{"id":1987,"date":"2021-10-20T14:00:44","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T12:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bardehle.com\/europeansoftwarepatents\/?p=1987"},"modified":"2021-10-20T14:09:51","modified_gmt":"2021-10-20T12:09:51","slug":"whitelist-july-to-september-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bardehle.com\/europeansoftwarepatents\/whitelist-july-to-september-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"Whitelist July to September 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

T 0200\/19: Disambiguation of text with an upper and lower case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The application underlying this decision<\/a> 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of the appeal stage, the Board in charge ruled that enhancing the efficiency of disambiguation of a user input<\/a> provided via a reduced keyboard of a handheld device is technical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T1790\/17: Controlling the manufacture of a product<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This decision<\/a> relates to the area of business methods<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, according to the Board in charge, controlling the manufacture of a product with improved process data<\/a> is a patentable invention as it includes technical features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision is an excellent example of how the first hurdle (patent eligibility) of the EPO’s two-hurdle (COMVIK) approach<\/a> can be cleared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T 2251\/13: Projection surface with built-in track pad<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This is one of the rare cases in which a business-related<\/a> invention was considered technical (T 2251\/13<\/a>). In detail, the invention relates to an interactive food and\/or drink ordering system<\/a> that can be controlled by means of a track pad. The gist of the invention is to project a menu onto the restaurant table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically the usage of the above-mentioned track pad was considered to solve a technical problem with technical means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T 1422\/19: Determining visibility of content on web browser by indirect measurement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the area of graphical user interfaces<\/a>, one of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal ruled that estimating the size of a browser\u2019s viewport from within a cross-domain iframe<\/a> by indirect measurement is technical. According to the decision T 1422\/19<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fear of missing out?<\/h2>\n\n\n \n \n
<\/div>\n \n\n