T 0371/23: User interface for privacy consent does not contribute to technical character

EPO Case Law Patents

In T 0371/23, the Board revoked a patent related to a head-mounted display system for managing consent for sharing biometric information. The case hinged on whether user-interface features, which are about obtaining user consent for different categories of biometric data collection, contributed to the technical character of the invention. The Board determined that these features merely implemented an administrative scheme and did not contribute to technical character and inventive step.

Background

In T 0371/23 the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained the patent in amended form. The claimed invention was about a head-mounted display system for capturing eye images, determining biometric information, and providing a user interface for managing consent to share different categories of this biometric information. The OD had identified features F1.4.3 to F1.4.8 as distinguishing over a prior art document D1. These features related to:

displaying a popup with consent categories for biometric information;
receiving consent indication from the user;
not transmitting data for non-consented categories; and
transmitting data for consented categories.

The OD found that while these features related to "presentation of information", they still credibly assisted the user in performing the technical task of "transmitting or not transmitting biometric information" through a guided human-machine interaction process, referring to T 336/14 and T 1802/13.

The Board’s reasoning

The Board disagreed with the OD's assessment.

Firstly, the Board observed that "the human-machine interaction in the case at hand does not control in any manner how the technical transmission of data actually takes place". The user's consent did not change the technical means of transmission but merely provided approval for certain categories of information that can be shared with third parties.

Secondly, the Board found that it was not a technical task to give consent to sharing of information.

The Board determined that the distinguishing features were "merely the implementation of an administrative scheme which cannot contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention".

The absence of a technical task meant the application of the tests from T 336/14 and T 1802/13 failed from the very beginning.

The Board -

Decision of the Board

The Board concluded that the distinguishing features did not contribute to inventive step and revoked the patent.

Summary written by the NLO EPO Case Law Team