T 1073/13 - Cognitive content

Key points

• " [The] board believes that this distinguishing feature corresponds to presenting cognitive content which merely addresses the user's mental process [] rather than credibly assisting the user in performing the configuration of the technical device by e.g. presenting the device's current operating state within a continued and guided human-machine interaction process (see e.g. T 336/14, reasons 1.2.5). Accordingly, it relates to a presentation of information as such in the sense of Article 52(2)(d) EPC and hence to a non-technical feature, which has to be disregarded in the assessment of inventive step according to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see e.g. G 3/08). Hence, no inventive step can be acknowledged for the subject-matter claimed (Article 56 EPC)."  (internal references omitted)

EPO T 1073/13 - link

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

"A method for preventing an inadvertent configuration of an electrical device provided with an infrared interface (30), comprising the steps of:

activating one or more infrared buttons (31, 32, 33, or 34) provided on the infrared interface (30) in order to configure the electrical device;

indicating an infrared button sequence on a display (40), wherein said button sequence includes activation of at least a first infrared button (31, 32, 33, or 34) and at least a second infrared button (31, 32, 33, or 34) of the one or more infrared buttons (31, 32, 33, or 34) used to configure the electrical device, (...)

Reasons for the Decision

(...)

1.1.5 In view of the foregoing, the board concludes that the subject-matter of present claim 1 is distinguished from the disclosure of D2 solely in that

i) the button sequence to be applied by the user to configure the electronic device - instead of any device status information as in D2 - is presented on the display (rather than the button sequence being known to the user).

1.1.6 However, the board believes that this distinguishing feature corresponds to presenting cognitive content which merely addresses the user's mental process such that the "user is not required to memorise or know the particular button sequence" prior to the configuration action (cf. page 9, lines 24-25 of the application as filed) rather than credibly assisting the user in performing the configuration of the technical device by e.g. presenting the device's current operating state within a continued and guided human-machine interaction process (see e.g. T 336/14, reasons 1.2.5). Accordingly, it relates to a presentation of information as such in the sense of Article 52(2)(d) EPC and hence to a non-technical feature, which has to be disregarded in the assessment of inventive step according to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see e.g. G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, reasons 12.2.1). Hence, no inventive step can be acknowledged for the subject-matter claimed (Article 56 EPC).

1.1.7 The appellant argued that distinguishing feature i) allowed the button activation sequence to be dynamic. However, the board can derive from the wording of present claim 1 neither any implicit nor any explicit indication of dynamic button sequences being displayed.

1.2 In conclusion, the main request is not allowable under Article 56 EPC.