In the 3rd quarter (July to September) of 2021, 4 positively decided cases were added to our knowledge base in which relevant aspects of the claimed-subject-matter were considered technical. For those who do not have the time to read all of our selected decision, in the following, we will briefly summarize these cases.
T 0200/19: Disambiguation of text with an upper and lower case
The application underlying this decision relates to a handheld device with a reduced QWERTY keyboard. Based on the user input, the device automatically detects whether it was the intention of the user to write a word with an upper case or lowercase letter.
At the end of the appeal stage, the Board in charge ruled that enhancing the efficiency of disambiguation of a user input provided via a reduced keyboard of a handheld device is technical.
T1790/17: Controlling the manufacture of a product
This decision relates to the area of business methods, and more particularly to product (re-)design. The Board in charge was of the opinion that redesigning a product based on user feedback is purely business-motivated and thus non-technical.
However, according to the Board in charge, controlling the manufacture of a product with improved process data is a patentable invention as it includes technical features.
This decision is an excellent example of how the first hurdle (patent eligibility) of the EPO’s two-hurdle (COMVIK) approach can be cleared.
T 2251/13: Projection surface with built-in track pad
This is one of the rare cases in which a business-related invention was considered technical (T 2251/13). In detail, the invention relates to an interactive food and/or drink ordering system that can be controlled by means of a track pad. The gist of the invention is to project a menu onto the restaurant table.
Specifically the usage of the above-mentioned track pad was considered to solve a technical problem with technical means.
T 1422/19: Determining visibility of content on web browser by indirect measurement
In the area of graphical user interfaces, one of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal ruled that estimating the size of a browser’s viewport from within a cross-domain iframe by indirect measurement is technical. According to the decision T 1422/19, this is because the claimed method measures “raw” information about a running web browser and processes this information to produce an estimate of a technically meaningful parameter.
Fear of missing out?
Patrick was a European patent attorney at BARDEHLE PAGENBERG. He was specialized in software patents in Europe both from a prosecution and litigation point of view.
With deep sadness, we announce the sudden and unexpected passing of our dear partner, colleague and friend, Dr. Patrick Heckeler (March 10, 1980–July 12, 2026). He was not only an exceptionally skilled and capable patent attorney, but also a deeply compassionate and kind person. His dedication, energy and positive spirit will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife as well as with his family and beloved ones.
You are warmly invited to share your thoughts and memories of Patrick, or your final farewells to him, with us in our online condolence book.
