This decision concerns an invention in the field of exchanging electronic messages in a computer network and more particularly to a geo-location based gallery of messages associated with an event. Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0984/20 (Shared event gallery / SNAP) of July 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.
Key takeaways
Associating a geo-location fence with an event at some location, instead of the location itself, is purely a matter of labelling having no influence on a system’s technical functionality.
The invention
The subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision is summarized as follows in the decision:
2.1 The invention concerns a social network application enabling users that are participating in a common event (paragraph [0003]) to post content (e.g. a photograph – Figure 4 and paragraph [20]) to a shared “event gallery” (Figure 8 and paragraph [21]).
2.2 The invention according to claim 1 of the main request essentially allows a user who is close to an event to receive an indication of the event’s gallery (claim 1, fifth and sixth features), and then be added as a follower of the event and access the event gallery (seventh feature) and also to post content to the event gallery (last feature).
Fig. 8 of EP 3 155 565 A1
-
Claim 1 of the main request
Is it technical?
The Board decided to start from document D4 which discloses not only the first part of the claim, but also some features of its second part, thus avoiding the discussion of these features’ technicality.
The Board found that claim 1 of the main request differs from D4 in the following features (A, B, C and D) and elaborates on each feature as follows:
A) The geo-location fence and gallery are associated with an event;
3.6 Distinguishing feature A does not produce any technical effect, as associating the geo-location fence with an event at some location, instead of the location itself, is purely a matter of labelling having no influence on the system’s technical functionality. Contrary to the appellant’s view, the event’s time is not used in the claim for filtering content, granting access to the gallery or for any other purpose.
B) In addition to the shared gallery information, the user device presets a list of users to which the user sends messages, called “destination list”.
C) The user selects the shared gallery information before posting content to it.
3.7 Concerning distinguishing feature B, displaying next to the map of Figure 6c, the list of users to which the user of the user device sent unspecified messages relates to the presentation of information as such and lacks technical character. As regards distinguishing feature C, it would have been obvious to enable the user to post content relating to a geo-fenced location shown on the map of Figure 6c while this map is selected on the screen.
D) Content posted from a device is added to the gallery if the geo-location data of the device falls within the geo-location fence associated with the gallery.
3.8 As regards to feature D, the Board cannot see any technical reason for limiting the area from which content may be posted.
Contrary to the appellant, this idea does not involve any technical considerations in the field of data filtering. The alleged effect of reducing spam is not credibly provided, as this would require examining posted content, rather than contributors’ locations.
At any rate, the Board disagrees with the appellant that, compared to D4, the claimed invention facilitates communication between users at the same location. The claim defines at best that two different users “communicate” by virtue of viewing and posting content to the shared gallery, but this is disclosed in D4. Limiting the posting area does not facilitate electronic communication.
In fact, given the appellant’s explanations, this idea appears to aim at fostering interactions among users being at some location, such as parents attending a school football match, in the appellant’s example. This is not a technical consideration, but rather an administrative or even a psychological one.
3.9 Thus, using the Comvik approach (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), the idea to accept only content posted from within geo-location fence associated with the gallery is given to the skilled person as a requirement specification to implement. Starting from D4 and facing the problem of implementing this requirement, it would have been obvious to use the user device’s geo-location data to filter content posted to a gallery shown on the selected interactive map.
The Board further judged that claim 1 of the first auxiliary request does not comply with the requirements of Article 84 EPC and that claim 1 of the second auxiliary request does not add anything inventive according to Article 56 EPC.
As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the main request and claim 1 of the first and second auxiliary requests lack an inventive step. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
More information
The decision can be found here: T 0984/20 (Shared event gallery / SNAP) of July 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.