Quick Navigation
A presentation of information defined solely by the content of the information is not patentable. This applies whether the claim is directed to the presentation of the information per se or to processes and apparatus for presenting information.
In T 163/85 (OJ 1990, 379), regarding a colour television signal characterised by technical features of the system in which it occurred, the board considered it appropriate to distinguish between two kinds of information when discussing its presentation; according to this distinction, a TV system solely characterised by the information per se, e.g. moving pictures modulated on a standard TV signal, might fall under the exclusion of Art. 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC 1973, but not a TV signal defined in terms which inherently comprised the technical features of the TV system in which it occurred; as the list of exclusions from patentability set out in Art. 52(2) EPC 1973 (in conjunction with Art. 52(3) EPC 1973) was not exhaustive in view of the phrase "in particular", the exclusion might arguably be generalised to subject-matter which was essentially abstract in character, non-physical and therefore not characterised by technical features within the meaning of R. 29(1) EPC 1973.
In T 77/92, the invention concerned a method of selecting, in emergency situations, the correct patient treatment values, namely drug dosage, defibrillation technique energy and/or apparatus size. The method comprised measuring the body length of the emergency patient using a particular tape and rapidly selecting the said correct patient treatment values without the exercise of clinical expertise, calculation or reference to other data sources. The particular tape used had increments of heel‑to‑crown length, each increment bearing indications of the correct treatment value appropriate to that increment and predetermined by a co-relation between the measured heel‑to‑crown height of a patient and a correct treatment value. According to the established case law, for an invention not to be excluded from patentability, the board had to consider, in the case before it, whether the subject‑matter claimed, which had to be assessed as a whole, was technical in character or provided a technical contribution to the prior art, i.e. a contribution in a field not excluded from patentability. After having defined the prior art, the board concluded that the decision under appeal did not adequately evaluate the co‑relation between the heel‑to‑crown length of a patient and each of the treatment values provided on the measuring tape. This co‑relation between the measured length and the information on the tape measure resulted in the tape used in the claimed methods becoming a new gauge for directly measuring the patient treatment values, just as an altimeter is obtained merely by replacing the scale of a pressure gauge with a scale indicating altitude. Such a new gauge for directly measuring the patient treatment values was clearly technical in character.
Further to T 115/85 (OJ 1990, 30) the board ruled in T 362/90 that the automatic visual display of the conditions prevailing or desirable in an apparatus or system was basically a technical problem. A claim directed to a device displaying (especially in heavy goods vehicles) both the gear in use and (by evaluating signals about engine performance) the best gear to be in, was not unpatentable under Art. 52(2)(d) EPC 1973, even if it did involve non-technical features relating to the presentation of information.
T 115/85 was taken into consideration by the board in T 790/92, where it was held that displaying messages indicating a specific event which might occur in the device in a processing system was basically a technical problem because, it involved the internal functioning of a device. In the case at issue, however, the board stated that it was not such a "technical" event or condition concerning the functioning of a device and therefore posing a technical problem which would give rise to a message, but a discrepancy between the information presented by the chart and the information the chart was normally intended to present. The board held that such a discrepancy between normal and modified presentations of information could not be considered to be of a technical nature.
In T 887/92 one of the objects of the invention was to render the usual HELP facility provided with many computer programs more user-friendly. The board held that automatically giving visual indications about conditions prevailing in an apparatus or system was basically a technical problem. Thus, the displaying of only valid commands in the help panel had technical character, because it clearly reflected the status or condition of the system. The computer program on which step (1) relied was considered to constitute a technical means for carrying out the invention.
In T 599/93 a configuration for simultaneously displaying several images on one (computer) screen was claimed. The screen was divided into four sections, for example by means of one horizontal and one vertical demarcation line. The board was of the view that imparting information on events in a screen window by changing the colour of the relevant surface of the setting mark was not of a technical nature (no information was given for example on the operating status of the claimed configuration), but merely drew the user's attention to particular contents of the relevant images and thus served to present information within the meaning of Art. 52(2)(d) EPC 1973.
In T 1194/97 (OJ 2000, 525) the patent application concerned a two‑part picture retrieval system comprising a record carrier and a read device, i.e. two separate but cooperative articles which could be sold separately, but each of which was specially adapted to implement complementary aspects of the same inventive idea. Claim 1 was directed to the system while claim 4 sought to protect the record carrier per se. In accordance with a standard claiming practice with inventions of this kind ‑ colloquially referred to as "bow and arrow" or "plug and socket" inventions ‑ the record carrier of claim 4 was specified as being "for use in the system as claimed in claim 1". The examining division had interpreted claim 4 as specifying a known record carrier having data stored thereon, said data having no unambiguous technical function, and had concluded, with reference to Art. 52(2)(d) EPC 1973, that "for the purposes of assessing the technical merits of the record carrier, what is stored on the record carrier is effectively a mere presentation of information". The board regarded the examining division's interpretation of claim 4 as a misconstruction of the effect of the "for use" phrase. It pointed out that, on a proper construction of this phrase the record carrier of claim 4 had technical functional features ‑ line numbers, coded picture lines and addresses and synchronisations ‑ which were adapted to cooperate with corresponding means in the read device to provide a picture retrieval system (see also T 643/00).
Applying and extending the ratio decidendi of T 163/85 by analogy, the board held that the record carrier of claim 4 was not excluded under Art. 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC 1973, since it had functional data recorded thereon, in particular a data structure of picture line synchronisations, line numbers and addresses. In order to lend additional support to its view in relation to a data structure product, the board also referred to decision T 1173/97 (OJ 1999, 609) and, in particular, to the observation made in that decision at point 9.4 of the reasons to the effect that the predetermined potential technical effect of a program recorded on a carrier could endow such a product with technical character sufficient to overcome the exclusions under Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC 1973.