T 1650/23 (Display of content amount of content item/RAKUTEN) of 15.4.2025

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division to refuse European patent application No. 17162031.3, which claims an earliest priority date of 24 March 2016.

II. The following prior-art document, among others, was cited in the decision under appeal:

D1: US 2002/0109709 A1, 15 August 2002.

III. The examining division decided that the subject-matter of the independent claims of the main request and of claim 1 of the first to third, fifth and sixth auxiliary requests lacked inventive step over document D1. Claim 1 of the main request and first to seventh auxiliary requests did not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC. The main request and first to sixth auxiliary requests infringed Article 83 EPC. An eighth auxiliary request submitted in the oral proceedings was not admitted into the proceedings under Rules 116(2) and 137(3) EPC.

IV. With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant filed claims according to a main request and auxiliary requests I and II corresponding to the main request and fourth and eighth auxiliary requests considered in the decision under appeal. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request or of either of auxiliary requests I and II.

V. In a communication accompanying a summons to oral proceedings, the board raised, among others, preliminary objections for lack of clarity against claim 1 of the main request and claim 1 of auxiliary request I. The board discussed admissibility of auxiliary request II in view of Article 12(6) RPBA. With regard to inventive step, the board considered that a better starting point than document D1 was a conventional information processing system as was notoriously known at the priority date of the present application, for example a system including a web browser as mentioned in paragraph [0002] of the description. The subject-matter of claim 1 of each of the requests did not appear to involve an inventive step over this conventional prior-art system.

VI. With a letter of reply the appellant filed amended claims to address the board's preliminary objections under Article 84 EPC as a new auxiliary request Ia, positioned between auxiliary requests I and II.

VII. Oral proceedings were held as scheduled. At the end of the oral proceedings, the Chair announced the board's decision.

VIII. The appellant's final request was that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request or, in the alternative, of one of auxiliary requests I, Ia and II.

IX. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows (itemisation added by the board):

(a) "An information processing system capable of accessing storage means (12, 24) configured to store a content item (C5) to be displayed being embedded in a page on a visitor's screen, the system comprising:

(b) identification means (101) configured to identify, as a target content item, a content item (C5) that is in a content display area placed on the page and that is not being displayed on the screen, while the page is being displayed on the screen;

(c) estimating means (102) configured to estimate a display duration for which the target content item (C5) will remain displayed on the screen;

(d) changing means (104) configured to reduce a content amount of the target content item (C5) to be displayed on the screen

(d1) to an amount that enables the visitor to understand the target content item (C5) within the display duration,

(d2) if the display duration estimated by the estimating means (102) is shorter than a threshold value; and

(e) display control means (105) configured to cause the target content item (C5) whose content amount has been updated by the changing means (104) to be displayed being embedded in the page on the screen;

(f) the content display area being an area of the page for displaying the content item;

(g) wherein the changing means is configured to reduce a number of characters included in the target content item or a size of an image included in the target content item, or to delete an image included in the target content item."

X. Claim 1 of auxiliary request I differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the text (d1) above has been deleted and in that the text (g) above has been replaced with the following text:

"wherein

the storage means (12, 24) is configured to store a content set including a plurality of content items that are mutually related in display content but mutually different in content amount,

each of the content items included in this content set is stored in association with a display duration that enables the visitor to understand display content thereof, and

the changing means (104) is configured to identify the content item (C5) associated with the display duration estimated by the estimating means (102) as the content item (C5) to be displayed on the screen, from the content set stored by the storage means (12, 24)."

XI. Claim 1 of auxiliary request Ia differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request I in that

- the text "(S)" has been added after the text "An information processing system";

- the text "(12,24)" has been replaced with "(24)";

- the text "on a visitor's screen, the system comprising" has been replaced with the text

"on a visitor's screen of a client terminal (2), the client terminal (2) being part of the information processing system (S), the system comprising, as part of the client terminal (2):

the storage means (24);"

- the text ", a size of the page being larger than a size of the visitor's screen" has been added after the text "while the page is being displayed on the screen";

- the text ", wherein the content amount of the target content item is an amount the visitor visually understands on the display screen" has been added after the text "a threshold value".

XII. Claim 1 of auxiliary request II differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request I in that text (d1) has been re-introduced after text (d).

Reasons for the Decision

Invention

1. The invention concerns controlling the display of content items provided by a website or an application. In the system according to the invention, the content of a content item to be displayed is reduced to an amount that enables a user "to understand the target content item within the display duration".

Main request

2. Clarity

2.1 Claim 1 is directed to an information processing system for accessing a stored content item and displaying it. The content item is said to be "embedded in a page on a visitor's screen" (see feature (a) in section IX. above).

2.1.1 However, it is unclear from claim 1 what the terms "page" and "visitor" refer to. These terms are usually used to refer to a web page and a user accessing (i.e. "visiting") the web page, but the claim is not restricted to a web browser. Furthermore, it is unclear from claim 1 how the "visitor's screen" relates to the information processing system referred to in feature (a).

2.1.2 In feature (b) it is unclear how "a content item in a content display area placed on the page", the page being displayed, is not being displayed. It is also unclear in feature (e), how the target content item can be displayed if it is not in view according to feature (b).

2.1.3 The appellant argued that the skilled person, attempting to construe the claim in a technically sensible manner and being aware that (web) pages are typically larger than the screen, would arrive at the correct interpretation of the claim.

2.1.4 The board notes, however, that claim 1 does not mention web technology and specifies very few details of the technical context of the information processing system. For the reasons given in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above, the board is of the opinion that the skilled person can not clearly identify the matter for which protection is sought from the wording of the claim alone (Article 84 EPC).

2.2 In feature (d), the term "content amount" does not have a clear technical meaning. In the context of the present application, it is not used to refer to the amount of data measured in bytes, but to the amount of cognitive content, which is subjective. Furthermore, it is unclear, in feature (d1), what "to understand the target content item" means.

2.2.1 The appellant argued that the term "content amount" was not subjective because it could be assessed objectively. The examples in Figures 4A to 4D illustrated this, since there was no doubt that the content amount decreased from Figure 4A to Figure 4D.

According to the appellant, the skilled person recognised that certain pieces of information were more relevant than others. The skilled person would thus discard options in which highly relevant content, such as the specification of the camera "RZC-23", is treated as less relevant than less information-dense phrases such as "It is priced at", especially when the actual information content appears only in the subsequent expression, e.g. "¥ 10,000".

2.2.2 The board notes, however, that what is relevant depends on the user reading the content and their personal interests at the moment. Furthermore, it is unclear how reducing an image size or deleting an image, as claimed in feature (g), can achieve the result expressed in feature (d1), namely allowing the user ("visitor") to understand the target content item within the estimated display duration. By reducing the content displayed, the user will not be able to obtain the whole original content of the target content item. In the board's opinion, not displaying the whole content item will normally make it harder for the user to fully understand the content item. According to page 29, lines 3 to 9, an image may be deleted because it is unlikely to be understood if displayed. However, not displaying the image at all ensures that it will not be understood (Article 84 EPC).

2.3 For the reasons given above, claim 1 does not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

Auxiliary request I

3. Clarity

3.1 Claim 1 of the auxiliary request does not overcome the objections raised in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above.

3.2 For the reasons given under points 2.1 to 2.1.4 above, auxiliary request I does not satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC either.

Auxiliary request Ia

4. Admission

4.1 Auxiliary request Ia addresses objections under Article 84 EPC raised for the first time in the board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA. Since this constitutes an exceptional circumstance under Article 13(2) RPBA, the board admits auxiliary request Ia into the proceedings.

5. Inventive step

5.1 In the decision under appeal, document D1 was taken as starting point for the inventive-step assessment. However, the board prefers to start from a conventional information processing system including a client having a graphical display and running applications based on a graphical user interface (GUI) such as a web browser, as was notoriously known at the priority date of the present application.

The conventional prior-art information processing system supports the display of content items on windows or pages of a GUI at a client. For example, "content information providing systems" support access to "item information, blogs, or articles" provided by a "website or an application" (see also the background section of the description, paragraph [0002]). In the conventional prior-art system, content items may be displayed at the client screen on a page. As it is notoriously known, a page may be only partially shown on the display screen. The area displayed on the display screen ("active display area") moves in accordance with operations such as e.g. "scroll", "page down" or "page up", performed by a visitor of the page. It is also notoriously known that such a conventional prior-art system supports search in a window or page, such search being able to detect items outside of the active display area, and displaying found items in a highlighted manner.

5.2 It follows from the above that the conventional prior-art system is an information processing system as specified in feature (a). The client terminal is part of the information system and the visitor's screen is the screen of the client terminal, as specified by features added by claim 1 of auxiliary request Ia.

As notoriously known, the client includes storage means. Moreover, in the conventional prior-art system, a page includes an area for displaying a content item (referred to in the claim as a "content display area"), and the page size may be larger than the size of the client terminal's screen ("the visitor's screen"), as expressed in claim 1.

At a given point in time, at the client of the conventional prior-art system there may be a content item in a content display area which is not in the active display area. In this case, this content item is not being displayed while the page is being displayed on the screen. This is a "target content item" within the meaning of claim 1.

5.3 The client of the conventional prior-art system is able to display content items embedded in a page and therefore includes "display control means". Since it is capable of displaying a target content item when a user operation, e.g. scrolling or searching, changes the area of the page that is visible to the area of the target content item, the conventional prior-art system includes also "identification means" configured to identify target content items of a page. The highlighting of items in accordance with a search is performed by some changing means, which however do not reduce the content. Therefore, the client of the conventional prior-art system includes identification means for identifying a target content item and display control means to cause the updated target content item to be displayed as specified in claim 1.

5.4 The appellant argued that the skilled person would not have been prompted to design "a size of the page being larger than a size of the visitor's screen". The board is however of the opinion that it is notoriously known that pages can be so large that they have to be scrolled and that in some of those cases the page is larger than the screen.

5.5 In view of the above, the board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the conventional prior-art system in that the client terminal includes the following features:

(i) estimating means configured to estimate a display duration for which the target content item will remain displayed on the screen;

(ii) changing means configured to reduce a content amount of the target content item to be displayed on the screen, if the display duration estimated by the estimating means is shorter than a threshold value, wherein the content amount of the target content item is an amount the visitor visually understands on the display screen;

(iii) the storage means is configured to store a content set including a plurality of content items that are mutually related in display content but mutually different in content amount,

(iv) each of the content items included in this content set is stored in association with a display duration that enables the visitor to understand display content thereof, and

(v) the changing means is configured to identify the content item associated with the display duration estimated by the estimating means as the content item to be displayed on the screen, from the content set stored by the storage means.

5.6 The distinguishing features relate in part to the way information is displayed (i.e. presented) to the user. Presentation of information is as such not patentable under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC. According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, presentation of information as such, as non-technical subject-matter, cannot contribute to inventive step. Where a claim refers to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field, this aim may legitimately appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved, in particular as a constraint that has to be met (T 641/00, Reasons 7).

5.7 The appellant argued that the distinguishing features related to technical concepts directed at determining in advance how and which information to provide in accordance with the display duration. Hence, these features were directed at the internal processing of the claimed information processing system and not at the mere presentation of information. The distinguishing features achieved the technical effect of reducing processing loads, quickly changing the content amount of the target content item, and causing the target content item to be displayed, as was recited in paragraph [0043] of the description. By storing in advance multiple content variants corresponding to possible display durations, the processing was improved.

The appellant further argued that all the distinguishing features contributed to these technical effects, since they were involved in the steps leading to the improved processing. They could thus not be considered to be mere "constraints" included in the objective technical problem. The objective technical problem had to be formulated as how to improve the processing of displaying a target content item, possibly with the addition of "such that it enables the visitor to understand display content thereof" to take into account the board's assessment that the present invention contained a part that was based on non-technical considerations.

5.8 The board cannot recognise any improved processing compared to the conventional prior-art system, since changing the displayed information involves additional processing. The only effect of this additional processing is in the mind of the user, who is presented with different information than in the conventional prior-art system.

The concept of the invention is that of displaying, for a display duration below a threshold, a version of the target content item with a reduced content amount that enables the visitor to visually understand the target content item within the display duration. The versions to be displayed should be "mutually related in display content but mutually different in content amount". This concept of the invention is based on non-technical considerations about a reduction of the cognitive burden of the user. It is thus a non-technical concept that can be included in the formulation of the technical problem.

In view of this, the distinguishing features solve the technical problem of modifying the conventional prior-art system to display, for a display duration below a threshold, a version of the target content item with a reduced content amount that enables the visitor to visually understand the target content item within the display duration.

5.9 According to the appellant, the skilled person, starting from the closest prior art, was not prompted to store various versions of a target content item corresponding to different display durations and to select the appropriate one. Without any hint in the direction of the claimed solution, it would involve inadmissible hindsight to consider that the skilled person would arrive at the claimed subject-matter in an obvious manner.

5.10 The board is, however, of the opinion that the skilled person facing the above formulated technical problem would immediately recognise the need to estimate the display duration and change the version of the target content item to be displayed if the estimated display duration is below a threshold. The skilled person would thus immediately arrive at features (i) and (ii).

In computer programming it is well known to keep sets of precomputed data in storage using commonplace data structures, in order to later access the needed data as necessary. Regarding the need to present one of different "reduced content" versions of the content item depending on the duration, the skilled person would thus, as an obvious alternative, consider storing the different versions of the content item, one version for each corresponding duration, as a set in a stored data structure. The skilled person would in this way also arrive at features (iii) to (v).

5.11 Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request Ia is not inventive (Article 56 EPC).

Auxiliary request II

6. Claim 1 of auxiliary request II differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request I in that feature (d1) has been re-introduced after feature (d).

7. Admission into the proceedings - auxiliary request II

7.1 Auxiliary request II was not admitted into the proceedings (as the then eighth auxiliary request) by the examining division. It should thus, in accordance with Article 12(6) RPBA, not be admitted into the appeal proceedings unless the decision not to admit it suffered from an error in the use of discretion or unless the circumstances of the appeal case justify its admittance.

7.2 The appellant argued that auxiliary request II had been filed in view of the remarks under point 6 of the examining division's preliminary opinion of 17 April 2023 indicating that the deletion of feature (d1) was at odds with Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC. According to the appellant, this request should not have been considered late filed as the subject of the proceedings had changed. The examining division had raised the objections for the first time in the preliminary opinion one week before the oral proceedings.

7.3 The board notes, however, that the examining division's objections under Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC raised in its communication of 17 April 2023 were prompted by amendments introduced by the appellant after the summons to oral proceedings and could thus not have been raised in an earlier communication. Therefore, the examining division did not cause a change of the subject of the proceedings.

7.4 The appellant also argued that all the objections raised had been overcome by this request submitted during the oral proceedings. The examining division had acknowledged at the oral proceedings that the claimed subject-matter was inventive and the objections raised in the communication of 17 April 2023 were caused by the deletion of feature (d1). They had thus been clearly rendered moot by the reinstatement of feature (d1).

This argument is not convincing, since the communication of 17 April 2023 was not meant to be complete and did not withdraw the objections raised in the communication accompanying the summons. Besides, reinstating the feature which had been considered unclear reintroduces deficiencies.

7.5 Therefore, the examining division's decision not to admit did not suffer from an error in the use of discretion.

7.6 In view of the above, auxiliary request II is not admitted into the proceedings (Article 12(6) RPBA).

Conclusion

8. Since none of the requests admitted into the proceedings is allowable, the appeal is to be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.