In the 3rd quarter (July to September) of 2021, 4 positively decided cases were added to our knowledge base in which relevant aspects of the claimed-subject-matter were considered technical. For those who do not have the time to read all of our selected decision, in the following, we will briefly summarize these cases.

T 0200/19: Disambiguation of text with an upper and lower case

The application underlying this  decision relates to a handheld device with a reduced QWERTY keyboard. Based on the user input, the device automatically detects whether it was the intention of the user to write a word with an upper case or lowercase letter.

At the end of the appeal stage, the Board in charge ruled that  enhancing the efficiency of disambiguation of a user input provided via a reduced keyboard of a handheld device is technical.

T1790/17: Controlling the manufacture of a product

This  decision relates to the area of  business methods, and more particularly to product (re-)design. The Board in charge was of the opinion that redesigning a product based on user feedback is purely business-motivated and thus non-technical.

However, according to the Board in charge,  controlling the manufacture of a product with improved process data is a patentable invention as it includes technical features.

This decision is an excellent example of how the first hurdle (patent eligibility) of the EPO's  two-hurdle (COMVIK) approach can be cleared.

T 2251/13: Projection surface with built-in track pad

This is one of the rare cases in which a  business-related invention was considered technical ( T 2251/13). In detail, the invention relates to an  interactive food and/or drink ordering system that can be controlled by means of a track pad. The gist of the invention is to project a menu onto the restaurant table.

Specifically the usage of the above-mentioned track pad was considered to solve a technical problem with technical means.

T 1422/19: Determining visibility of content on web browser by indirect measurement

In the area of  graphical user interfaces, one of the EPO's Boards of Appeal ruled that  estimating the size of a browser's viewport from within a cross-domain iframe by indirect measurement is technical. According to the decision  T 1422/19, this is because the claimed method measures "raw" information about a running web browser and processes this information to produce an estimate of a technically meaningful parameter.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.