T 2916/18 (GUI reconfiguration mode/APPLE) 20-04-2021

1. Article 123(2) EPC

The first auxiliary request is based on the claims that formed the first auxiliary request at the time of the decision under appeal.

1.1 In its decision, the examining division objected in points 3.2 and 8.1 that the feature "interface reconfiguration mode" used in claim 1 was an inadmissible generalisation of the feature "user interface reconfiguration mode" used in the application documents as originally filed. The appellant amended the independent claims by defining the interface reconfiguration mode, in its first occurrence in the claim, as a user interface reconfiguration mode. The board is satisfied that this amendment overcomes the objection raised in the impugned decision.

1.2 The examining division further objected in points 3.3 to 3.9 and 8.1 that the characterisation of first and second user actions as being specifically "separate" was not mentioned in the application documents as originally filed.

The board considers that, since the term "separate" was not used in the application documents as originally filed, it should be interpreted based on the description and the common understanding of the skilled person.

First, the explicit recitation of a first and a second predetermined user action in paragraphs [0032] and [0033] provides the skilled person with a clear and unambiguous basis for characterising the user actions as distinct.

Secondly, the description mentions in paragraph [0032], as exemplary first user actions, selecting a physical button on the portable device, making a predefined gesture on the touch screen display surface, or selecting a soft button. In claims 1 and 8, the first user action is specified as being a finger contact on an application icon in the form of a press-and-hold gesture on this application icon, which has to be distinguished from a short tapping gesture on an application icon, which launches the application. The first user action initiates a user interface reconfiguration mode, and the user is informed of this change in mode (see paragraph [0026]). In the user interface reconfiguration mode, the contacted icon may be dragged to a new position on the display without releasing the finger contact with the icon (see paragraph [0032]). Moreover, a second icon can be repositioned in this manner while the reconfiguration mode is active (see paragraphs [0028] and [0066], point 12). A user then performs a second predefined user action to exit the user interface reconfiguration mode (see paragraph [0033]). Although the second user action is not specified in any more detail in claims 1 and 8, paragraph [033] mentions, as examples of a second user action, selecting or deselecting a physical button on the portable device, making another predefined gesture on the touch screen display surface, and selecting or deselecting a soft button. It is thus clear to the skilled person that the first and second user actions are distinct actions which the portable device can detect and distinguish. In particular, the board agrees with the appellant that a predefined gesture on a touch screen should be construed as a self-contained, choreographed action of a finger or stylus on the screen with a definite start and end point. However, contrary to what the appellant argued with respect to the withdrawn main request, the board holds that a press-and-drag action on an icon also comprises two distinct gestures which the touch screen is able to distinguish, and which can be considered separate user actions. In the present case, the first user action is defined in claims 1 and 8 as a finger contact held for a predetermined time. The second user action may be, according to the description, either the selection of a button (physical or soft) or another gesture. The skilled person would thus clearly realise that in both cases, the selection of a button or another, distinct gesture, the first and second user actions are not only different but can also be detected separately by the portable device.

The insertion of the term "separate" to qualify the second user action with respect to the first user action is thus supported by the application documents as originally filed.

1.3 For these reasons, the board holds that the first auxiliary request meets the requirements of

Article 123(2) EPC.

2. Article 56 EPC

2.1 Prior art

D1 discloses instructions for the use of a smartphone. Application icons are displayed on a touch screen (see Figure 11). A double tap on an application icon opens the corresponding application (see page 19, right-hand column). The user is able to change the position of an icon on the touch screen by using a tap-hold-and-drag action (see page 31, right-hand column). A reconfiguration mode in respect of an application icon can be considered to have been initiated in D1 after a press-and-hold action on the application icon of about one second.

D2 relates to guidelines for interfaces. It discloses on pages 12 and 13 the feature of short-term "spring-loaded" modes, in which the user must constantly do something to maintain the mode, as opposed to "long-term" or persistent modes.

In the impugned decision, D1 was considered the closest prior art.

2.2 D1 does not disclose the possibility of repositioning a second icon while the portable device is in the reconfiguration mode initiated by a press-and-hold action on the first icon. D1 is silent on the question of what happens if a finger contact is detected on a second icon while the portable device is in the reconfiguration mode in respect of the first icon. Even if it were considered that in that case the second icon could be repositioned by performing a long press-and-drag action on it, the reconfiguration mode initiated in this way would be a reconfiguration mode only in respect of the second icon. Moreover, there would be two user actions in response to which the reconfiguration modes would be terminated and the first and second icon positions fixed. By contrast, according to claim 1 a single first user action initiates a single reconfiguration mode for two icons, and a single second user action terminates the reconfiguration modes and fixes the positions of the two icons. Furthermore, in claim 1, the reconfiguration mode is maintained even if the finger contact on an icon is released, whereas in D1 the reconfiguration mode in respect of an icon is terminated when the finger is lifted from the icon.

Therefore, at least the following features of claim 1 are not disclosed in D1:

- instructions for, while in the interface reconfiguration mode, detecting a second finger contact with the touch-sensitive display at a third position corresponding to a second application icon;

- instructions for detecting movement of the second finger contact to a fourth position on the touch-sensitive display;

- instructions for, in response to detecting movement of the second finger contact from the third position on the touch-sensitive display to the fourth position on the touch-sensitive display while in the interface reconfiguration mode, moving the second application icon to the fourth position on the touch-sensitive display;

- instructions for detecting a second predefined user action, separate from the first predefined user action, after moving the first application icon to the second position on the touch-sensitive display and the second application icon to the fourth position on the touch-sensitive display; and

- instructions for, in response to detecting the second predefined user action: fixing positions of the first application icon at the second position and the second application icon at the fourth position, and

terminating the user interface reconfiguration mode.

The technical effect of these distinguishing features is that a second icon can be repositioned during the reconfiguration mode in respect of the first icon, and that the reconfiguration is maintained until a second user action, not related to the finger contact on the first icon, is performed. Fewer actions are therefore required to reconfigure two icons.

The objective technical problem can thus be formulated as how to provide an improved reconfiguration scheme for a graphical user interface displaying application icons.

There was nothing in D1 to prompt the skilled person to modify the instruction, disclosed in page 31, right-hand column, to change the order of icons.

In the decision under appeal, the inventive step objection based on D1 relied on D2 as an illustration of the common general knowledge. D2 discloses using long-term modes, i.e. persistent modes, as opposed to short-term "spring-loaded" modes such as the mode described in D1, to allow the user to change multiple settings of a user interface in a single mode session. However, the modes described in D2 do not allow for the physical relocation of icons, so the skilled person is unlikely to look at D2 when considering the objective technical problem established above; but even if the skilled person were looking at D2, the incorporation of the persistent mode of D2 into the system of D1 would require substantial modifications to the functionality of D1. In particular, automatic termination of its reconfiguration mode and fixing of the icon position at the moment when the stylus is lifted off the touch screen would have to be suppressed. The board agrees with the appellant that these modifications could not be carried out by the skilled person without the use of inventive skill. Moreover, the appellant plausibly argued that the device of claim 1 enables the activation of a persistent reconfiguration mode in which the user is able to reposition both icons via a simple drag-and-drop operation, with no risk of inadvertently opening the corresponding applications or interrupting the reconfiguration mode.

For these reasons, the board holds that the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step

(Article 56 EPC), having regard to the disclosures of D1 and D2.

Independent claims 8 and 15 contain the same features as claim 1, expressed in terms of a method claim and a claim for a computer program respectively. Thus, claims 8 and 15 also meet the requirements of

Article 56 EPC. Claims 2 to 7 and 9 to 14 are dependent claims which, as such, also meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC.