This decision concerns an invention related to input unit, which presents an operator with the same real feeling of pressing as the feeling of operating a push-button switch. The first instance considered the features defined by haptic signal and thus entailed a mere presentation of information. Although the applicant argued that by providing the ultrasonic vibration for a predetermined time and amplitude, the haptic effect provided a realistic sensation of operating a push-button switch, the Board disagreed as the claim was not limited, and thus the effect was not credibly achieved over the entire claimed range.
The applicant then amended the claim to include a specific numerical range of vibration time and amplitude. In this case, although the first instance decision considered them to be merely arbitrary values reflecting a subjective user preference, the Board sided with the applicant and agreed that the feature caused an effect of a “metal dome switch behavior,” and the parameters were only found after extensive experimentation. Thus the subject matter of the claim was not obvious.
Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1887/20 (Input device with load detection and vibration units / Kyocera) of March 3, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.
Key takeaways
The invention
The application concerns an input apparatus that accepts input by pressing a touch panel and presents an operator with the same real feeling of pressing as the feeling of operating a push-button switch when the operator operates a pressing input unit.
-
Claim 1 of the Main Request
Is it patentable (Main Request)?
In the decision under appeal, the examining division held that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from what was known from document D1 (D1 US 2007/236450 A1) in that the vibrations were set “for a predetermined time period with a predetermined vibration amplitude.” Based on this, the Board decided as follows
2.3 Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)
The examining division held that the distinguishing feature defined a haptic signal and thus entailed a mere presentation of information. Therefore, it could not contribute to an inventive step. In an auxiliary line of reasoning, the examining division considered that the distinguishing feature was obvious in view of document D1 (see D1, claim 26).
The appellant argued that the haptic effect provided by the invention solved the problem “to provide a realistic sensation of operating a push-button switch”.
The board considers that the technical effect argued by the appellant is not achieved over the entire claimed range. Notably, when operating a real push-button switch, only a short vibration is felt when pushing the button down. However, in claim 1, the “predetermined time” is not limited. Therefore, it also encompasses durations significantly longer than the time a push button is typically pressed, thus providing feedback even when the button has been released. Therefore, the board holds that the distinguishing feature does not credibly solve a technical problem and cannot thus contribute to an inventive activity.
Consequently, the board considers that the subject-matter of claim 1 is not inventive over the disclosure of document D1.
Is it patentable (Auxiliary Request)?
-
Claim 1 of the Auxiliary Request (II) - amendments highlighted
The Applicant amended the claims as follows:
Compared to claim 1 of the main request, the feature “to vibrate ultrasonically etc.” is amended to read as follows:
“to vibrate ultrasonically for a vibration time between 16 ms and 24 ms and with a predetermined vibration amplitude of 4 mym or more so as to generate a floating force on the pressing object to reduce a frictional force between the input unit (12) and the pressing object, wherein the predetermined criterion for accepting an input to the input unit (12) is 0.98 N or more and 2 N or less.”
The distinguishing features were identified as follows:
In the decision under appeal, the examining division held that the following definitions of the parameters constituted the distinguishing features over document D1:
– a vibration time between 16 ms and 24 ms
– a vibration amplitude of 4 mym or more
– a criterion for input acceptance of 0.98 N < Fin < 2 N
This was not contested by the appellant.
Thus, the board considers these features to constitute the distinguishing features over the disclosure of document D1.
The Board then decided on the inventive step, as follows:
4.2 Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)
In the decision under appeal, the examining division considered that the selected numerical values were arbitrary values reflecting a subjective user preference and thus not inventive.
The appellant argued that the distinguishing feature was technical since it related to changing the frictional characteristics of the input unit. Notably, it caused the technical effect of defining a “metal dome switch behavior”. The claimed parameters had been found by the inventors only after conducting extensive experiments and were thus not obvious.
The board considers the arguments of the appellant to be convincing. The board notes that document D1 discloses in paragraph [0127] a “pressure-dependent sensation for press confirmation” but does not give any details about the parameters for achieving it. Therefore, the board holds that although the skilled person could have implemented the invention as claimed, there is no motivation in document D1 for doing so.
Hence, the board considers that the invention defined in claim 1 according to the 2nd auxiliary request is not obvious in view of document D1 taken alone.
Therefore, the Board decided that the subject-matter of the claims was inventive. However, since the first instance had not examined the claims in light of other prior art document D3 to D5 which were cited in the proceedings, the board remitted the case to the examining division for further prosecution.
More information
You can read the full decision here: T 1887/20 (Input device with load detection and vibration units / Kyocera) of March 3, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.