This decision concerns providing a graphical user interface with a gesture selection for electronic commerce. In the first instance Examining division refused the application not inventive as it considered the features as mere automation of a non-technical administrative or business process.
The applicant argued that the specific tap-and-hold gesture provided a man-machine interaction which assisted the user in performing the technical task of selecting an item of content on display. The Board agreed that using a tap/hold/release gesture to display different items of content sequentially for a set time period enables easier and faster selection on mobile devices with small screens compared to displaying all items simultaneously. Therefore, the subject-matter of the claims was considered technical and inventive.
Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1589/20 (Selection of content with tap/hold/release gesture /EBAY) of November 23, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.
Key takeaways
The invention
Mobile devices are increasingly used for shopping and payments. Still, the small screen size and device movement can make it challenging for users to navigate the shopping or payment flow, potentially leading to unintended actions. The invention aims to provide a mobile device to make transactions easier and more accurate.
The invention allows the user to provide an input gesture: a tap/ hold /release gesture on display to initiate and complete an action. During holding operation, it presents a series of screens (e.g., price, quantity, shipping address, and payment method etc.). The user may continue the hold operation to confirm the information on the screen or release the hold at a particular screen if they need to modify the information.
-
Claim 1 of Main Request
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 (US 2011/282785), as the features were considered merely automation of a non-technical administrative or business process, thus not inventive.
The Board agreed with the applicant that feature of the claim was technical:
1. Technical features
The board agrees with the appellant that the following features of claim 1 contribute to the technical character of its subject-matter:
“- receiving an indication that a user has tapped and held an active portion of a display on a user device;
– displaying content to the user when the active portion is being held by the user, the content comprising a plurality of sequential selections presented on a series of different screens;
– receiving an indication that the user has released the hold on the active portion of the display;
– determining whether the user maintained the hold on the active portion for a predetermined time; and
– displaying content to the user on the display based, in part, on whether the user maintained the hold on the active portion for the predetermined time,
– when the user has not maintained the hold on the active portion for the predetermined time, displaying a static screen of content to the user on the display according to the selection displayed when the user released the hold on the active portion.”
In substance, these features define a man-machine interaction whereby an input by the user on an active portion of a display of a device in the form of a specific tap-and-hold gesture provokes a response by the device that involves displaying content to the user. These features thus assist the user in performing the technical task of selecting an item of content on the display and, as per the case law of the boards of appeal related to graphical user interfaces (see 10th edition, July 2022, section I.D.9.2.10(b)), produce a technical effect.
Then the Board compared it with the closest prior art D1, which described a payment authentication using user-defined gesture recognition (such as a tap and hold combined with swipe gesture) and described the distinguishing features as follows:
3. The differences between the subject-matter of claim 1 and the disclosure of D1 are as follows.
a) The device stores shipping address information in the user account information.
b) When the hold on an active portion of the display is maintained, the content displayed comprises a plurality of sequential selections presented on a series of different screens.
c) When the hold is released before a predetermined time, the content displayed at the time of release is a static screen depending on the selection displayed when the user released the hold.
Feature a) is a mere administrative feature which does not provide any technical effect.
The technical effects of features b) and c) are that different items of content are successively displayed for a predetermined period of time so that the user may decide, by releasing the hold, which content should be statically displayed. The user is thus relieved of the need to define and remember specific gestures to display and select each item of content, as is the case in D1.
The objective technical problem can thus be formulated as improving the mobile device of claim 1 so that content can be selected more quickly and easily.
The skilled person starting from D1 would not find any hint in the prior art to replace the content selection based on user-defined gestures in order to arrive at the content selection process of claim 1 based on a tap/hold/release gesture temporally combined with a successive display of items of content. In particular D5 discloses a device with a touch screen whereby a tap/hold gesture on an icon is used for initiating a hover mode of interaction with the icon and a release of the hold disables the hover mode. However, D5 does not disclose the successive display of different items of content to be selected by releasing the hold.
The appellant also plausibly argued that, for a mobile device with an inherently small screen size, selecting an item of content in the manner defined in claim 1 is much easier than if all items of content were displayed simultaneously for selection, each with a smaller size, as was commonly the case at the priority date of the application in hand.
For these reasons, the board holds that the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step (Article 56 EPC), having regard to the prior art on file.
Therefore, the Board decided that the subject-matter of claims is technical and inventive.
More information
You can read the full decision here: T 1589/20 (Selection of content with tap/hold/release gesture /EBAY) of November 23, 2022, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.