analysis

Scope of “user requirements” under the Comvik approach

The Board provided a detailed analysis of the term “user requirement” as it is used when assessing the technicality of user interface features:

1. Under the Comvik approach (T 641/00), user requirements may appear in the formulation of the technical problem because they do not make a technical contribution. A “user requirement” refers to needs and preferences defined by the end user, who does not possess any technical understanding of the system.
2. Non-technical user requirements cannot normally specify any technical matter or be based on technical considerations (T 1463/11). However, they do not appear in a vacuum. A user may formulate requirements relating to the use of the underlying technical system (e.g., a mobile phone), as long as these requirements do not involve technical considerations or require technical understanding.
3. Legitimate non-technical user requirements would include requests such as “simplify payment,” “pay faster,” or “pay in as few steps as possible.” The user may even require that the device should remain locked, as this does not require technical understanding of the phone’s internal workings.
4. A user requirement may also include simple mappings of user inputs to functions, for example pressing a “pay” button in order to pay, if the technical means are known and the mapping does not involve further technical effects or considerations.

The double press feature is not a mere user requirement

1. The Board disagreed with the Examining Division’s broad classification of all user interactions as non-technical user requirements. The constraint that user requirements must not involve technical considerations limits their scope.
2. Requirements such as “use a double click” or “reuse the existing authentication for payment” involve technical considerations, because even a skilled person would have to verify whether these requirements are technically possible. In other words, the user is “over-stretching” non-technical requirements, going beyond what a “notional” user could require.
3. The double press to activate payment in combination with fingerprint reading is not a simple mapping of an input to a function. Using a button with an integrated fingerprint sensor for both activating the payment functionality and authenticating the payment transaction is a technical choice that goes beyond mere mapping.
4. Using the home button on the iPhone for activating payment from the lock screen was not without technical difficulty, as the same button and fingerprint sensor were already used for unlocking the device. These are technical considerations for a technically skilled person.

Objective technical problem and inventive step

1. The Board formulated the objective technical problem as “how to simplify payment with fingerprint authentication.” It did not accept the Appellant’s formulation that included “enhanced transaction security,” reasoning that increased security was provided by the known lock mechanism and was at best a “bonus effect” that cannot alone render an invention inventive.
2. The Board found the solution (double press on the home button to activate payment, combined with fingerprint authentication via the integrated sensor) to be non-obvious for two reasons:
   1. No prior art showed an input means with an integrated sensor having the claimed dual function. This was different from, e.g., single and double mouse clicks, which do not involve considerations of the input command in combination with a sensor reading.
   2. The home button on the iPhone was already “overloaded” with functions, which would have deterred the skilled person from using it for yet another function, especially since alternative input mechanisms existed on the iPhone 6 (e.g., swiping to open the camera from the lock screen).
3. The Board drew an analogy to T 1188/04 (Graphical user interface/SHARP), where a shortcut using oscillation of a dragged icon was found inventive. In both cases, the aim originated from the user, but the specific interaction was not a mere input mapping but involved technical considerations relating to the implementation.

Other requests

The original main request was withdrawn by the Appellant during oral proceedings as it was broader than the refused main request. The second and third auxiliary requests, as well as the fourth and fifth auxiliary requests filed later, did not need to be considered since the first auxiliary request (the final main request) was found to involve an inventive step.

Conclusion

The Board set aside the Examining Division’s refusal and remitted the case with the order to grant a patent based on claims 1 to 13 of the first auxiliary request. The decisive factor was the Board’s finding that the double press interaction on a home button with an integrated fingerprint sensor to activate contactless payment, while simultaneously distinguishing this action from unlocking the device, involves genuine technical considerations. It cannot be dismissed as a mere non-technical user requirement under the Comvik approach. The solution was non-obvious because no prior art suggested using an input mechanism with an integrated sensor for such a dual function, and the skilled person would have been deterred from further overloading the already multi-purpose home button.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0035/20 (Double press to pay/APPLE) of 17 May 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!