b) Graphical user interfaces 

A GUI layout (graphical user interface) as such is considered to be non-technical, being a "presentation of information" (Art. 52(2)(d) EPC; T 1741/08 citing T 1143/06). See also T 1214/09, T 1185/13.

Features concerning the graphic design of user interfaces do not have a technical effect, because their design is not based on technical considerations, but on general intellectual considerations as to which design is particularly appealing to a user (Guidelines G‑II, 3.7.1 – March 2022 version). For example, the colour (see T 1567/05, T 726/07, T 1734/11), shape (T 677/09), size (T 823/07, T 1237/07), layout (T 756/06, T 1741/08, T 1214/09), arrangement of items on the screen (T 643/00, T 1237/10) or the information content of a message displayed is usually not a technical aspect of a graphical user interface. An exception would be if these features contribute to achieving a particular technical effect (T 1741/08, T 1143/06).

A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (T 336/14, T 1802/13 and T 1185/13). Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the feature. This would not be the case if the alleged effect depends on subjective interests or preferences of the user (Guidelines G‑II, 3.7 – March 2022 version).

In T 1235/07 the board took a wider view of "presentation of information" than just the actual information that is displayed, the so-called cognitive content, to include also structural aspects of how the information is displayed. This broader meaning was supported by almost the only reference to the presentation of information in the travaux préparatoires. In the board's view, such additional aspects can only contribute to inventive step if they have technical character. The board considered the circumstances of the case in hand to be similar to those in T 1143/06, but they were even less convincing because the invention was merely a visual display of a known analysis technique using known means, whereas in T 1143/06 the idea of varying the speed of the element was at least not known.

i) Broken technical chain

In T 1741/08 the application was concerned with a method of entering data into a data processing system. The question was whether an additional technical effect could be attributed to a particular layout of a graphical user interface (GUI). The board made clear that "lowering the cognitive burden of the user" is not of itself a technical effect (T 1143/06 followed, T 49/04 not followed). It found that the reduction in use of resources would be caused by the way the brain of the user perceives and processes the visual information given by a particular way of presenting information. The appellant also argued that there was a chain of effects. But in terms of technical effects this was a broken chain. The board did not accept that such a broken chain could be used as evidence of the required technical effect overall ("broken-technical-chain fallacy"; see also T 158/88, T 603/89 and T 1670/07). Following T 1143/06, the board considered a GUI layout as such to be non-technical, being a "presentation of information" (Art. 52(2)(d) EPC). In the case at issue, the arrangement of icons displayed was intended to convey information, namely at which step in the input process the user found him- or herself. The board stated that the mere fact that a particular choice of information to display or of how to display it is particularly clear, lucid, or "lowers the cognitive burden" of the user was not sufficient to demonstrate that the choice has a technical effect. The case law of the boards of appeal was consistent with this principle. The fact that not all GUI-related applications are considered to be inventive does not mean that there is a contradiction between the decisions.

In T 1670/07 the board confirmed the "broken-technical-chain fallacy" (T 1741/08) and cited T 603/89 and T 1670/07 as examples. The board held that the possible final technical effect brought about by the action of a user could not be used to establish an overall technical effect because it was conditional on the mental activities of the user.

In T 1214/09 turned on whether improving a human's cognitive evaluation of certain information by changing the manner in which the information is presented was non-technical. The board noted that the alleged effect of feature (i), i.e. the improved evaluation of thumbnail file images by the user, was due solely to the claimed arrangement of thumbnail file images. In the board's judgment, this arrangement was not based on considerations other than those proper to the field of designing presentations of information for human viewing and was hence not an expression of any technical principle. The board therefore considered the alleged effect not to be a technical effect since in the context of this invention any improvement in the efficiency of image retrieval can only be the result of the non-technical improvement in the user's evaluation of the displayed thumbnail file images.

In T 306/10 the board cited T 1741/08 and decided that the selection of an item for recommendation to a user did not qualify as a technical purpose. From a technical point of view the recommendations were irrelevant, because while making "good" or "bad" recommendations might lead to different user reactions and thereby, in the end, to different technical results, such results did not qualify as a technical effect of the recommendations, as they depended on subjective choices made by the user.

In T 1834/10 a web page is made more attractive to potential customers by presenting images in a lively manner, and the images to be presented are selected and displayed automatically so that the presentation can be changed rapidly. The board noted that however innovative an attractive content selection may be, it related to a presentation of information which was a priori non-technical (Art. 52(2)(d) EPC), even if it lowers a user's cognitive burden (T 1741/08) or prompts the user to start some technical action (broken technical chain, T 1741/08, T 1670/07). The desire to present a selection of images, to limit the selection to a predetermined number of images and to present the selected images in some preferred layout is a non-technical aim. The meaning of the display data does not convey any technical character to the presentation.

The board in T 49/04 decided otherwise, finding that technical aspects could not be ruled out in the design and use of a graphic interface. Furthermore, the presentation of natural language text on a display in a manner which improved readability, enabling users to perform their task more efficiently, related to how, i.e. by what physical arrangement of the text, cognitive content was conveyed to the reader and could thus be considered as contributing a technical solution to a technical problem.

In T 619/98 it was held that an action performed by a user in response to a message in the form of questions or suggestions concerning the technical functioning of an apparatus did not render the form of the information technical. The board in T 1143/06 came to the same conclusion, holding that an action (possibly) performed by a user in response to a message concerning the technical functioning of an apparatus did not necessarily render technical the information conveyed. The board came to the conclusion that the information provided according to the relevant features could not credibly support a continued and guided human-machine interaction process. Thus, it could not assist the user in performing the technical task. It only addressed the human mental process of an "average user", however the latter was supposed to be defined based on personal skills and preferences (see e.g. T 407/11).

ii) Features of the graphic design

In T 244/00 the board stated that the graphic design of menus was, as a rule, not a technical aspect of a menu-driven control system. Nor was the practical use of such menus genuinely a problem with which the skilled person, in his function as a technical expert, was confronted. For the purpose of the problem and solution approach, the problem had to be a technical problem which the skilled person in the particular technical field might have been asked to solve at the priority date. The board therefore concluded that, in the case at issue, the technical problem had to be formulated in a more limited way than on the basis of the alleged advantages of moving a cursor diagonally over the TV screen (see T 154/04, OJ 2008, 46; T 125/04, T 1143/06).

T 333/95 concerned using a computer to produce animations. In order to produce a scene in which a particular object moves, the selected object takes the place of the cursor, so that the user can move it around with the mouse as desired, while the system records the movements of the mouse and translates them into a script of commands for moving the object in the later display of the animated scene. However, the board in that case clearly considered the feature of "making said graphics object the current cursor" as a technical feature per se. This "graphics object cursor" replaced the normal cursor (also technical) and its movements were recorded and translated into a kind of programming language. There was at least a technical effect in allowing the user to move the selected object around under control of the mouse.

In T 125/04 the board stated that, in general, the task of designing diagrams is non-technical. This is so even if the diagrams arguably convey information in way which a viewer may intuitively regard as particularly appealing, lucid or logical. In T 125/04 the invention, like T 643/00, also concerned an arrangement of images but was different in that only the information conveyed by the images, i.e. their "cognitive content" (see T 1194/97, OJ 2000, 525), was relevant. The new features had to do with how this content was represented. Unlike T 643/00, the invention provided no information about the computer system itself, such as the location where the data are stored.

In T 1073/06, the underlying GUI was configured, upon user input, to display objects of a simulation model, including graphical link representations to improve the ease of a user's comprehension of the model. The contribution of the claimed subject-matter to the prior art was related to the utilisation of association data stored in the memory to cause the link between the objects in the simulation model to be displayed with the associated graphical link representation. The deciding board held that "an improvement in the comprehension of a model is a purely mental effect, so that the problem solved was not seen as being technical. The claimed 'graphical link representations' related to the state of the simulation model, rather than to the state of the claimed simulation apparatus, and thus constituted presentations of information and are therefore also non-technical" (see T 336/14).

iii) Support in performing a technical task

In T 1741/08 the board held that not everything that supports a technical task has itself a technical character.

In T 1802/13 the issue was "how" specific cognitive data was actually presented rather than "what" was presented. The crucial consideration was therefore that the feature involved presenting cognitive content which addressed solely the user's mental process. It was established case law of the boards of appeal that, as a general rule, "lowering the cognitive burden of a user" could not, per se, be considered to be a technical effect (see e.g. T 1741/08, T 1539/09 and T 1237/10).

In T 336/14 the board held that in the assessment of inventive step of a claim, in which the non-technical features relate to cognitive content presented to the user of a graphical user interface, i.e. relate to "what" is presented rather than "how" something is presented, it has to be analysed whether the GUI together with the content presented credibly assists the user in performing a technical task (related to "why" that content is presented) by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process. It has to be established whether the information supplied based on the relevant features credibly enable the user to properly operate the technical system in question, or whether it only addresses the human mental process of an "average user" (on this point, see also T 1895/17 and T 772/18).

In T 690/11 the invention concerned a dialysis system which comprised a display device, a web server and web browser operating with the display device to display information that could guide an operator through the setup procedure for performing a dialysis treatment and then illustrate the progress of that treatment. In the board's opinion, the claimed features possessed more than mere information content directed exclusively to the human mind. The claimed display related to the interaction between the system and the operator and hence, implied technical means for the transmission and handling of respective signals contributing to the correct operation of the system. This conferred a technical character on the claimed features which had thus to be considered in the assessment of novelty and inventive step.