Improving touch input using proximity touch: Technical

This decision concerns providing display control on a touch panel. In the first instance Examining division refused the application as it considered using distance and timing of the proximity touch input to was obvious.

The applicant argued that avoiding inadvertent actuation of the display due to unintended approach, thus reducing unwanted program steps and the user not being bothered by the display, is technical. The Board agreed and considered the feature improved the touch input and was inventive, as the cited document did not disclose the detection of a proximity touch based on a predetermined distance and time.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1756/20 (Proximity touch/SONY) of December 12, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

The invention

Display (such as TV or music device) shows multiple channels simultaneously in a matrix format from which users can select using a remote. However, the remote control has many buttons for switching between channels and making selections, making it difficult for users to choose the desired channel and lowering usability.

The invention aimed to improve the selection by providing a device with a proximity detector that detects when a finger (or pen) is close to the screen displaying thumbnail images, which is then selected if the finger is in proximity for a time. In particular, a plurality of thumbnail images is displayed only when the proximity detector detects that the finger is in proximity to the display surface within a predetermined distance for a predetermined period.

Is it patentable?

In the first instance, the Examination Division refused the European patent application on the grounds that the claims lacked an inventive step (Article 56 EPC) in view of document D1 (EP 2 104 019) and common knowledge illustrated by document D5 (Microsoft: “Windows XP, Student Edition Complete” 1 January 2004).

The Board agreed with the applicant on the distinguishing feature over the closest prior art:

1.2 It was common ground in the oral proceedings before the board that D1 represented the closest prior art.

D1 discloses a mobile terminal with a touch screen, comprising a proximity detector (see paragraph [0094]) and a touch detector (see paragraph [0096]). As described in paragraph [0108] and illustrated in Figure 10, when the proximity detector detects a proximity touch to an item (e.g. “Sounds”) on the screen, a plurality of sub-items corresponding to the item are displayed (sub-items 1 to 6: “Hotel California”, …).

When the touch detector detects a touch on one of the plurality of sub-items, a function associated with the touched sub-item is performed (see paragraphs [0119] to [0126] and Figure 5).

1.3 The differences between claim 1 and D1 are in substance that:

a) in response to detecting the proximity of an indicator, the device displays a plurality of thumbnail images, as opposed to a plurality of sub-items in D1, each thumbnail having a reduced size and shape of an original launch image and being an indicant used for displaying the original launch image,

b) the display of the plurality of thumbnail images is terminated when one of the plurality of thumbnail images is selected with a touch,

and that

c) the plurality of thumbnail images is displayed only when the proximity detector detects that the indicator is in proximity to the display surface within a predetermined distance to the display surface for a predetermined period of time, instead of displaying the plurality of sub-items in D1 as soon as the indicator is within a predetermined distance.

Then the Board then considered the technical effect as follows:

1.4 The technical effect of feature c) is that a proximity touch is detected as such only if the indicator stays in proximity within the predetermined distance for a minimum duration, otherwise there is no proximity touch, and, as a consequence, no display of the plurality of thumbnails.

The appellant plausibly argued that a first advantage provided by feature c) is that the inadvertent actuation of the display due to unintended approach of the indicator (stylus or finger) at the required distance to the display is avoided. As a result, there is power saving since unwanted program steps, namely the display of the plurality of thumbnails, are not carried out. A further advantage is that a user deciding to input a real touch on a portion of the display surface is not bothered by the display of the plurality of thumbnails when its indicator (stylus or finger) approaches the display surface, since the display of the thumbnail images is not started as long as the indicator is in proximity but the predetermined time is not yet reached.

The objective technical problem can thus be formulated as being how to improve the touch input of the mobile terminal of D1.

The Board then decided that the feature was inventive as D1 did not disclose the detection of a proximity touch or the speed used to detect a proximity touch. Therefore, the skilled person could not have obtained any teaching about proximity touch detection based on a predetermined distance and a predetermined time from the cited document.

Therefore, the Board decided that the subject-matter of claims is technical and inventive.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1756/20 (Proximity touch/SONY) of December 12, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!