Selective Presentation Of Content Of Varying Complexity: Non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for selecting online content to present to users based on their content consumption behavior on a social media platform. The key feature at issue was the selective presentation of content of varying complexity depending on the user’s content consumption rate, i.e., adapting whether simpler or more complex content is shown based on how fast the user skims through content. The Board of Appeal considered this feature to be non-technical, representing a concept that could be conceived by a non-technical person, but remitted the case for further examination of a feature relating to ephemeral content handling.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1207/22 (Adapting the complexity of content based on the content consumption rate/SNAP) of 13 February 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Adapting the complexity of content presented to a user based on their content consumption rate constitutes a non-technical aim under the Comvik approach, even if the consumption rate is objectively measured. However, distinguishing between ephemeral and static content for the purpose of calculating the consumption rate may involve non-obvious technical implementation considerations, warranting further examination and search.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to a method for selecting the type of additional content to be presented to a user online, for instance on a social media platform. The system measures a rate at which a user consumes content by tracking user inputs requesting content and the elapsed time between these inputs. Based on this consumption rate, the system distinguishes between “high velocity” users who rapidly skim through content and users who engage more carefully. Two categories of content are defined: low-complexity content (e.g., simple images requiring only a brief glance) and high-complexity content (e.g., multi-word text messages or longer audio/video content). When a high content consumption rate is detected, the system presents content of lower complexity, as the user is unlikely to engage deeply with complex information. Conversely, users exhibiting a lower consumption rate are presented with more complex content that requires a greater amount of time to process. The application also describes handling ephemeral content, i.e., content available only for a limited time, differently from static content when calculating the consumption rate. Content of both types may be pre-cached locally on the device for rapid retrieval once the system determines which type to present.

Claim 1 of the Main Request

A method of displaying online content, comprising:

receiving (705), by an electronic device, a plurality of user inputs, each input requesting a presentation of media content;

determining (810), by the electronic device, an elapsed time of the plurality of user inputs;

determining (710), by the electronic device, a consumption rate based on a number of the plurality of user inputs and the elapsed time; and

selectively presenting (720, 725, 730, 735) by the electronic device, additional content to the user based on the content consumption rate,

wherein the selective presenting of the additional content to the user based on the content consumption rate comprises presenting (725) additional content of a first type having a first complexity when the consumption rate meets a first criterion and presenting (730) additional content of a second type having a second complexity otherwise,

the second complexity being more complex than the first complexity,

complexity being a measure of time necessary for consumption.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) over a notoriously known general-purpose networked computer system such as an Internet-enabled smartphone. Applying the Comvik approach (T 641/00), the Examining Division considered that the presentation of content to a user based on the user’s content consumption rate constituted an administrative or business scheme, or alternatively a mental act, which did not involve any technical considerations or produce a technical effect. The division reasoned that the underlying mental concept of adapting the complexity of presented content to the recipient’s capabilities was already known in non-technical contexts such as teaching or sales, and therefore did not contribute to inventive step. The technical contribution of the claimed method was seen as lying solely in the implementation of this non-technical scheme through conventional information technology. Such implementation was regarded as a straightforward automation of an abstract concept, which did not render the scheme itself technical. The Examining Division found no technical interaction between the non-technical scheme and its computer implementation capable of producing a further technical effect that could support an inventive step.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the content consumption rate was an objectively measured technical metric rather than a subjective assessment of a user’s mental abilities, and that its determination and use were therefore of a technical nature. In support of its position, the Appellant advanced several alleged technical effects:

1. The invention provided a more efficient mechanism for searching and retrieving content, as the content presented was tailored to the user’s interactions with the computer system without requiring active user input. Referring to T 643/00 (Searching image data/CANON), the Appellant argued that assisting a user in performing a search task constitutes a technical effect.
2. Referring to T 1351/04 (File search method/FUJITSU) and T 2539/12 (Searching a hierarchically structured database/SOFTWARE AG), the Appellant argued that the creation and searching of a database based on a novel metric constituted a technical improvement in how a computer system searches for information. Organising data according to content complexity amounted to a new database structure, which had been recognised as technical in T 3176/19 (Data handling system/Broadridge Financial Solutions).
3. The claimed invention produced an additional “bonus effect” of reducing the amount of data transmitted, since only relevant content was presented to the user.
4. Document D1 (a blog post about YouTube’s watch time ranking factor) should be used as the closest prior art, and the skilled person starting from D1 would not have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 without inventive skill.

The Board’s analysis

Main Request

The Board was not persuaded by any of the Appellant’s arguments and concurred with the Examining Division’s refusal:

1. Starting point for inventive step: The Board confirmed that the notoriously known networked computer system was a reasonable starting point. It is not necessary to begin from the closest prior art in the sense of the document having the greatest number of features in common with the claimed invention; any reasonable starting point is sufficient.
2. Objective measurement does not equal technical character: Whether a metric is calculated on an objective basis is not a decisive criterion for assessing its technical character. Many objective calculations serve no technical purpose, such as financial balance sheets or mortgage repayment schedules. The proper criterion remains whether a feature produces a technical effect or is at least based on technical considerations (T 641/00, T 2314/16).
3. No search function: Presenting content to a user based on a consumption rate does not constitute a search. A search involves the purposeful retrieval of specific information in response to a query, whereas providing content based on observed behaviour amounts to a recommendation. Recommendation systems have consistently been regarded as non-technical (T 306/10, T 1869/08).
4. No novel database structure: The claim does not define any specific database structure. Categorising data according to complexity amounts merely to assigning a label or attribute. The choice of a suitable data structure for this purpose would be routine for the skilled person.
5. No bonus effect: There is no causal link between the relevance of content and the volume of data transmitted. In any event, a bonus effect cannot by itself support inventive step.
6. Non-technical character confirmed: The Board found that adapting the complexity of content according to the user’s content consumption rate represents an idea that could be conceived by the notional business person (T 1463/11) or a non-technical person. The implementation, including measuring user inputs and elapsed time to determine the consumption rate, was considered almost self-evident and obvious.

First Auxiliary Request

The first auxiliary request specified that the first type of content includes content with a number of words above a threshold, and the second type includes content with fewer words. The Board found these features did not add anything of a technical nature, and the same reasoning as for the main request applied.

Third Auxiliary Request

The third auxiliary request (The Appellant had withdrawn the second auxiliary request) added that the media content includes ephemeral content (available only until an availability time threshold) and static content, and that the content consumption rate is calculated differently for each type. The Board found that the distinction between ephemeral and static content and their different treatment in calculating the consumption rate could not be regarded as obvious in the absence of prior art. Since the Examining Division had treated this as a non-technical requirement, it was unclear whether this feature had been searched. The Board remitted the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution, including a search on the basis of the third auxiliary request.

Conclusion

The Board set aside the decision under appeal and remitted the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution. While the main request and the first auxiliary request were refused for lack of inventive step because adapting content complexity based on consumption rate was deemed a non-technical concept with an obvious technical implementation, the third auxiliary request raised an open question. The feature distinguishing between ephemeral and static content for the purpose of calculating the consumption rate could not be dismissed as obvious without prior art, and it was uncertain whether a search had been conducted for this feature. The case was therefore remitted for a search and further examination of the third auxiliary request.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1207/22 (Adapting the complexity of content based on the content consumption rate/SNAP) of 13 February 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

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.