Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 056 für die Entscheidung T0686/22 vom 27.11.2023

In T 686/22 the application related to an information processing apparatus comprising game processing means. An object of the invention was to enable the apparatus to perform game play by splitting a screen at a place, that is on a display means, desired by a user. The apparatus was provided with a restriction process means which restricted the number of players permitted to play a multi-player game when the apparatus display means was used rather than an external TV. Before discussing inventive step in detail, the board reviewed the context of examining inventive step of inventions concerned with games. Art. 52(2)(c) with Art. 52(3) EPC explicitly mentions schemes, rules and methods for playing games as being excluded from patentability as such. As explained in T 336/07, "a game in the usual sense of the word is characterized by ... its rules of play which govern the conduct and actions of the players during game play...[A] set of game rules thus determines how game play evolves from beginning to end in response to player actions and decisions...". That decision went on to emphasise that such a set of rules is "normally so perceived by the players involved, and as serving the explicit purpose of playing a game". The board adopted the approach as set out in T 1543/06 (Gameaccount) which was based foremost on T 641/00 (Comvik, OJ EPO 2003, 352). Thus, only those features that contribute to technical character are to be taken into account when assessing inventive step. That requirement cannot rely on excluded (non-technical) subject- matter alone, however original it may be. The mere technical implementation of something excluded cannot therefore form the basis for inventive step. Rather, it is necessary to consider in detail how that matter has been technically implemented. In the case at hand, the board found that the application differed from the prior art (the Nintendo Wii U system with its Wii U game console and Wii U GamePad operator device) insofar as it offered the availability of a limited multiplayer mode. The board considered this not to be inventive since the idea of restricting the number of players permitted to play a certain game according to the screen used (display or TV) determines how gameplay is permitted to develop and thus lies firmly in the domain of the game designer who conceives the game. The game designer will make this choice based, amongst other things on the screen area and screen resolution needed for a player to comfortably view the content of a particular game. Moreover, the players will be well aware of the game designer's choice in this respect: They would know that using a certain screen determines how many players can play the game. Thus, the board considered that a game rule underpinned this feature making it not inventive.