T 1900/09 (Object position detector/SYNAPTICS) 15-03-2013

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible (cf. Facts and Submissions, item III. above).

Preliminary observations

2. Closest prior art

2.1 It is common ground that D4a represents the closest prior art document to the subject matter of the independent claims of the appellant's requests.

2.2 D4a discloses a portable computer which comprises a touch sensitive input device in the form of a touch pad having a plurality of pre-defined regions. In the preferred embodiment of D4a (cf. D4a: Fig. 3; Abstract), the two dimensional area of the touch pad is spatially divided into an X-Y two-dimensional cursor control area (63), and a plurality of discrete button areas (65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77 and 79) adjacent the cursor control area which act as two position switches and generate control signals of the type for which discrete push button switches are generally employed.

2.3 D4a further discloses the use of tap gestures in the two dimensional cursor control area (63) to generate control signals (cf. D4a: Abstract; p.1 l.46-55; p.1 l.126 - p.2 l.30; p.6 l.1-53). Movement of a cursor on the display screen of the computer system is controlled in response to a user's finger moving over the cursor control area. Once the cursor has been correctly positioned, a short tap on the cursor control area generates an execution signal to instruct the computer to carry out the instructions determined by the prior cursor movement. The tap gesture is recognised by measuring the time and movement parameters of the contact.

Main request

3. Interpretation of claim 1

3.1 Claim 1 of the main request is directed towards a method for responding to a tap gesture made on a touch pad having a plurality of pre-defined regions in a touch-sensing system providing information to a host.

3.2 According to the pre-characterising part of the claim, if an occurrence of a tap gesture made by a conductive object on the touch pad is detected, a signal is sent to the host indicating the occurrence of the tap gesture.

3.3 The characterising part of the claim includes a specification of the details of detecting the occurrence of a tap gesture, according to which an occurrence of a tap gesture is detected if the amount of time the conductive object is present on the touch pad is less than a reference amount of time and the amount of motion made by the conductive object while it is present on the touch pad is less than a reference amount of motion.

3.4 The characterising part of the claim concludes with a specification to the effect that, if a tap gesture occurred in one of the pre-defined regions of the touch pad, the corresponding pre-defined region is indicated to the host.

3.5 In summary, claim 1 of the main request specifies a method according to which when a tap gesture occurs in one of a plurality of pre-defined regions of a touch pad, the occurrence of the tap gesture and the region of the touch pad in which it occurred are notified to the host.

3.6 It is particularly noted that the claim does not contain any specification relating to the use of the touch pad for generating and notifying a cursor movement signal to the host.

4. Comparison with D4a

4.1 In the board's judgement, D4a which discloses the detection of a tap gesture on a touch sensitive input device (cf. D4a: p.1 l.46-55; p.1 l.126 - p.2 l.30; p.6 l.1-53) discloses at least implicitly a method comprising all of the features of the pre-characterising part of claim 1 of the main request.

4.2 In the preferred embodiment of D4a, a tap gesture is recognised when the surface of the touch pad is touched for a time less than a predetermined reference time and the location touched on the surface changes by a distance less than a predetermined reference distance (cf. D4a: p.6 l.23-37; claim 4). D4a thus discloses detecting the occurrence of a tap gesture in a manner substantially identical to that specified in the characterising part of claim 1 of the main request, i.e. such that a tap gesture is detected if the amount of time the conductive object is present on the touch pad is less than a reference amount of time and the amount of motion made by the conductive object while it is present on said touch pad is less than a reference amount of motion.

4.3 According to D4a, the recognition of the tap gesture takes place solely in the cursor control area. There is no disclosure to the effect that the occurrence of a tap gesture is determined in any of the other pre-defined regions of the touch pad.

5. Inventive step

5.1 Claim 1 of the main request is thus distinguished over D4a by the concluding feature of the claim according to which a determination is made if the tap gesture occurred in one of the pre-defined regions of the touch pad and, if so, an indication of the pre-defined region in which the tap gesture occurred is provided to the host.

5.2 Although there is no disclosure in D4a to the effect that the occurrence of a tap gesture is determined in a pre-defined region of the touch pad other than the cursor control area, the board holds that it would be an obvious modification of the teaching of D4a to extent the detection of a tap gesture to at least some of the other pre-defined regions of the touch pad.

5.3 These other pre-defined regions are described in D4a as "push button areas" and are disclosed as being responsive to a "closure", i.e. a touch interaction which depresses the corresponding region of the touch pad (p.6 l.60-75). However, D4a states that the tap gesture detected in the cursor control area is used to generate "a push button like signal" (cf. D4a; p.6 l.38-47) which, in the board's judgement indicates that the specific type of touch interaction used to actuate the push button areas is a matter of design choice.

5.4 In the board's judgement, it would not require the exercise of inventive skill to consider using other types of touch interaction besides a simple "push" or depression to actuate the push button areas of the touch pad. The skilled person could be expected to choose the type of touch interaction depending on the particular type of application and the types of switch functionality it was desired to provide.

5.5 Given that the touchpad of the computer disclosed in D4a is evidently intended to provide "a 'mouse' type of cursor control" (cf. the related document D4b: p.11, section entitled "Touch panel provides cursor control"), the board holds that it would be an obvious desideratum to use some of the push button areas of the touch pad of D4a to emulate mouse button functionality. In the given context, the board judges that a tap gesture, as opposed to a simple depressive contact, would be an obvious design choice for implementing the click functionality typically associated with mouse buttons.

5.6 In view of the foregoing, the board takes the view that the skilled person would not require the exercise of inventive skill to modify the disclosure of D4a to extend the detection of tap gestures to at least some of the push button areas of the touch pad thereby arriving at a method having all of the features of claim 1 of the main request.

6. Observations concerning the appellant's submissions

6.1 With respect to the appellant's submissions that in the preferred embodiment of D4a, the push button areas are physically delimited from each other and from the cursor control area by a spacer (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XIII(vi) above), the board notes that according to D4a there is a single touch pad assembly which extends over all regions, i.e. the touch pad of D4a includes the cursor control area and the push button areas (cf. D4a: p.3 l.84-99). Although the different areas can be delimited from each other using a spacer, it is explicitly stated that the use of a spacer is not essential (cf. D4a: p.3 l.106-109 of D4a). D4 thus teaches, or at least suggests, to the skilled person that it is not necessary to physically delimit the different areas of the touchpad from each other.

6.2 Concerning the appellant's submissions that the push button areas of D4a are not used to generate a cursor movement signal which is provided to the host (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XIII(vi) above), the board notes that claim 1 does not contain any specification which could be interpreted as requiring the generation of a cursor movement signal over all of the pre-defined regions (cf. 3.6 above). Said claim merely requires that if a tap gesture occurs in one of the pre-defined regions of the touch pad, the occurrence of the tap gesture and the corresponding pre-defined region are notified to the host.

6.3 Hence, the board was not convinced by the aforementioned submissions of the appellant that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request involved any non-obvious differences over the disclosure of D4a.

7. In view of the foregoing, the board judges that the subject matter of claim 1 of the main request does not involve an inventive step over D4a.

First auxiliary request

8. Inventive step

8.1 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request seeks protection for substantially the same subject-matter as claim 1 of the main request and is merely formulated using somewhat different wording (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XIII(vii) above). Therefore, the finding under 7. above also applies to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request which is likewise judged not to involve an inventive step over D4a.

Second auxiliary request

9. Claim 1

9.1 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that it specifies a touchpad having a surface divided into two or three pre-defined regions.

10. Inventive step

10.1 The appellant has essentially argued to the effect that D4a discloses a touch pad which is sub-divided into nine pre-defined regions and that it would not be obvious for the skilled person to reduce the number of pre-defined regions to two or three (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XIII(viii) above).

10.2 It is noted in this regard, that whereas the preferred embodiment of D4a discloses a touch pad which is sub-divided into nine pre-defined regions, i.e. the cursor control area and eight push button areas, D4a further states the following: "A larger or smaller number of discreet areas may be provided, depending upon the computer system application and the available size of the touch pad surface" (cf. D4a: p.3 l.91-95).

10.3 D4a thus teaches, or at least suggests to the skilled person, that a reduction in the number of pre-defined regions is a freely available design choice which does not require the exercise of inventive skill.

10.4 In particular, as indicated in 5.5 above, the board considers that it would represent an obvious desideratum for the skilled person to use the push button areas of the touch pad of D4a to emulate mouse button functionality. In the context of trying to satisfy this desideratum, the board judges that it would not require the exercise of inventive skill to arrive at a touch pad comprising a cursor control area and two push button areas for emulating mouse button functionality (i.e. a total of three pre-defined regions) thereby arriving at an arrangement which would fall within the scope of claim 1 of the second auxiliary request.

10.5 In view of the foregoing, the board judges that claim 1 of the second auxiliary request does not involve an inventive step over the disclosure of D4a.

Fourth auxiliary request

11. Claim 1

Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that it has been amended by introducing a specification of "detecting a motion of the conductive object on the touch pad in any of the pre-defined regions and providing position information representing changes in position of the conductive object to the host".

11.1 Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request thus contains an explicit specification to the effect that a cursor movement signal is generated and provided to the host in response to the movement of the conductive object over all of the pre-defined regions of the touch pad (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XIII(ix) above).

11.2 In the board's judgement this amendment to claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request is supported inter alia by [0216] to [0218] of the published application (corresponding to p.86 l.13 to p.87 l.7 of the application as originally filed). In particular, it is implicit from [0216] of the published application, which discloses the execution of a drag action across "tap zone" boundaries, that a cursor movement signal is generated and provided to the host in response to the movement of the conductive object over all of the pre-defined regions ("tap zones") of the touch pad.

11.3 The board is therefore satisfied that claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request clearly defines the essential technical features of the matter for which protection is sought in a manner supported by the original disclosure such that the requirements of Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC are complied with.

12. Inventive step

12.1 D4a discloses a single touch pad region, i.e. the cursor control area 63, which is used to generate and provide cursor movement signals to the host in response to the movement of a conductive object and which is further arranged to permit the detection of tap gestures which occur within this region.

12.2 Although the board considers that the skilled person would not require the exercise of inventive skill to modify the disclosure of D4a so as to extend the detection of tap gestures to at least some of the push button areas of the touch pad (cf. observations under 5.5 and 5.6 above), it does not consider that it would be obvious to additionally use said push button areas to generate and notify cursor movement signals to the host in response to the movement of a conductive object. Nor, can the board identify any plausible motivation for the skilled person to partition the cursor control area of D4a into a plurality of predefined regions as recited in claim 1 of the present request.

12.3 In view of the foregoing, the board judges that the combination of features recited in claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request is not derivable in an obvious manner from D4a and that, consequently, the subject-matter of said claim involves an inventive step over the available prior art.

Request for reimbursement of the appeal fee

13. Alleged procedural violation

13.1 The board is not convinced by the appellant's submissions to the effect that the decision under appeal involved a substantial procedural violation due to the allegedly deficient reasoning of the decision (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XIII(x) above).

13.2 According to said decision, the application was refused because the subject-matter of independent claim 1 on file did not involve an inventive step.

13.3 In support of this finding, the decision refers to documents D1 and D2 which are said to disclose input devices supporting touch-based interactions and which are able "to recognize and differentiate between gestures mapped to different commands". This is followed by a line of argumentation based on generic considerations to the effect that defining gestures for interaction with such devices is inherently non-technical and the implementation of a defined gestural sequence to generate a desired sequence of commands does not involve an inventive step.

13.4 The board does not concur with the line of argumentation advanced by the examining division in the impugned decision. Nevertheless, even if the board takes the view that the reasons for the decision are not well-founded, this does not mean that the decision is not reasoned at all in the sense of Rule 111(2) EPC (formerly Rule 68(2) EPC 1973). Consequently, there is no procedural violation in this respect.

13.5 In view of the foregoing, the appellant's request for refund of the appeal fee is refused.

Conclusions

14. Remittal to department of first instance

14.1 Having regard to its finding noted under 12.3 above, the board decides to remit the case to the department of first instance with the order to grant a patent on the basis of the fourth auxiliary request.