T 1504/17 () of 17.8.2020

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal was filed by the appellant (applicant) against the decision of the examining division to refuse the patent application in suit (hereinafter "the application").

II. The examining division decided that the subject matter of the independent claims that were admitted into the proceedings lacked novelty or inventive step.

III. Since the Board found the appellant's main request to be allowable, oral proceedings scheduled for 18 August 2020 were cancelled.

IV. The appellant-applicant requests with letter of 5 August 2020 that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request, filed as auxiliary request I on 17 July 2020 or, in the alternative, on the basis of a first auxiliary request, filed as the main request on 17 July 2020 or auxiliary request II, likewise filed on 17 July 2020.

V. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"An information processing program (400) executed by a computer (10) of an information processing apparatus (3) for controlling an object (300) displayed on a display device (2) based on inputs from a movement sensor (701) for detecting a movement and an input section (9,72), wherein the movement sensor (701) detects at least one of an acceleration and an angular velocity, the information processing program causing the computer to function as:

display means (10, S1, S20) for displaying one of a plurality of areas (A, B, C) on an entire screen of the display device as a display area;

object determination means (10,S6) for determining an object included in the display area as a target to be moved to another one of the plurality of areas based on an input from the input section; and

display switching means (10, S9, S10, S91, S101, S13, S14, S20) for, when a predetermined movement wherein an acceleration or an angular velocity is greater than or equal to a predetermined value is detected by the movement sensor in a state where the object included in the display area being displayed on the display device has been determined as the target to be moved, switching the displaying of the area to the other one of the plurality of areas different from the display area currently displayed as a new display area, and displaying the other area on the display device together with the object determined as a target to be moved by the object determination means".

Other independent claims 17, 18, 19 have corresponding features to claim 1, albeit formulated in terms of an information processing apparatus, system and method respectively.

VI. In the present decision, reference is made to the following documents:

D1: US 2009/0241038A1

D2: Masatomo Kobayashi and Takeo Igarashi "Boomerang: Suspendable Drag-and-Drop Interactions Based on Throw-and-Catch Metaphor", UIST 2007 Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposim on User interface software and technology, October 2007, pages 187-190.

D3: Karsten Köper, Erik Simon, Harald Uenzelmann et al "Ambermoon" game manual, Thalion Software, 1993, Retrieved from the Internet: https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Commodore_Amiga//Manual/formated/Ambermoon_-_1993_-_Thalion_software.pdf

[retrieved on 8 January 2014]

D4: US 2006/0258455 A1

D5: Anonymous: "How to Move Wii Channels - wikiHow", archived from the Internet Archive, archive.org, on 4 May 2011, http://web.archive.org/web/20110504232049/http://www.wikihow.com/Move-Wii-Channels

D6: EP 2006764 A2

D7: US 5554980 A

VII. The appellant-applicant's arguments can be summarised as follows:

The claims of the main request do not add subject matter extending beyond the application as filed. None of the prior art discloses display switching means which switches in response to a movement sensor detecting an acceleration or angular velocity greater than or equal to a predetermined value. Therefore the subject matter of the independent claims is both new and involves an inventive step.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Background

The application (see published application, EP2524721 A2, paragraphs [0002] to [0008]) is concerned with performing display control of objects using a movement sensor (of a hand-held controller) that allows an object on a display area (screen) to be selected and moved to another display area intuitively and with improved operability.

3. Added subject matter

3.1 The subject matter of claim 1 is a direct combination of original claims 1 and 17. Therefore, claim 1 does not contain added subject matter extending beyond the application as filed, Article 123(2) EPC.

3.2 Since the subject matter of the other independent claims 17, 18, 19 corresponds to that of claim 1, these likewise meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

4. Main request, clarity

The Board considers the subject matter of claim 1 to be clear. In particular, specifying that an area of a plurality of areas is displayed on an entire screen of a display device clearly defines what is meant by both an area and its relationship to the display device's screen (cf. impugned decision, point 6.2).

Moreover, the description (page 7) has been amended to conform with the independent claims so that it supports those claims. Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that the application meets the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

5. Novelty of claim 1 with respect to D5

5.1 D5 (see page 1, photo) discloses how to move Wii channels, thus it is implicit that it runs an information processing program executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus. The programme controls an object (Wii channel to be selected) that is displayed on a display device (the screen device shown in the photo).

5.2 According to D5 (see top of page 2), a user grabs a channel to move by pointing at it and pressing the A and B buttons. Then the channel can be dragged somewhere else by moving the cursor. The A and B buttons constitute an input section (cf. application, column 14, lines 25 to 30 and column 15, lines 14 to 17) and dragging movement implies the user moves the handheld input device of the Wii. Therefore D5 discloses controlling the object based on inputs from a movement sensor for detecting movement and an input section. Furthermore, it is generally known to the skilled person that the Wii's on-board movement sensor includes acceleration and angular velocity detection (and it is likewise known to detect position/movement by imaging the infrared lights of the Wii sensor bar).

5.3 D5 also discloses (see page 2, "Tips", +/- buttons moves from one page to the next) that the programme can display a plurality of pages, each, when displayed, occupying the entire screen of the display device. So D5's program can cause the computer to function as display means for displaying one of a plurality of areas on an entire screen of the display device as a display area, as claim 1 requires.

5.4 As has been touched on, D5 explains that the Wii channels, which are objects on the page (display area), can be selected with A and B buttons as a target for moving, including to a different page. Therefore, D5 discloses determination means for determining an object in a display area to be moved to another display area based on an input from the input section. Once so moved, the object appears on the new page, in other words D5's programme causes the computer to act as a display switching means, switching to display a new display area, with the targeted object that has been moved there, as the last feature of claim 1 stipulates.

5.5 Therefore, the question of novelty hinges on whether, in D5, switching of an object between areas occurs when a predetermined movement of at least one of an acceleration and an angular velocity being greater or equal to a predetermined value is detected by the movement sensor in a state where the object included in the display area being displayed on the display device has been determined as the target to be moved. In the Board's view, D5 does not disclose this.

5.6 Rather, in D5, to move a channel to another page (in claim 1's terms: move an object to a new display area), an object is dragged and then hovered over the [virtual] + or - button on the side of the screen. Whilst the dragging of the object from its original position to, for example, the + button, requires a predetermined movement in terms of a displacement to a predetermined end position, D5 does not disclose to sense this movement by detecting acceleration or angular velocity, let alone by comparing this to a threshold. Indeed, since in D5 it appears that only the end position of the movement is predetermined, and not how it is reached, detection can but be independent of any acceleration or angular velocity exceeding a threshold.

5.7 Therefore, the Board considers that the subject matter of claim 1 is new with respect to D5.

6. Novelty of claim 1 with respect to the remaining cited prior art

The Board considers that the remaining available prior art does not take away novelty of the subject matter of claim 1.

6.1 D1 (see abstract and claim 1) discloses moving objects from one area of virtual space to another based on pointing position, thus independent of acceleration or angular velocity exceeding a threshold. Although (see paragraphs [0147] to [0149]) the hand held controller of D1 includes, for example, an acceleration sensor, it is merely disclosed to use the output of this for game processing (see for example paragraph [0151]), without suggesting to use it for moving an object between areas as claimed.

6.2 D2 (see abstract and page 187, right hand column and page 188 "THE BOOMERANG TECHNIQUE") discloses to move an object to a new area, in a simulated throwing of the object. However, rather than doing so by detecting acceleration or angular velocity exceeding a threshold, a dragged object is "thrown" by moving a mouse at a certain speed whilst dragging an object and then releasing the mouse button.

6.3 D3 discloses a game controlled by a mouse (see page 20, first paragraph). However, there is no suggestion to switch a displayed figure by detecting acceleration or angular velocity exceeding a threshold. Rather (see top of page 22) figures appear to be moved by dragging and dropping by holding and releasing the LMT (linke Maustaste - left mouse button).

6.4 D4 discloses a game in which figures are controlled positionally by detecting the position (not the acceleration or angular velocity) of a pointer on a touch screen (see abstract).

6.5 D6 (see abstract, paragraphs [0003] and [0008] and claim 1 with figure 16) discloses to control the position of an object in a virtual world by sequentially accumulating acceleration vector data. However it does not disclose a display switching means, let alone one operating by detecting when acceleration (or angular velocity) exceeds a threshold.

6.6 D7 discloses (see column 1, lines 5 to 16, column 8, lines 25 to 55) a hand held controller with an accelerometer. However, D7 does not suggest a display switching means by detecting acceleration or angular velocity exceeding a threshold. Rather it appears to disclose compensating the effect of gravity on position detection by using orthogonally arranged accelerometers.

7. Main request, claim 1, inventive step

7.1 The Board is of the opinion that a display switching means switching a target object from one area to another by determining when acceleration or angular velocity exceeds a threshold is a technical feature (cf. impugned decision, reasons, point 6.2.1). The feature implies the use of technical means (acceleration sensor/angular velocity sensor) to detect a particular movement and uses this to determine how an object is controlled in a game space. Therefore, it is not a game aspect, such as a game rule, or specific to a particular role-playing game but a technical way of controlling an object in a game space.

7.2 D5 in combination with the skilled person's general knowledge

As already explained, in D5 a display switching means requires a user to move an object to a new display area by dragging it to and hovering over a particular button (see above, point 5.6). In contrast, the claim defines display switching means switching a target object from one area to another by determining when acceleration or angular velocity exceeds a threshold. In other words a user must accelerate or turn the movement sensor in a particular way to switch display of a targeted object.

In the Board's view, this difference makes the game world display switching experience akin to how a user might move an object in the physical world, and thus fulfils the application's object (see published application, paragraphs [0005] and [0030]) of moving an object more intuitively and thus with greater ease (improved operability in the words of the application).

Therefore, the Board considers that the objective technical problem can be formulated as: how to adapt the program of D5 so that display switching a targeted object is easier for the user.

In the Board's view (cf. impugned decision, section 8), however common place the knowledge of comparing a variable value derived from a movement sensor to a threshold in the field of user interfaces might be (no evidence on file proves this is so), the skilled person would not, when solving the objective technical problem, apply this knowledge to the program of D5. This is because D5 teaches to switch displays for an object in a way (hovering over a predefined button) which is fundamentally independent of how an object is moved. It only requires the object to somehow arrive at a particular area of the screen (the button). Therefore, whatever steps the skilled person might consider to simplify operation of D5's arrangement from their general knowledge, they would not include detecting when acceleration or angular velocity exceeds a threshold.

7.3 Inventive step combining other available prior art

None of the available prior art (see the above discussion of novelty) discloses switching display for a target object by detecting when acceleration or angular velocity exceeds a threshold.

Therefore, however obvious the combination of any of this prior art might be, such a combination would not lead the skilled person to an information processing programme having a display switching means as claimed.

7.4 The Board concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step, Article 56 EPC.

8. Main request, novelty and inventive step, claims 17, 18, 19

The above considerations of novelty and inventive step with respect to claim 1 of the main request also apply to the remaining independent claims because they have corresponding features to claim 1 (formulated in terms of an information processing apparatus, system and method).

9. Description

The Board notes that the original description (page 1) acknowledges prior art of equal relevance as D5, therefore it meets the requirements of Rule 42 (1)(b) EPC. Moreover, page 7 of the description has been adapted to reflect amendments in the independent claims in accordance with the requirements of Rule 42(1)(c) EPC. Therefore the Board is also satisfied that the description is correctly adapted to the pending main request.

10. The Board concludes that the grounds for refusal of the application do not hold against the main request. This request therefore meets the requirements of the EPC and the Board need not consider the appellant-applicant's auxiliary requests.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the examining division with order to grant a patent in the following version:

Description:

Pages 1 to 6 and 8 to 41 of the description as originally filed with letter of 9 August 2011,

Page 7 filed with letter of 5 August 2020

Claims:

1 to 19 of the main request, filed as Auxiliary request I on 17 July 2020.

Drawings:

Sheets 1/30 to 30/30 of the drawings as originally filed with letter of 9 August 2011.