EP 4 111 892 A1 relates to an aerosol generating device in which data concerning the progression of an operational phase of the device is visually conveyed to a user of the device. It is an e-cigarette allowing the user to be informed on the progression of its use.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for lack of IS, and the applicant appealed.
The board confirmed the refusal.
The case is interesting in that it deals with the absence in the claims of specific features and the claim boils down to a mere presentation of information.
In the present blog entry we will deal with presentation of information..
The applicant’s point of view on the specific arrangement of the lighting arrays
Starting from D1, the skilled person would not have thought to provide two separate lighting arrays, each with its own window. The reason for this was that there was not enough space to add another lighting array with its own window surrounding the illumination region of D1, as that region already extended across the entire available space.
In claim 1 two technical conditions of the aerosol-generating device were indicated simultaneously. As a result, the user was “better informed” about the device’s operations than in D1.
The applicant argued that the e-cigarette of D1 did not provide sufficient space for the lighting arrays defined in claim 1. The applicant asserted that the claimed arrangement of the lighting arrays allowsthe control electronics and the electrical connections to the lighting arrays to occupy a compact footprint.
The applicant argued that, by being able to perceive two technical conditions of the device simultaneously, the user was “better informed” and could therefore adjust the device more appropriately.
The annular shape of the outer lighting array was based on technical considerations. In particular, an annulus or annular structure provided a longer effective path length between its start and end points than a linear structure occupying a comparable area. This allowed a more granular graphical representation of the progress of a user session. Thus, the user could perceive the progress with greater detail, which further facilitated interaction with the aerosol-generating device.
In the applicant’s view, the arrangement of the LEDs results in a technical effect comparable to that identified in T 928/03.
Starting form D1, claim 1 solved the technical problem of providing a compact and space-efficient arrangement of lighting structures for an aerosol-generating device capable of conveying information relating to multiple technical conditions of the device, while enabling more granular indications of those conditions in a space-efficient manner.
In the absence of any hint in D1 (or D2) towards the claimed solution, claim 1 would not have been obvious to the skilled person.
The board’s decision on the specific arrangement of the lighting arrays
For the board, the differences between claim 1 and D1 relate solely to the manner in which the LEDs are controlled by the control electronics; there is no difference in the physical arrangement of the LEDs. The board noted that the claim neither defines nor implies how the control electronics and electrical connections are physically arranged.
This entails that the effects asserted by the applicant, namely, a more compact footprint, hardware miniaturisation and space savings compared to D1, are not achieved.
Under the board’s interpretation, the claimed solution, starting from D1, amounts to,
- first, controlling the LEDs within the illumination region such that not only the progress through a smoking session is indicated but also, simultaneously, a further technical condition of the device and,
- second, presenting these two technical conditions graphically using a layout defined by specific features.
The board judged that, irrespective of their technical implementation by suitable programming the processor, both aspects per se relate to the presentation of information as such and, therefore, lack technical character, cf. Art 52(2,d).
The actual difference between claim 1 and D1 resides solely in the decision to present different technical conditions simultaneously. This does not provide the user with any additional insight into the internal operation of the device beyond what is already disclosed in D1. Rather, it merely concerns the manner in which information already available in D1 is presented to the user.
While it may be accepted that the simultaneous presentation of multiple items of technical information may be perceived by some users as clearer or more practical, other users may regard such a presentation cluttered or less legible and may prefer the one-at-a-time presentation of D1.
Be it as it may, according to the established case law, effects such as improved clarity of presentation or reduced cognitive burden, which merely reflect subjective user preferences, do not constitute technical effects and therefore cannot contribute to an inventive step, cf. T 1741/08, Reasons 3.2; T 1802/13, Reasons 2.1.7.
The board noted that it is doubtful whether the display of information relating to the progression of a smoking session can be regarded as assisting the user in controlling the aerosol-generating device. However any behavioural adaptation, however, does not amount to controlling any technical operation of the aerosol-generating device.
The board accepted that the layout defined by the specific features may be regarded as making efficient use of the available display space.
However, following the approach taken inter alia in T 1562/11, Reasons 2.5, the board held that the arrangement of graphical objects within a limited display space, even if making optimal use of that space, does not involve any technical considerations and does not go beyond the presentation of information as such.
While T 1562/11 concerned the presentation of information on a computer screen, the board considered that the principles established therein apply equally to other types of displays, including the LED arrays of claim 1 and D1.
The board was neither convinced by the argument that shaping the outer lighting array as an annulus improves the granularity of the information shown and thereby enhances the user’s interaction with the device.
The granularity of the information shown is not determined by the length of the annulus alone, but depends equally on its segmentation, that is, on the length of the segments successively illuminated to represent a technical process. Since the segmentation is not specified in the claim, any such effect remains speculative.
On the basis of the above assessment of technicality and applying the COMVIK approach, T 641/00, the board considered that the skilled person is not faced with the technical problem formulated by the applicant, but rather with the problem of implementing the non-technical requirement to simultaneously display the progression through a smoking session in an annular area, by increasing or decreasing its illuminated length, and a further technical state of the e-cigarette in an area surrounded by that annular area.
Comments
The decision might look harsh at a glance, but the claim as it stands does not allow a different conclusion.
All the advantages brought forward by the proprietor in its argumentation are not translated into further specific claim features found in the claim. This allows the board to conclude that what is claimed is a mere presentation of information without any impact on the internal working of the e-cigarette.
Comments
Leave a comment