T 2319/22 (Displaying numbers to a user/BISSANTZ) 09-07-2024

1. The application relates to a computer system comprising means for displaying numbers to a user. The way in which the numbers are displayed allows the user to quickly assess at least some of the displayed numbers even if a high number of data items are shown on the display (see page 1 of the originally filed description and Figure 6 of the application reproduced below).

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

Main request - inventive step

2. The examining division assessed inventive step starting from document D5; the appellant did not contest that this document was a suitable starting point.

2.1 Document D5 is a Wikipedia webpage for the entry "Tag cloud" (or "word cloud") and discloses various visual representations of textual data such as keyword metadata ("tags") on websites. The tags are displayed in a particular format where the importance of each tag is shown by font size or colour. According to document D5 this format is useful for quickly perceiving the most prominent terms and for locating a term alphabetically to determine its relative prominence (D5, page 1 and page 3, section "Visual appearance"). The section "Creation of a tag cloud" on pages 4 and 5 of document D5 discloses a formula for calculating the display font size in (linear) dependence on the count of a tag, the lowest and highest counts of tags in the tag cloud and the maximum font size.

Document D5 also discloses "data clouds". A data cloud is a data display which uses font size and/or colour to indicate numerical values (D5, page 3, section "Data clouds"). Example data clouds are depicted in the figures on pages 2 (a data cloud showing the population size of each of the world's countries) and 3 (a data cloud showing stock price movement, with the colour indicating positive or negative changes and the font size indicating percentage changes; see the reproduction below).

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

2.2 The examining division referred in particular to the example data cloud depicting stock price changes shown on page 3 of document D5. It concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request differed from the teaching of D5 only in that the numbers were presented as such rather than by names representing them. For example, the above example data cloud showed stock ticker symbols whereas the invention displayed the numbers themselves (see Figure 6 of the application, for example; see point 2.3 of the contested decision). The examining division considered that this distinguishing feature did not achieve a technical effect. Rather, it specified only a mere presentation of information which was non-technical. Moreover, according to decision T 1741/08, lessening a user's cognitive burden was not a technical effect.

2.3 The appellant disagreed with the examining division and argued that features C, D, F and G (see point VIII. above for the itemisation of the claim features) were the distinguishing features of claim 1. According to the appellant, these distinguishing features together achieved the technical effect that the system could display numbers (e.g. pertaining to an internal state of a device such as pressure, or an external state of a device such as speed) in a way that selectively drew the user's attention to particularly relevant numbers (e.g. large pressure values or high speed values), allowing the user to operate the device (e.g. a control panel of a nuclear power plant or a cockpit of a plane) more safely and/or effectively on the basis of an improved information level. The invention was similar to that in the case on which decision T 643/00 was based, in which the manner of conveying information contributed to the solution of a technical problem since it enabled the user to perform their technical task (searching and retrieving images) more efficiently. In the current case the task was to search for values which are critical, e.g. in the context of a technical application.

Referring to the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, the appellant argued that it was irrelevant that the application documents as filed did not disclose explicitly and in detail an example of the invention being applied to e.g. a vehicle, as long as the person skilled in the art could "immediately grasp" that such a technical application was a "valid implementation" of the invention claimed (statement of grounds of appeal, page 15).

According to the appellant the objective technical problem was "to improve ergonomics in a human-machine interaction, e.g. of a user in front of a control panel, and to improve the quantity of information conveyed" (statement of grounds of appeal, page 17).

The skilled person could arrive at the claimed solution only through "independent, creative and hence inventive thinking" since document D5 explicitly taught away from displaying numbers at all, as these were "unhelpful tags" to be filtered out (see D5, page 4, last sentence; statement of grounds of appeal, pages 18 and 19).

2.4 The board does not agree with the distinguishing features as identified by the appellant.

2.4.1 Regarding distinguishing feature C, the appellant argued that document D5 did not disclose a means configured to calculate the font size for displaying a number depending on the value of the number. Instead, according to D5 the font size was calculated depending on the percentage change in a value.

However, the board is not convinced by this argument as it considers that the percentage change is itself a number. The numbers underpinning the data cloud visualisation shown on page 3 of document D5 are the percentage changes of the stock prices, not the stock prices as such (see the caption of the image on page 3 of document D5 which refers to "stock price movement", i.e. to stock price changes).

2.4.2 The appellant argued that the examining division did not explain where distinguishing feature D was disclosed in document D5. However, the board understands from point 2.2 of the contested decision that document D5 disclosed adapting the font size of text (the stock symbol) associated with a number (the stock's price movement/percentage change). Consequently, the board considers that the distinction over document D5 is not distinguishing feature D, as alleged, but the distinguishing feature identified in point 2.3 of the contested decision ("the numbers are presented as such rather than by names (e.g. stock name) representing them").

2.4.3 Regarding distinguishing feature F, the appellant argued that the examining division referred to the disclosure in the section "Creation of a tag cloud" on pages 4 and 5. However, that section related to a tag cloud that only included words, whereas numbers were considered "unhelpful tags" according to the last sentence on page 4 of document D5. The disclosure in document D5 was incompatible with the system according to the claimed invention, which aimed at displaying numbers such as the speed of a vehicle. According to the claimed system, numbers were not considered "unhelpful tags" but were decisive in assisting users operating a device, for example.

The board is not convinced by these arguments. Claim 1 is not restricted to a technical use of the displayed data in supporting a user with a technical task such as controlling a vehicle - nor does it even specify any such use. The content of the information to be presented ("what is displayed") is, in the context of claim 1, determined by a non-technical user requirement since the information displayed is not used to provide any "further" technical effect (see decisions T 1173/97 and T 935/97), for example regarding the automated control of (1) a device (e.g. a vehicle) different from the computer system or (2) a technical process external to the computer system (such as a chemical process).

2.4.4 The appellant argued that distinguishing feature G was different from the proposed calculation of the display font size si according to the formula disclosed in D5, page 4, section "Creation of a tag cloud".

The board agrees with the appellant that document D5 discloses, in the aforementioned section, calculating the display font size for a given tag in a tag cloud on the basis of the incidence of a tag, i.e. a frequency with which this tag was assigned. However, in the example data cloud visualisation of stock price movements described above, the numeric values of the stock price movements (changes) are used to calculate the font size for displaying the associated stock symbols. Document D5 discloses that a data cloud "is similar to a tag cloud [...] but instead of word count, [it] displays data such as population or stock market prices" (see the section "Data clouds" on page 3). Consequently, the skilled person reading document D5 would understand that the formula to calculate the display font size si would be applied in the case of a data cloud based on the values of the numbers instead of incidences of the tags. Consequently, feature G is implicitly disclosed in document D5 or is at least immediately obvious when reading document D5.

2.5 In view of the above discussion of the alleged distinguishing features, the board concludes that the claimed invention differs from the method of document D5 in that it includes the distinguishing feature identified by the examining division, i.e. the numbers are presented as such rather than by names (such as stock symbols) representing them. The board does not recognise the effect and the corresponding objective technical problem as formulated by the appellant.

2.6 The board agrees with the examining division that the identified distinguishing feature does not achieve any technical effect. At best the effect, if any, may be that the attention of some users could be drawn to certain numbers (having a large display font size, for example) rather than to other numbers on the display. Given the generality of the claim wording, certain numbers may be displayed, for example, in a font size too small to be readable, meaning that the user's attention will not be drawn to those unreadable numbers. In any case, the effect of drawing users' attention to certain content (on a screen or on another substrate such as paper) is not a technical effect but concerns an alleged effect relating to the user's mind/attention.

The appellant referred to decision T 1235/07, Reasons 11, which correctly states how the phrase "presentation of information" is to be interpreted. The responsible board argued that "parts of how the information, namely the form and way it is presented, may also be part of the presentation of information". In other words, the manner of presenting information (the visual appearance), such as presenting the information in a specific tabular format (see Figures 1 to 12 of the current application), in a specific colour or in a chosen (font) size, relates to a presentation of information as such and usually does not achieve any technical effect.

Claim 1 of the main request does not specify any application context (providing e.g. a particular technical meaning to the data) or any interaction with the data displayed (feature E is limited to displaying data). For this reason alone, any arguments, such as improved ergonomics, relating to an actual or implied interaction with the displayed numbers are not convincing.

With regard to the main request, it is indeed "irrelevant that the application documents as filed did not explicitly and in detail disclose an example of the invention being applied to e.g. a vehicle", since claim 1 is not limited to any application but rather is directed to a general system for visualising numbers.

In this context, the board notes that the established case law requires a technical effect over the whole scope of the claim (see e.g. decision G 1/19, points 82 to 84). Since claim 1 of the main request in hand is not limited by any features specifying that the claimed system is configured for a use of the displayed information, it is not credible that a technical effect relating to a technical application is achieved over the whole scope of the claim.

2.7 In view of the above, the board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC) in view of document D5 since the distinguishing feature does not contribute to any technical effect.

Auxiliary requests

3. Claim 1 of the first to fourth auxiliary requests additionally recites features (i) to (iv) (see points IX. to XII. above), respectively, when compared with claim 1 of the main request. Claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request adds features (ii) and (iv) to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request and further limits feature (iv) to "and other abbreviations" instead of "and/or other abbreviations" (see point XIII. above).

4. Inventive step

4.1 Feature (i) merely specifies that the numbers are "technical" data but does not specify these data in any detail. Such abstract or "meta" specifications of technicality are usually insufficient to give the claimed subject-matter a technical character (see decision T 1227/05, Reasons 3.1.1).

In the context of the case in hand, it is irrelevant whether the numbers themselves represent technical or non-technical data. Displaying numbers representing "technical" data, e.g. a page of a patent application containing numbers representing experimental data about a chemical process, is still merely achieving a presentation of information, which is non-technical, since no technical effect beyond the mere displaying is credibly achieved.

The board is not convinced by the appellant's argument that the skilled person understands the term "technical data" to also include data pertaining to the operation of a technical device or data pertaining to an internal state of a device (e.g. a pressure value in a pipe or an engine temperature) or to an external state of a device (e.g. a speed value or acceleration value). In the context of the assessment of inventive step, only technical effects achieved over the whole scope of the claim are relevant (see point 2.6 above). The fact that the wording "technical data" covers certain kinds of data, such as measurement data, is irrelevant since the claim is not limited to those kinds of data.

4.2 Regarding feature (ii), the examining division argued that it would improve "user interaction with a data processing system", but the board doubts that this is the case. Feature (ii) merely allows the user to add numbers for generating a new visualisation. There is no user interaction with the displayed numbers in the sense that the user is able to select any displayed number for a specific interaction, for example. Moreover, contrary to the appellant's argument at the oral proceedings, claim 1 does not specify that the input number is a "target number" or the like for a technical device for which the newly generated display is then particularly useful in order to direct a user's attention in the context of safely operating a machine.

Consequently, feature (ii) adds entering numbers in a computer system using notorious input means. This is implicitly disclosed in any notorious computer system and thus also in document D5. Entering further numbers does not contribute to achieving any technical effect in the circumstances of the current case since the only credible effect is a mere presentation of information after a new recalculated display has been generated, with the size of all the numbers depending on the value of the input number. Consequently, the wish to add further numbers and to recalculate the display as claimed is a non-technical user requirement. In view of the above, feature (ii) is at best an obvious implementation of this non-technical user requirement.

4.3 Feature (iii) is interpreted as specifying (1) that the providing means is implemented by a processor (and software), which in the board's opinion was already implicit in the main request, and (2) that the numbers originate from a database. The board agrees with the examining division that D5 implicitly discloses that the numbers originate from some kind of database. Moreover, since a database is merely a data collection (e.g. a set of economic data stored somehow in the computer; see e.g. decision T 154/04, Reasons 21), the latter part of feature (iii) does not contribute to any technical effect.

4.4 The board considers that feature (iv) merely specifies that the format of the numbers (in terms of units and/or abbreviations) is determined correctly by the system for generating the display using this format. In this context, the application in hand discloses that units could be "m" for millions or "bn" for billions and "other abbreviations which represent the magnitude of the numbers" could be "'" and "''" representing thousands and millions, respectively, for example (see description, page 5, last paragraph to page 6, first paragraph and Figure 6 as reproduced in point 1. above).

Feature (iv) concerns the non-technical functionality (visualising numerical data) of the claimed system and does not achieve any technical effect. The board is not convinced that the alleged effect of lessening the cognitive burden is achieved over the whole scope of the claim. In any case, the board agrees with the examining division that lessening the user's cognitive burden is not a technical effect (see decision T 1741/08, Reasons 2.1.6 to 2.1.8).

Furthermore, since the claimed "units" and "abbreviations" were known and correspond merely to notorious formats, feature (iv) does not go beyond a straightforward automation of the normal conversion of numbers into notorious formats involving a unit or abbreviation.

In view of the above, feature (iv) is obvious, even when taking the limitation to "unit and other abbreviations" in the fifth auxiliary request into account.

4.5 It follows that none of features (i) to (iv) provides a basis for acknowledging an inventive step. The board does not recognise any technical effect caused by the combination of features (i), (ii) and (iv) in the context of claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request.

4.6 Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 of each of the first to fifth auxiliary requests lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

5. Since none of the appellant's requests can form the basis for the grant of a patent, the appeal is to be dismissed.