This decision concerns an invention in the field of mobile communication and more particularly, to a method, system and a mobile communication terminal for performing various functions depending on the number of times or duration of time a button for switching from an inactive state to an active state is pressed.
Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2288/22 (Lock screen/FIRSTFACE of July 2, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.
A. Key takeaways
“To display a lock screen in a lock state” relates to a mere presentation of information which does not credibly assist a user in performing a technical task
B. The invention
The subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision is summarized as follows in the decision:
The application concerns displaying a “lock screen” upon activating a mobile terminal and performing user authentication based on a captured image of the user.
Fig. 2 of EP 3 445 076 A1
-
Claim 1 of the main request
C. Is it technical?
First, the distinguishing feature is identified. This is followed by a discussion about the inventiveness of the respective feature.
I. Distinguishing Feature
Appellant emphasizes that
D1 did not disclose, in addition to the distinguishing feature established by the examining division (i.e. […] feature (f)), the part of feature (h) that “the terminal [remains] in the locked state” as well as features (i) and (j) of claim 1.2
The board is not convinced and notes the following:
Regarding feature h
[…] appellant did not argue as to why it considered that it was not disclosed in the passages cited by the examining division. The appellant argued that document D1 “[did] not disclose that the ‘lock screen’ [was] still shown on the display when the authentication [failed]”. However, the board holds that displaying the “lock screen” is not even claimed in the case of a failed authentication.
Regarding features i and j
[…] appellant argued that the “key pattern” of D1 was evidently different from the claimed “pressing of the activation button”. And even if they could be equated to each other, Figure 3 of document D1 disclosed the claimed “pressing of the activation button” and the “activating the camera” in the opposite order. In other words, Figure 3 disclosed “face authentication A3” followed by “determine key pattern A4”.
[…] “activation button” is not limited to a dedicated button and may thus also comprise any other button having the claimed function. Moreover, as to feature (i), the decision under appeal cites steps A1 to A3 of Fig. 3, but not step A4. Hence, it is evident that the examining division mapped the “pressing of the activation button” to the “input key pattern A1”. Since step A1 is disclosed as being performed before steps A2 and A3, the board holds that document D1 in fact discloses these steps in the claimed order.
The distinguishing feature was identified to be feature (f) (i.e., (f) characterized in that, in response to a pressing of the activation button (120) while the terminal (100) is in the inactive state, the microprocessor is configured to operate the terminal (100) to switch into the active state and the display unit (110) to display a lock screen in a lock state)
II. Inventive Step
The board makes following observations:
[…] the distinguishing feature “to display a lock screen in a lock state” relates to a mere “presentation of information” which does not credibly assist a user in performing a technical task (see e.g. T 336/14, Headnote). Hence, it may not support an inventive step (see e.g. T 641/00, Headnote I).
The board does not agree with the appellant’s argument that the distinguishing feature “rendered the system more convenient for the user”. The convenience of a particular method of displaying information may vary based on individual user preferences. Therefore, it cannot be objectively verified.
The board is also not convinced by the appellant’s argument that the examining division’s line of reasoning was based on an “ex post facto analysis” and “slightly illogical”. To the contrary, the board considers that a “lock screen” being displayed in response to pressing a button is notoriously known.
The distinguishing feature of the auxiliary request is also found to relate to mere presentation of information.
The board came to the conclusion that neither the main request nor the auxiliary request is not inventive.
Thus, the appeal is dismissed.
D. More information
The decision can be found here: T 2288/22 (Lock screen/FIRSTFACE of July 2, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.