T 1559/19 (Concurrently open applications/APPLE) 14-11-2023

The application

1. The application relates to various methods for managing concurrently open applications on a "multifunction device" (e.g. a smartphone) with a touch-sensitive display and a gesture-based graphical user interface.

2. Claim 1 is directed in particular to the embodiment of figures 5A-5F and 6A, described in paragraphs [154] to [165], [190]-[194] and [204]-[207] of the published application.

The main purpose of that method is to enable the user to switch between concurrently open applications.

3. According to the description, the term "open application" refers to "a software application with retained state information". It may be an active application (i.e. currently displayed) or a background, suspended or hibernated application (see paragraphs [156] and [157]).

4. The method starts with the display of a "home screen user interface" (see figure 5A: home screen 5001). A selection of a "first application icon" corresponding to a "first application" is detected (e.g. a tap gesture on the "Maps" app icon 5002-27 in figure 5A).

In response thereto, a "first application view" corresponding to the first application is displayed instead of the home screen and "without concurrently displaying an application view for any other application in a plurality of concurrently open applications" (see figure 5B, reproduced below).

A predetermined input ("first input") to enter a mode to switch between open applications ("application view selection mode") is detected.

What happens upon detection of the "first input" (e.g. a double-tap on home button 204, see para [193]) may be best explained by reference to figures 5B and 5C:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

A portion of the first application view (the upper part with the search box in figure 5B) is moved off the display ("sliding [...] off the display"). A "first portion of the application view" (the remaining part of the Maps app view in figure 5B) is "maintained" and concurrently displayed with an "initial group of application icons" (figure 5C: Safari, iPod, Stocks and iTunes icons) that are displayed in a "first predefined area" (figure 5C: application icon area 5006) "adjacent" to the "first portion".

The open application icons displayed in the "first predefined area" may be scrolled by "a scroll gesture [...] in the first predefined area" (figures 5E and 5F).

In response to detection of "a gesture [...] on a respective open application icon in the first predefined area" (e.g. a tap gesture on the Safari app icon 5002-37 in figure 5C), an application view of the selected open application is displayed without concurrently displaying an application view of any other application, open application icons cease to be displayed in the first determined area and the application view selection mode is exited (see figure 5D).

5. According to the description, the invention "provides an intuitive way to select one of concurrently open applications". It "reduces the cognitive burden on a user" when performing this task and "thereby creat[es] a more efficient human-machine interface". For battery-operated computing devices, power is conserved and the time between battery charges is increased by enabling a user to perform this task faster and more efficiently (paragraph [191]).

As regards the benefits of the concurrent display, it stated that "it provides context by maintaining the first application view while an open application icon is being selected" and that, in addition, "it is easy to get back to the first application (and cease the display of the application icon area) by, for example, tapping on the first application view" (paragraph [194]).

Main request - Claim interpretation

6. Claim 1 refers in the step of "displaying a home screen user interface..." to a "first application icon" corresponding to a "first application".

In the subsequent step of "displaying in a first determined area ...", reference is made to the display of "at least a first application icon of the initial group of application icons".

The board understands this latter icon to be one of the icons of the "initial group of application icons" but that claim 1 neither requires it to be identical to the "first application icon" nor to correspond to the "first application".

This understanding is consistent with figure 5C, which does not show any Maps icon amongst the initially displayed open application icons.

7. The board considers it to be not entirely clear from claim 1 whether only the step of "displaying a respective application view ..." is required to be "in response to detecting the gesture on the respective open application icon" or whether this applies also to the subsequent steps of "ceasing to display open application icons ..." and "exiting the application view selection mode".

In the description, it is clear that all three steps occur in response to detecting the gesture: see paragraph [204] ("the device performs the following actions: ...").

In the following, the board adopts the narrower interpretation of the description, to the benefit of the appellant.

Main request - Inventive step

8. The examining division found that claim 1 lacked an inventive step starting from D1 (decision under appeal, point 15, with references to point 13).

The only distinguishing features identified were (a) the sliding of the portion of the first application off the display, and (b) the scrolling of the open application icons upon detection of a scroll gesture in the first predefined area.

Feature (a) did not solve a technical problem. Feature (b) was an obvious solution to the technical problem of simultaneously displaying an application view and a large number of open application icons, whilst making efficient use of the available display space.

9. The appellant argued that there are more differentiating features between claim 1 and D1.

D1 did not disclose accessing an application view selection mode from a first application view, as required by claim 1. In D1 the icon for opening the "Quick Menu" was only accessible from the Today Screen, which may be mapped to the "home screen" but not with the "first application view" of claim 1. Furthermore, the feature "while displaying the home screen user interface, detecting a selection of the first application icon" was not disclosed in D1 as it was not apparent that the "Start Menu" should be considered part of the home screen user interface.

The distinguishing features "allow[ed] a user to directly switch from one running application to another", "reduce the number of user interactions needed" to perform that task and so "provide[d] a more efficient human-machine interface", as in D1 the user would always have to return to the home screen to access the Quick Menu. The objective technical problem was formulated as "how to provide a more efficient method of navigating between running applications on an electronic device".

There was no reason for the skilled person to add Quick Menu functions to application screens in view of "D1's express teaching to display application-specific functions in the same region of the display that is used to display the Quick Menu only on D1's Today Screen". D2 did also not provide any hint to the claimed solution. Hence, claim 1 was inventive.

10. The board agrees with the appellant that there are more distinguishing features between claim 1 and D1 than identified by the examining division but nevertheless considers that claim 1 lacks an inventive step over D1, Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC.

11. Document D1 and claim 1

11.1 D1 is a user manual for a smartphone with touch screen (see page 12).

11.2 The "Today Screen" of D1 (page 19, top image) may be mapped to the "home screen user interface" of claim 1.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

As noted by the examining division (decision under appeal, point 15.1), the "Contacts" button at the bottom of that screen may be mapped to the "first application icon" of claim 1. The skilled person would understand that tapping on that button would open the "Contacts" application, shown on page 26, bottom-left image.

Alternatively, the e-mail icon displayed just above the Home icon in the centre-left of the Today Screen may also be mapped to the "first application icon" of claim 1, as the skilled person would understand that tapping on the e-mail icon would open the "Outlook" application, shown on page 27, bottom images (see page 21, middle image: "Touch this icon to view your e-mails").

The board furthermore considers the "Start Menu" (shown on page 20, middle image) to be part of the "home screen user interface" and the selection of a program listed as an item in that menu to occur "while displaying the home screen user interface", as recited in claim 1. Any item in that menu corresponding to a program may thus also be mapped to the "first application icon" of claim 1.

11.3 The "application view" of the "Contacts" and the "Outlook" applications, once open, are shown, respectively, on page 26, bottom-left image, and page 27, bottom images.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

In these cases, as well as in the case of the other applications for which screenshots are included in D1 (Word Mobile, Internet Explorer and Notes on pages 26, 27 and 34), the "application view" is displayed without concurrently displaying an application view for any another application in a plurality of concurrently open applications", as recited in claim 1.

11.4 The board thus considers that D1 thereby discloses - so far - a method comprising the first part of claim 1, up to, but not (at least not yet) including, the step of "detecting a first input".

11.5 D1 discloses furthermore that a "Quick Menu" showing "the currently running programs" can be opened by tapping the Quick Menu button located at the top right corner of the Today Screen (page 20, bottom image):

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

The program names listed, e.g. "File Explorer" and "Notes", are "open application icons" that correspond to "a plurality of concurrently open applications" within the meaning of claim 1, as tapping on any of them enables "switching" to the running program.

The board agrees with the appellant that the "Quick Menu" button appears to be only available in the Today Screen. It is in particular not present in any application screen, such as the Contacts and Outlook screens reproduced above.

The board considers that the skilled person would understand from the explanations and the screenshots provided in D1 that tapping on any of the program names in the Quick Menu would switch to the corresponding program screen (e.g. the above Contacts or Outlook screen) and that the Quick Menu would thereby also cease to be displayed.

11.6 The board considers therefore that the following further features of claim 1 are disclosed in D1 (the omitted parts indicated by "[...]" being not disclosed):

- detecting a first input (tap on Quick Menu button in the Today Screen);

- in response to detecting the first input:

--- entering an application view selection mode for selecting one of the concurrently open applications for display in a corresponding application view (Quick Menu open) [...];

--- displaying an initial group of open applications icons (program names File Explorer, Notes, etc. listed in the Quick Menu) that correspond to at least some of the plurality of concurrently open applications, wherein the initial group of open application icons was not displayed prior to detecting the input (when the Quick Menu was not open);

--- displaying in a first predefined area (it is implicit that the area in the right part of the screen in which the list may be displayed is predetermined) [...] at least a first application icon of the initial group of open application icons that correspond to at least some of the plurality of concurrently open applications (e.g. the "Notes" program name may be taken as the "first application icon of the initial group ...") [...];

while in the application view selection mode:

--- [...]

--- detecting a gesture on a respective open application icon in the first predetermined area (tap on a program name listed in the Quick Menu); and, in response to detecting the gesture on the respective open application icon:

--- displaying a respective application view on the touch-sensitive display for a corresponding application in the plurality of concurrently open applications, wherein the respective application view is displayed without concurrently displaying an application view for any other application in the plurality of concurrently open applications (opening of the program whose name in the Quick Menu was tapped);

--- ceasing to display open application icons in the first predefined area (implicit, as explained above); and

--- exiting the application view selection mode (implicit, as explained above).

11.7 The board thus considers that the method of claim 1 differs from the method disclosed in D1 only in the following features:

(i) the "application view selection mode" is

entered in response to the detection of the

first input while the first application view

is displayed (in D1 the Quick Menu can only

be accessed to from the Today Screen, i.e.

the home screen);

in the "application view selection":

(iia) maintaining a "first portion" of the first

application view on the display and displaying

it concurrently with and adjacent to the

"first predefined area" (in D1 a portion of

the Today Screen, i.e. the home screen, is

maintained on the display and displayed

concurrently and adjacent to the opened Quick

Menu, i.e. the first predefined area - see

the figure reproduced at point 16.5 above);

(iib) sliding at least a portion of the first

application view off the display (in D1, the

portion of the Today Screen, i.e. the home

screen, that is covered by the opened Quick

Menu is no longer visible to the user; there

is however no animation of sliding that

portion off the display);

(iii) scrolling the plurality of concurrently

open application icons in the first

predefined area in response to a detected

scroll gesture in that area (D1 does not

mention the possibility of scrolling the

programs list in the Quick Menu).

11.8 The identified distinguishing features are essentially the same as those identified by the appellant.

12. Technical contribution

12.1 Only features which contribute to the technical character of a claimed invention may support the presence of an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (T 641/00, Headnote I; G 1/19).

12.2 Re feature (i)

The board considers that feature (i) contributes to the technical character of the method of claim 1 as this feature - in combination with the claim features defining what happens in response to detecting a gesture on a "respective open application icon" - defines an interaction mechanism allowing the user to switch from one open application to another without having to return to the home screen. Feature (i) may also be considered to reduce the number of interactions needed to perform such a switch operation in comparison to D1, as argued by the appellant (grounds of appeal, page 5, first paragraph).

The board therefore considers that feature (i) contributes to solving over D1 the technical problem of providing a more efficient interaction mechanism for switching from one open application to another open application.

12.3 Re features (iia) and (iib)

Features (iia) and (iib) may only be present if the "application view selection mode" is invoked from the "first application view". They are thus not independent from feature (i). Nonetheless, the board considers them not to contribute to the technical character of the method of claim 1.

12.3.1 These features specify what is presented on the screen in addition to the "first predetermined area": a "first portion of the first application view", adjacent to that area, and the sliding off the display of "at least a portion of the first application view". They thus relate to a presentation of information within the meaning of Article 52(2)(d) EPC.

12.3.2 This presentation of information has no direct effect on the aforementioned interaction mechanism enabling directly switching between open applications nor on the number of user interactions required for that purpose. This mechanism would be as operational without the presentation of that information.

12.3.3 In the description (paragraphs [191] and [194]), it is suggested that the invention "reduces the cognitive burden on a user when selecting one of concurrently open application[s]" and that the concurrent display of the "first portion of the first application view" with the open application icons in the "first predetermined area" has the benefit of "provid[ing] context by maintaining the first application view while an open application icon is being selected". Additionally, it is stated that "it is easy to get back to the first application (and cease display of the application icon area) by, for example, tapping on the first application view".

As regards the last of the three alleged effects, it could well be seen as a technical effect but it is not achieved over the whole scope of claim 1 and cannot thus be relied on in the assessment of claim 1. Indeed, claim 1 does not mention the detection of a user input on the "first portion" nor what would happen if one were detected (this is only addressed in dependent claim 3 in the main request; see the discussion of claim 1 according to the auxiliary request at points 18 and 19 below).

As regards the first two alleged effects, it is not clear to the board which specific mental process of the user is being eased by "providing context" by maintaining part of the first application view on the display. Features (iia) and (iib) do not contribute to guiding the user in its interaction with the device, e.g. to find where on the screen the relevant open application icon is located. It is also doubted that they facilitate the mental decision making as to which open application to switch to (this will strongly depend on circumstances of use), but that would in any case not be a technical effect.

12.3.4 It is noted that the aspects of features (iia) and (iib) relating to the display being "adjacent" and the "sliding" animation do not appear to have any bearing on the aforementioned mental decision making. They may at best have aesthetic effects (see paragraph [162], suggesting a pleasant "visual appearance"), but these are not technical effects, as also noted by the examining division (decision under appeal, point 14.3).

12.3.5 As it is not apparent to the board that features (iia) and (iib) contribute to achieving a technical effect in the context of claim 1, they do not contribute to the technical character of the claimed method and cannot therefore support the presence of an inventive step.

Furthermore, neither feature (i) nor feature (iii) depends on features (iia) and (iib).

Features (iia) and (iib) thus need not be further con­sidered in the remaining assessment of inventive step.

12.4 Re Feature (iii)

The board considers that feature (iii) contributes to the technical character of the method of claim 1 as this feature defines an interaction mechanism allowing the user to switch to an open application when there are more open applications icons than may be (reasonably) displayed on the screen.

This feature may thus be considered to contribute to solving over D1 the technical problem of providing an interaction mechanism for the case that there are more open application icons that can be displayed on the screen.

12.5 Features (i) and (iii) thus address different technical problems. It is noted that the interaction mechanisms defined respectively by features (i) and (iii) - in so far as they differ from those already included in D1 - are not inter-dependent as any of them could be added to D1 without necessitating the addition of the other one. It is thus also not apparent that the combined addition of features (i) and (iii) results in any synergistic technical effect, i.e. a technical effect going beyond the combination of their individual technical effects.

In such a situation, it is legitimate to assess inventive step by considering the obviousness of features (i) and (iii) over D1 separately.

13. Obviousness

13.1 Feature (i)

13.1.1 The board notes that D1 does not present the "Quick Menu" as a means to merely close running programs but as a means to "quickly switch between running programs and stop programs" (see page 20, section "Quick Menu"). The use case of switching from a currently displayed open application (running program) to a concurrently open application is thus already considered in D1. D1 provides for that case to go to the home screen and to open the Quick Menu from there. The skilled person would however look for ways to improve on that process.

The board considers that it would have been obvious to the skilled person to consider enabling a direct switching from a currently open application to another open application, for in order to make this possible it would have sufficed to add the Quick Menu button (present in the top bar of the Today Screen) also to the top bar of any application screen. This would have been readily possible for all the application screens shown in D1 (e.g. Contacts, Outlook, Internet Explorer, Notes).

13.1.2 The board does not follow the appellant's argument that D1 expressly teaches displaying application-specific functions in the top bar of the application screens.

First, no "express teaching" in that respect is apparent in D1. Second, while the bottom bars of the application screens shown in D1 have application-specific buttons, this does not appear to be the case with their top bars, which appear to all have the same buttons, some of them in common with the top bar of the Today Screen (see e.g. the volume icon).

13.1.3 Adding the "Quick Menu" button to the top bar of all the application screens in D1, with the same functionalities as those associated to that button in the Today Screen, would have resulted in the addition of feature (i).

13.2 Features (iia) and (iib)

Notwithstanding the conclusion reached at point 12.3.5 above that features (iia) and (iib) need not be further considered in the assessment of inventive step, the following is noted.

Adding the "Quick Menu" button to the top bar of application screens in D1, as in the line of reasoning for the obviousness of feature (i), would also have immediately resulted in the addition of feature (iia), as opening the Quick Menu in any application screen in D1 would have left a portion of the application view still visible on the screen, adjacent to the part of the screen used for the Quick Menu, similarly to the situation depicted in the figure at the bottom of page 20 when the Quick Menu is opened from the Today Screen.

Furthermore, another part of the application view would be covered by the Quick Menu and thus cease to be visible. This is part of feature (iib).

Hence, even if feature (iia) and this part of feature (iib) were considered to make a technical contribution in combination with feature (i), they would have been obvious starting from D1.

The remaining part of feature (iib) - that the no longer visible part of the application view is "slided off the display" - contributes at best to an aesthetic, hence non-technical effect, and is thus irrelevant for inventive step.

13.3 Feature (iii)

D1 does not disclose what would happen if the number of open applications (running programs) exceeded what could be displayed in the Quick Menu shown on page 20. The skilled person would have to provide for a solution in such a situation.

The board considers that a straightforward solution would be enabling scrolling the list of running programs in the Quick Menu by a scrolling gesture.

It is noted that D1 mentions on the same page, in respect of the similarly designed Start Menu, "scrolling through the programs list". This may have been meant via the physical navigation button on the phone (see page 12). It would however have been obvious to the skilled person that a scroll gesture would be an alternative, in particular as D1 also mentions the possibility of "finger scrolling" to scroll up and down lists (see page 26), as noted by the examining division.

The skilled person would thus have added feature (iii) to the Quick Menu, be it when it is opened from the Today Screen or - if feature (i) were already added for the obvious reasons given above - from any other application screen.

14. At the oral proceedings, the appellant argued that the combined differentiating features contributed to a technical effect by keeping a view of the first application view when selecting the second application view. Also, in D1, the menus were likely to be hierarchical, as was usual in a Window environment (the interface of D1 being a version of Windows Mobile), so that the skilled person would not have arrived at the invention.

The board is not convinced by these arguments.

It is not apparent how the view of the first application view can be helpful for the selection of the second application view. Furthermore, it would only be helpful at the level of the mental decision-making, not e.g. as to how to enter the selection on the device.

As regards D1, while it may be that that Start Menu is organised hierarchically (as it is shown with menu items likely to have sub-menus), that is not the case with the Quick Menu, the entries of that menu being individual open programs (see D1, page 20, last figure).

15. Conclusion

The board therefore concludes that claim 1 according to the main request does not involve an inventive step over D1.

Auxiliary request - Admittance

16. The auxiliary request was filed one day before the oral proceedings. Claim 1 is a direct combination of previous claims 1 and 3. The appellant justified its filing by reference to the new prior art introduced and the associated new objections of lack of inventive step raised in the board's preliminary opinion.

17. Although it must be stressed that these circumstances do not justify filing the request only one day before oral proceedings, the present amendment is one that was anticipated in the preliminary opinion and could thus be dealt with without this being prejudicial to procedural economy. The board therefore exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) RPBA in admitting the auxiliary request.

Auxiliary request - Inventive step

18. The added features essentially specify that users may perform a gesture (e.g. a tap) on the part of the first application view that remained visible (the "at least a portion of the first application view") to exit the application view selection mode and return to the first application view.

19. As argued above, it would have been obvious to the skilled person to make the Quick Menu of D1 directly accessible from each application view, e.g. by adding the corresponding button in the top bar. It is furthermore obvious that once the Quick Menu is open - from the Today Screen or any application view - there must be a way to close it (exit the mode) without having to switch to another open application, i.e. to simply return to the current view. In a gesture-based environment, this would typically be achieved by a particular gesture. Where on the screen the gesture should be carried out (e.g. on a visible part of the first application as opposed the Quick Menu button in the top bar) is technically arbitrary, at least a priori and without any claimed detail that might make certain locations preferable over others (e.g. relative sizes of different portions of the screen, which however cannot be derived from claim 1). Therefore, any specific such location, especially the claimed one, constitutes an obvious alternative. It follows that the added features do also not render claim 1 inventive.