This decision concerns a European patent relating to a display device including a present position information obtaining unit configured to obtain present position information of a moving body and a display control unit. The patent was maintained in an amended form after opposition proceedings but revoked entirely after the subsequent appeal proceedings.Here are the practical takeaways from the decision of T 1596/21 dated July 12, 2024, ofTechnical Board of Appeal 3.5.04.
Key takeaways
A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process.
Lowering the cognitive burden of a driver is not a technical task.
The invention
According to the application, a display device obtains the current position of a moving body and uses a control unit to display information about objects through a transparent member. This member is between the traveler’s viewpoint and the scenery. If the displayed information is too close to the road, the control unit shifts it outward.
Fig. 3 of EP2793193
Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1:
-
Claim 1 (main request)
Is it patentable?
D3 (US 2004/0193331 A1) was considered as the closest prior art.
The Opposition Division decided that the seventh auxiliary request then on file met the requirements of the EPC.
The Board of Appeal in charge came to a different conclusion and found that claim 1 lacked an inventive step.
Firstly, the Board concluded that D3 does not disclose the following features:
the display control unit (4) is configured to change a display position of the information on the object to an outward direction of a road (71) in a case that the display position of the information on the object based on the present position information is inside the road (71)
Then, the Board assessed whether the above distinguishing features have a technical effect and came to a negative conclusion:
15.1 In line with the established case law of the boards, a feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process. Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the feature. This is not the case if the alleged effect depends on subjective interests or preferences of the user (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edn., 2022 (CLBoA), I.D.9.2.10 b)).
…
15.3 The board is not convinced that the display position of the information on an object specified in the distinguishing features (i.e. inside or in “an outward direction of a road”) objectively enables a driver to better and more safely control and navigate a vehicle along the road.
Firstly, the board agrees with the opposition division that changing the display position “to an outward direction of a road” does not necessarily mean that the display position is moved completely out of the road (see point 16.7 of the decision under appeal). Thus, the displayed information after the change of display position may still hide a part of the road including objects relevant to the driver’s safety. In such a case, the driver’s safety is conditioned by the scene, not the change in display position.
Secondly, changing the display position “to an outward direction of a road” (possibly to a position as far away from the road as allowed by the size of the transparent member and the display range of the light sources) causes the driver to deviate their gaze from the (central part of) the road, this possibly being detrimental to safety depending on the scene, irrespective of the nature of the object for which information is displayed. Whether this is less detrimental to safety than displaying the information on the object inside (or at a more central position in) the road depends on whether and where objects relevant to the driver’s safety are situated on the road as well as the driver’s preferences and cognitive aptitudes (see page 17 of the statement of grounds of appeal: “subjective preferences”).
As an aside, the board notes that claim 1 also covers cases in which the information on the object is displayed first at a position inside the road and then moved on the transparent member to a position outside the road. Such visual “animation” on the transparent member is clearly detrimental to safety.
…
15.5 Even assuming, arguendo, that the distinguishing features helped the driver focus on certain information (e.g. the information whose display position inside the road is not changed), the board still finds that the distinguishing features have no technical character. As argued by the appellant during the opposition proceedings (see point 19.9 of the decision under appeal) and on page 17 of the statement of grounds of appeal, the distinguishing features do not specify the object or the information that is displayed. Thus, the displayed information may be an indication of the model of a vehicle on the road, the name of a facility on the side of the road or (unspecified) information indicating a road sign already present along the road (i.e. “this is a winding road”). Although the driver may take informed decisions on the basis of such information, the information itself is purely cognitive and does not provide the driver with technical instructions helping them to, for example, avoid accidents (see also CLBoA I.D.9.2.10 c)).
15.6 Paragraph [0053] of the application as filed, cited by the respondent in point 3.5 of the reply to the appeal, specifies that “when the information to be displayed outside the roadway is actually displayed inside the roadway, it could cause misunderstandings to the driver and possibly too much information could be displayed inside the roadway”. In view of this, the problem underlying the patent in fact relates to lowering the cognitive burden of the driver. It is established case law that this problem is not technical (see CLBoA, I.D.9.10 b)i) and iii)).
Finally, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step. All the other requests could not overcome this objection. Hence, the European patent was revoked.
More information
You can read the whole decision here: T 1596/21 dated July 12, 2024, ofTechnical Board of Appeal 3.5.04.
