T 2278/12 - Inventive user interface

Key points

• In this examination appeal for one of Apple's applications for the iPhone (filing date 2007), the Board acknowledges inventive step for a user interface. In essence, when for a webpage with content blocks, a first block (5; see figure below) is clicked and is enlarged, the other blocks are enlarged as well. The first block is centered, and if one of the other blocks (6) in enlarged state is clicked, that block is centered. 
• " The underlying objective problem is regarded again as allowing for an efficient way of swapping between different boxes of content" and whether this problem (or the solution) is technical, is not discussed.

T 2278/12 -link 

VI. Independent claim 1 according to the main request (sole request) reads as follows:

"1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

• at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display,
• displaying at least a portion of a web page on the touch screen display, wherein the web page comprises a plurality of boxes of content (6006) with defined positions relative to each other;
• detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the web page (6010);
• determining which of the displayed plurality of boxes is at the location of the first gesture (6012);
• enlarging the boxes and centering the determined box on the touch screen display (6020) whilst maintaining the defined positions of the boxes on the display;
• while the boxes are enlarged and the enlarged determined box is centred, detecting a second gesture on a second enlarged box, of the plurality of displayed boxes, other than the determined box (6040); and, in response to detecting the second gesture, substantially centering the second enlarged box on the touch screen display (6042) whilst maintaining the boxes in the defined relative positions on the display."

Reasons for the Decision

[...]

3. Interpretation of the independent claim 1

In comparison to the set of claims according to the main request, on which the decision under appeal was based, Claim 1 as amended during appeal now specifies that the step of enlarging is directed to all boxes including the second box and it now specifies the step of centering the respective box on the touch screen display by additionally maintaining the defined positions of the other boxes on the display. Therefore, when centering the second enlarged box, it is now clear that the first centered box is not replaced, but all the boxes are translated according to the underlying structure (e.g. defined in the html-code). This results in the first box being translated out of the center while the second box is centered and the structure of the boxes, in particular the ones surrounding the second box, is maintained. Claim 1 as amended is therefore directed to a very different concept of swapping between boxes of content to be displayed.

Article 56 EPC 1973 - Inventive step

4. In view of the amendments made to claim 1, publication D2, on which the decision under appeal is based, can no longer be regarded as the closest prior art.

The board essentially agrees with the analysis of D2 (see point 9.1 of the decision under appeal) that D2 discloses 

a computer-implemented method (see paragraph 3), comprising:

• displaying at least a portion of a web page on the display (see paragraph 3.2),
• wherein the web page comprises a plurality of boxes of content []
• detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the web page []
• determining a box [] in the plurality of boxes at the location of the gesture (paragraph 2.1.1);
• enlarging and translating the determined box [] so as to substantially center the determined box on the touch screen display []
• while the determined box is enlarged, detecting a second gesture on a second box other than the determined box [] and,
• in response to detecting the second gesture, substantially centering the second enlarged box on the touch screen display []

4.1 Claim 1 as amended now specifies what happens to boxes other than the determined box when the determined box is enlarged. All other boxes are enlarged as well which is not disclosed in D2 according to which only the selected thumbnail is enlarged. D2 does not teach to have more than one box in an enlarged state at the same time.

Furthermore, D2 is silent with regard to maintaining the defined positions of the boxes on the display whilst centering the determined box on the touch screen display.

4.2 The objective problem underlying these differences is regarded as allowing for an efficient way of swapping between different boxes of content.

4.3 According to D2 a single web page is represented by multiple thumbnails (see e.g. figures 11 and 12). In order to solve the objective problem, D2 only teaches to enlarge the selected thumbnail in focus, while all non-focus pages or boxes are reduced to the same size (see D2, section 2.2.1). However, no translation of the structure of different boxes according to the defined relative positions of the boxes takes place when centering. Therefore, D2 teaches a different concept and teaches away from the claimed solution.

5. In view of the interpretation of claim 1 above, the board considers D8 to be the closest prior art on record.

Publication D8 discloses (the references in parentheses applying to this document):

A computer-implemented method, comprising:

• at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display (see figures 1 and 2),
• displaying at least a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content (see page 1, column 2, paragraph 2);
• detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed portion of the structured electronic document (see page 3, column 1, paragraph 2 and figure 2e);
• determining a box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture (see figure 2f); and enlarging and centering the determined box on the touch screen display (figure 2g and page 1, column 2, paragraph 2).

5.1 Before selecting an article or link in D8, an html-page is displayed as an overview (see e.g. figure 2e). If considering the selection to be a first gesture, this gesture is not made on one box of the group of boxes according to claim 1, but on a headline (see D8, page 3, column 1, paragraph 2). When loading a group of boxes after selection (see figure 2f), D8 does not disclose that other boxes are enlarged when centering the determined box (see box in the middle of figure 2f). In addition, there is no disclosure in D8 to detect a second gesture on another box while the determined box is still shown. In contrast, when a box is in the enlarged state (see figure 2g), no other box is accessible to the user and hardware scroll buttons are needed to go back (see figure 2h and corresponding text on page 3, column 1, paragraph 2). Furthermore, D8 is silent on how the different parts defined by html-code are arranged. Particularly, there is no explicit disclosure or hint that, when centering a box, a translation of the structure of different boxes according to the defined relative positions of the boxes takes place according to claim 1.

5.2 The underlying objective problem is regarded again as allowing for an efficient way of swapping between different boxes of content.

5.3 Instead of translating a web page with enlargement while maintaining the boxes in the defined relative positions on the display according to claim 1, D8 teaches that expanded content previously represented by an overview should be navigated around in isolation from the rest of the web page. In order to navigate a series of blocks of content in enlarged form, D8 uses a "collapse-to-zoom" function, i.e. areas of a web page deemed irrelevant are collapsed and only get enlarged once a box of content is selected ("... strategy of zooming into relevant areas, collapse-to-zoom allows users to collapse areas deemed irrelevant, such as columns containing menus, archive material, or advertising (Figure 2b). Collapsing content causes all of the remaining contents to be redrawn in more detail (Figure 2d), which increases the user's chances of identifying relevant content. When finally switching to the full-size view (Figure 2g), the page has been reduced significantly, which allows users to scroll through the remaining content in an efficient way"; see D8, page 1, column 2, last paragraph).

Therefore, D8 discloses a different concept and teaches away from the claimed solution.

6. The claimed solution to the objective problem, in comparison to the concepts according to D2 or D8, allows for an improved navigation to and selection of a second box of content, as it is readable to a user in enlarged form, at the same time as the determined enlarged box, without requiring the collapse of irrelevant content to an overview or thumbnail.

7. Consequently, the claimed invention allows for an efficient way of swapping between different boxes of content in a manner not obvious from D2 and D8. Since the claimed solution is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the further prior art on file, it has to be concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).

8. The same reasoning applies, mutatis mutandis, to corresponding independent claim 13. The dependent claims, because they refer to the subject-matter of the independent claims, also involve an inventive step.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to grant a patent in the following version: