T 0971/24 (User interface for augmented reality/SNAP) 05-11-2025

1. The present application concerns a method relating to augmented reality for displaying virtual objects and captured images on a device screen. More specifically, a face of a user within an image is detected. Further, movement of a virtual object and of a part of the user's face are detected and the presentation of the virtual object is modified.

2. Document D1 likewise discloses a method relating to augmented reality. Movement of parts of an image are detected and the presentation of a virtual object is modified.

3. Main request - claim 1 - inventive step

3.1 Distinguishing features

It is common ground that document D1 discloses all features of claim 1 except features (e) and (h).

3.2 Technical effect and objective technical problem

3.2.1 It has first to be determined whether or not the distinguishing features of claim 1 bring about a credible technical effect and hence solve a technical problem (see e.g. T 336/14, Reasons 1.2.2).

3.2.2 The appellant argued that the distinguishing features provided the technical effects of "facilitating interactions between a user and an AR object, enabling real-time control of AR objects through real physical movements, and enabling control of functions of a device through real physical movements" and providing "an improved method of control for a computer device".

3.2.3 As explained at the oral proceedings before the board, the board holds that none of these effects are technical effects caused by the distinguishing features. In particular, it is not apparent which interactions would actually be facilitated. For instance, when the user's face does not move and the AR object moves, the presentation of the AR object will be modified, without any input by the user's face.

Furthermore, "real physical movements" do not lead to a control of AR objects; according to feature (e), it is the relative movement which is detected. Moreover, controlling the presentation of (an) AR object(s) on a graphical user interface (GUI) is not per se a "technical task" performed on a device within the meaning of T 336/14 (catchword) and T 1802/13 (Reasons 2.1.5). Claim 1 does not refer to any other functions performed on the device except for the modification of the presentation of an AR object and the presentation of a further AR object. As discussed at the oral proceedings before the board, the relevant features concern the presentation of information as such and are considered to be non-technical (see also T 1143/06, Reasons 3.4; T 1741/08, Reasons 2.1.10 and T 336/14, Reasons 1.2.2). Lastly, paragraph [0025] of the application as filed, to which the appellant referred to, does not relate to the distinguishing features.

3.2.4 In view of the above, the board holds that the distinguishing features (e) and (h) do not lead to any technical effect.

3.2.5 Consequently, the board does not accept the objective technical problem submitted by the appellant, i.e. "how to facilitate control of a device or GUI with a captured real world object".

3.2.6 According to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see e.g. T 641/00 referred to by the appellant and relating to the prominent COMVIK approach), features which do not lead to a technical effect may legitimately be included in the formulation of the objective technical problem. In the case at hand, the objective technical problem is therefore to modify the method of D1 such that when relative movement between the face and the AR element in D1 is detected, the presentation thereof is modified and a further AR element is displayed.

3.2.7 The appellant's arguments, relying on a number of decisions of the Boards of Appeal which are based on the assumption that a technical effect is actually provided by the distinguishing features, are not convincing. This is because, as set out above, the distinguishing features of present claim 1 do not lead to any technical effect.

3.3 Obviousness

3.3.1 The board considers that the skilled person would have effortlessly modified the method of D1 according to the above-mentioned problem and would thus have arrived at the method of claim 1. Indeed, the detection referred to in that problem does not pose any difficulties to the skilled person in the field of GUI design and the claimed subject-matter does not provide any additional information as regards the technical implementation of the presented information.

3.3.2 The appellant argued that document D1 taught away from the the use of the distinguishing features, because D1 detected simply the movement of two real objects, i.e. it was just a mirror without any interaction between the user and the objects.

The board is not persuaded. As correctly argued in the decision under appeal, Reasons 2.4, in both the system of D1 and the present invention, movement of displayed objects is detected, regardless of whether they are AR objects or a video of real objects.

3.4 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step. Thus, the main request is not allowable under Article 56 EPC.

4. First auxiliary request - claim 1 - inventive step

4.1 Features (i) and (b1) as amended (cf. point VII above) relate to a mere presentation of information, in particular to the manner how information is presented (cf. T 1802/13). Thus, they cannot contribute to an inventive step, either.

4.2 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request is hence not allowable for the reasons given above with regard to the main request (Article 56 EPC).

5. Second to fourth auxiliary requests - claim 1 - Article 123(2) EPC

5.1 The board endorses the finding in the decision under appeal that claim 1 of the second to fourth auxiliary requests does not comply with Article 123(2) EPC.

5.2 In particular, the combination of features (e) and (j) extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed since feature (j) relates to a separate embodiment, namely the embodiment covered by Figures 7 to 10 rather than that covered by Figures 3 to 6 of the application as filed.

5.3 In that regard, the appellant essentially argued that paragraphs [0061] and [0062] of the description as filed and Figure 7 provided a "clear basis for claim 1 as a whole".

The board disagrees. Rather, it is apparent that none of these passages actually discloses "detecting a movement of a reference feature of the face relative to the first augmented reality element" (board's emphasis) according to feature (e). The appellant's submission that these two paragraphs implicitly disclose that feature is not convincing because it refers merely to "a movement [...] relative to" and not to the "detecting" of this movement. Similarly, Figures 8 and 10 do not disclose any "detecting" or "determining".

5.4 The appellant pointed also to paragraph [0053] as filed which reads:

"FIG. 7 depicts a flow diagram illustrating an example method 700 for controlling a user interface with an object depicted the user interface, according to some example embodiments. The operations of method 700 may be performed by components of the augmented reality system 160. In some instances, certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300 or as sub-operations of one or more operations of the method 300, as will be explained in more detail below."

It further argued that, in view of this paragraph, the skilled person would combine operation 340 (cf. Figure 3) with the steps disclosed in Figure 7 and paragraphs [0061] and [0062].

However, according to paragraph [0053] as filed, "certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300". Yet, the description does not disclose, neither explicitly nor implicitly, which of the "operations of the method 700 may be performed using" operation 340, or one of the other operations set out in Figure 3. Crucially, the result of feature (e), i.e. that a relative movement is detected, does not play any particular role in claim 1 of these auxiliary requests. Thus, the combination of features (e) and (j) is not originally disclosed.

5.5 The board notes in that regard that, according to the settled jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, the combination of features as amended must be derivable for the skilled person, directly and unambiguously, from the application as originally filed. Yet, the criteria submitted by the appellant, in particular "intention of the invention", "intuitive for the skilled person", "could be combined with operations of method 300 where this makes technical (or common sense)", "which operations can be combined", "a very natural and intuitive pairing of features" are all no suitable arguments under Article 123(2) EPC.

5.6 Lastly, the board agrees that it is not excluded, in general, that embodiments of an invention could indeed be combinable. However, the specific features in question, i.e. features (e) and (j), are simply not disclosed in combination in the original application at hand.

5.7 For these reasons, claim 1 of the second to fourth auxiliary requests does not comply with Article 123(2) EPC.