This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a UI (User Interface) that displays a plurality of thumbnail images on a display screen. The application was refused by the Examining Division. The applicant filed an appeal but was not successful. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1042/22 dated February 29, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.
Key takeaways
The invention
The application relates to an information processing device including a display control unit configured to display a plurality of lists including a first list and a second list each having list items; and perform display of coupling to the first list a list item of the second list that is a sub-list of the first list (see abstract).
Fig. 1 of EP2555104
Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:
-
Claim 1 (main request)
Is it patentable?
D6 (EP 1 942 401 A1) was considered as the closest prior art. The Examining Division refused the application for lack of inventive step over D6. The Board of Appeal in charge arrived at the same conclusion:
- Features (iii) and (iv)
Regarding features (iii) and (iv), the appellant tried to argue that the GUI solves a technical problem, which was denied by the Board:
1.3 Regarding features (iii) and (iv), the appellant argued that they enabled the user to recognise the list items to be inserted by the “coupling” before the completion of the “coupling of list items”. It 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. The appellant did not contest that the display of “animations” within the meaning of features (iii) and (iv) constitutes a “presentation of information”. Instead, referring in particular to T 336/14 and T 1802/13, it 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. The appellant considered “controlling a device based on user input” to be the “technical task” in the case at hand. It argued that “the control of a device based on physical parameters” such as the “amount of the pinch-out operation” and “thresholds” was a “technical control operation”. It further argued that, based on the “visual feedback” provided by the animations of features (iii) and (iv), the user had 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.
However, the board holds that the animations at hand have obviously 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 (iii) and (iv) 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).
1.4 The appellant also emphasised that the “visual feedback” provided by the “animations” of features (iii) and (iv) gave the user better control of the result of their input, allowing more efficient and ergonomically improved interaction with the GUI. The appellant was aware that, according to the case law of the boards of appeal, GUIs were, as the appellant put it, at the “borderline of patentability”. Indeed, most of the decisions it cited, including T 336/14 and T 1802/13, had come to a negative conclusion in this regard. However, repeating statements from the case law that leave an open door for “exceptional cases” and referring to the Guidelines for Examination, which indicate that features related to user input with physical ergonomic advantages were “more likely” to have technical character than those related to output or to subjective or aesthetic preferences, the appellant pleaded that the case at hand was such an “exceptional case”.
However, in the absence of a tangible and credible technical effect beyond the realm of the GUI, ergonomic improvements in interaction with GUIs remain non-technical improvements in design. Thus, features (iii) and (iv) do not contribute to the technical character of the invention.
- Feature (d)
Regarding feature (d), the appellant tried to argue which similar reasonings as used for features (iii) and (iv), which did not convince the Board.
- Auxiliary requests
The appellant added more features in the auxiliary request 1, but it failed with similar reasonings as for the main request. Auxiliary requests 2 and 3 were first filed on appeal and were not admitted by the Board due to lack of justification.
- Outcome
Finally, the Board dismissed the appeal.
More information
You can read the whole decision here: T 1042/22 dated February 29, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.