T 2430/22: Het wijzigen van de afbeeldingsgrootte om de status van een machine aan te duiden, mist technisch karakter

Case Law Octrooien

In zaak T 2430/22 boog de Kamer zich over de vraag of het aanpassen van de afbeeldingsgrootte op basis van de machinestatus een technisch effect oplevert dat verder gaat dan de loutere presentatie van informatie. De Kamer besprak of het weergeven van een afbeelding van een automatisch werkende machine in verschillende groottes – groter in operationele toestand, kleiner bij een foutmelding – kan worden aangemerkt als een technische oplossing met een inventief karakter. Lees het artikel hier verder in het Engels.

Background

In T 2430/22, the Examining Division refused the patent application, among others due to lack of inventive step under Art. 56 EPC.

Claim 1 of the main request (recited below the summary) related to a display control apparatus for displaying an image of an automatic working machine, for example of a lawnmower. The image would be displayed in different sizes depending on the machine’s operational state; larger in operation, smaller when an error occurs.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the state-dependent sizing had many technical effects, which - although not mentioned in the application as filed - would be implicit to the skilled person. The technical effect would include being able to indicate effectively to the user that an error has occurred, better perceptibility under difficult light conditions, or catching the attention of the user.

The Appellant further argued that the image size was analogous to "functional data" as it influenced how users operated the machine. For example, downsizing the image in case an error occurs made it possible for the user to decide whether to keep the machine switched on or off. The Appellant also argued, referring to T 528/07, that presenting an internal state of a technical system would enable the user to properly operate the technical system.

Moreover, with regard to prior art document D1, the Appellant opined that changing the colour of a displayed image to indicate an internal state, as in D1, would mean lower perceptibility under difficult light conditions as compared to changing the size of the displayed image.

The analogy to "functional data" fails from the very beginning, since the image at hand was only relevant to human users, not to the machine itself. The Board

The Board’s considerations

The Board decided that the content and appearance of a displayed image was an entirely non-technical presentation of information and that the state-dependent size of the image was a non-technical matter of design. Referring to T 1802/13, the Board held that the size of a displayed image did not credibly assist the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and guided human-machine interaction process.

Furthermore, according to the Board, the analogy to "functional data" fails from the very beginning, since the image at hand was only relevant to human users, not to the machine itself. The state-dependent sizing did not present an internal state of the automated working machine, which was also already disclosed by D1, but related to the appearance of the displayed state of the machine, which the Board found to be a non-technical matter of design.

Third, regarding the argument of better perceptibility in difficult lighting conditions, the Board noted that this effect was not described in the application and that changing the size rather than the colour of a displayed image was essentially argued to lower the cognitive burden of the user, which according to the Board was not recognized as a technical effect.

Decision of the Board

The Board decided that claim 1 lacked inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

Claim 1 of the main request:

(a) A display control apparatus comprising: at least one processor, a memory, and at least one program, the at least one program being stored in the memory, and being configured to be executed by the at least one processor, wherein the at least one program includes instructions for executing:

(b) acquiring a state of an automatic working machine, the state including a first state in which the automatic working machine is in operation, and a second state in which an error has occurred in the automatic working machine; and

(c) the at least one program further includes instructions for executing: displaying an image indicating the acquired state in a display apparatus comprised in the automatic working machine; and

(d) causing the display apparatus to display, with the image, an interface for controlling a start of a work of the automatic working machine,

(e) wherein the image illustrates the automatic working machine in a size in accordance with the state, wherein, when the automatic working machine is in the first state, the size is larger than the size when the automatic working machine is in the second state.

Summary written by the NLO EPO Case Law Team