9.2.15 Games

In T 1023/06 the invention related to a method of operating an electronic video poker machine. Following the approach of T 49/04 the board held that an improvement in readability, which related to how "cognitive content" was presented, constituted a technical contribution.

In T 717/05, T 42/10 and T 1281/10 the boards had to examine whether the amusement of the player could be a technical problem. In T 717/05 the board held that amusement was the psychological purpose of a gaming apparatus and thus was the relevant objective technical problem to the extent that the enhanced amusement was achieved by technical features of the claim. In T 42/10 and T 1281/10 the boards denied this.

In T 1543/06 the board applied T 641/00 and furthermore held that a consideration of the particular manner of implementation had to focus on any further technical advantages or effects associated with the specific features of implementation over and above the effects and advantages inherent in the excluded subject-matter. The latter were at best to be regarded as incidental to that implementation. It also held that non-technical effects inherent in non-technical game rules could not be taken into account in assessing inventive step.

In T 336/07 the board followed the same approach. It held that the mere fact that subject-matter (here rules for playing games), which is excluded per se under Art. 52(2)(c) EPC 1973, is technically implemented could not form the basis for inventive step. Inventive step can be based only on the particular manner of implementation of such subject-matter. A consideration of the particular manner of implementation has to focus on any further technical advantages or effects associated with the specific features of implementation over and above the effects and advantages inherent in the excluded subject-matter (see also T 1543/06). In T 336/07 the board concluded that the subject-matter of the claims did not involve an inventive step. In T 1782/09 where the application concerned a game apparatus the board stated that "game rules" form part of "the regulatory framework agreed between [or with] players concerning conduct, conventions and conditions that are meaningful only in a gaming context. The board was unable to identify any further technical effects in the particular manner of technical implementation that might have rendered it non-obvious to the skilled person.

In T 1225/10 the board also adopted the approach set out in T 1543/06 and held that it was decisive how excluded subject-matter was technically implemented, and whether that implementation was obvious. Such a consideration focused on any further technical effects of the implementation of the excluded subject-matter over and above those inherent in the excluded subject-matter itself (T 1543/06, T 1782/09). In the case at issue the board came to the conclusion that using points on the player character that overlapped with a target object was a computationally effective and efficient approach to determine the collision side on a target object for a variety of such objects. That effect was not the inevitable result of programming the game rules per se. It was rather the direct technical consequence of the particular technical way selected data was used to determine a display state. Therefore the technical effect was affirmed.

In T 1467/21, the board held that under the Comvik approach administrative settings related primarily to customer or player satisfaction could be taken into account in the formulation of the objective problem as non-technical constraints.

In T 686/22, the board adopted the approach as set out in T 1543/06 (above). Thus, only those features that contributed to technical character were to be taken into account when assessing inventive step. That requirement cannot rely on excluded (non-technical) subject-matter alone, however original it may be. The mere technical implementation of something excluded cannot therefore form the basis for inventive step. Rather, it is necessary to consider in detail how that matter has been technically implemented. The case concerned a game console. The board found a game rule underpinned the feature distinguishing the application from the prior art, which was considered not inventive.