T 1792/20 (Focal length of mobile terminal/HUAWEI) 23-01-2023

1. Main request

1.1 Closest prior art

It was common ground at the oral proceedings that D1 was the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 1.

D1 discloses a mobile terminal comprising a touchpad and a camera (see paragraphs [0105], [0150] and [0151]). Paragraph [0013] teaches a method for adjusting the camera lens position for focusing the image. Changing the lens position to adjust focusing leads to a change in the focal length of the optical path of the camera, and hence a photographing focal length is adjusted. It is agreed that a difference between the application in hand and D1 is that D1 uses the focal length adjustment for a focusing operation whereas the application in hand uses the focal length adjustment for a zooming operation. However, claim 1 relates only to adjusting the focal length and does not specify any zooming operation.

1.2 Claim 1 is in substance identical to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request on which the decision is based.

As also acknowledged by the appellant, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of D1 in that the touch information commanding the focal length adjustment is provided by the user touching a rear-facing fingerprint touchpad or a front-facing fingerprint touchpad, instead of touching the touchscreen as in D1.

Since the authentication functionality of the fingerprint touchpad is not related to the image capturing and focal length adjustment functionalities of the device and is mentioned only in one passage of the application documents (see paragraph [0045] of the description), the board agrees with the decision that the problem solved by the distinguishing feature can be formulated as finding alternative input means for inputting a gesture on the mobile device of D1. At the oral proceedings the appellant argued that the formulation of the problem should include the fact that the alternative input means were intended to command focusing on the image capturing mobile device. However, the formulation of the problem is to be based on the identified features that distinguish the subject-matter of claim 1 from the disclosure of D1. In the case in hand, the above-mentioned distinguishing features are directed to input means on a mobile device adapted for performing a specific function, namely focusing on a captured image, and not to the specific function itself, which is already implemented in the device of D1. For these reasons, the board holds that formulating the problem without this function is justified.

1.3 In looking for such an alternative, the skilled person would consider documents dealing with input arrangements for mobile devices, such as document D2. D2 discloses a mobile device equipped with a touch sensor implemented on the rear face of the device as a fingerprint reader. By applying this teaching of D2 to the mobile device of D1, the skilled person would arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 without exercising inventive skill.

1.4 The appellant argued that the skilled person would not consider D2 since it did not relate to a mobile device comprising an input device suitable for focal length adjustment in an image capturing arrangement. Furthermore, according to the appellant, even if the skilled person did consider D2, they would not arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 by combining D1 and D2 because the fingerprint sensor in D2 was used for quick access actions only and not for a continuous action like the focal length change in D1.

However, the board holds that the skilled person would not restrict themselves to only mobile devices with a camera function but would in fact look for mobile devices having an input arrangement suitable for adjusting a parameter of a function of the device, such as D2. Moreover, the fingerprint touchpad of the device in D2 is suitable for commanding the volume of an integrated music player by detecting swipe-up or swipe-down gestures (see paragraph [0028]), which corresponds to the detection of the touch gesture defined in claim 1. The skilled person would thus implement the fingerprint sensor of D2 as an input device in D1 to command the focal length adjustment and arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 in an obvious manner.

For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 1 and of corresponding independent system claim 6 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC) having regard to the disclosure of D1 in combination with D2.

2. First auxiliary request

2.1 The subject-matter of claim 1 differs in substance from the disclosure of D1 in that:

a) The input device for focal length adjustment is a front-facing fingerprint touchpad.

b) When the sliding track on the fingerprint touchpad is a circular track, the focal length adjustment direction is determined by the slide direction and is zooming out to decrease the focal length or zooming in to increase the focal length.

2.2 Feature a) relates to the kind of touchpad used, namely a front-facing fingerprint touchpad.

Feature b) relates to the user's gesture applied to the touchpad and the resulting action on the device, namely a circular track of the user's finger and a focal length adjustment resulting in zooming in or out on the captured image. Therefore, the two features are merely juxtaposed in the claim and do not achieve a synergistic effect, so they can be examined separately for the assessment of inventive step.

2.3 As to feature a), D4 discloses, similarly to D2, a mobile device equipped with a touch sensor implemented as a fingerprint reader. The fingerprint reader of D4 is a front-facing fingerprint touchpad which can be used to move a cursor in a continuous manner (see Figure 5). For reasons similar to that detailed in points 1.3 and 1.4 above, the skilled person would implement the front-facing fingerprint sensor of D4 in the device of D1 as an alternative input device for commanding the focal length adjustment.

2.4 As to feature b), the board acknowledges that, as argued by the appellant, D1 discloses a focusing operation by focal length adjustment and not a zooming operation as defined in this feature. However, it is common general knowledge that a zooming in/out operation can be performed in a mobile device having a digital camera and that a focal length adjustment may provide a zooming function (see for instance D5, "Background of the invention", paragraphs [0002] and [0003]). Moreover, a sliding circular track as an input command on a touchpad is already known from D1 for adjusting the focal length (see paragraph [0155] and Figures 18 and 19). The skilled person would thus obviously use the sliding circular track on the touchpad of D1 to perform a focal length adjustment aimed at a zooming operation, as defined in feature b).

2.5 For these reasons, claim 1 and corresponding independent system claim 5 do not meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC having regard to D1 in combination with D4 and taking into account the common general knowledge as illustrated by D5.

3. Second auxiliary request

3.1 The second auxiliary request was filed for the first time with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal and thus represents amendments within the meaning of Article 12(2) and (4) RPBA.

The appellant argued that this request was filed in response to D5 being introduced for the first time in the decision, D5 being a document whose relevance is demonstrated by the fact that it is used, in combination with other previously cited documents, in an inventive step objection.

3.2 However, D5 was used in the decision to illustrate the common general knowledge and not as a document in a combination (see points 11 and 15.1.3 of the decision).

Moreover, the examining division noted in point 1.1 of the summons to oral proceedings (page 3) that the disclosure of a change of the lens position in D1 implied an adjustment of the focal length leading to a potential zooming effect. In response to the summons, the appellant filed new requests and argued, inter alia, that it was not common general knowledge to perform zooming on a mobile terminal (see point A.IV of the letter filed on 2 March 2020).

Therefore, the appellant was aware of the common general knowledge used by the examining division and could have expected the examining division to introduce a document, such as D5, to illustrate that common general knowledge during the oral proceedings. However, the appellant announced that it would not be attending the scheduled oral proceedings, which, as a direct consequence, were cancelled.

The board holds that these circumstances of the appeal case do not justify the admittance of the second auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings under Article 12(6) RPBA.

4. Conclusion

The main request and the first auxiliary request are not allowable since they do not meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC. The second auxiliary request is not admitted into the appeal proceedings.