T 1992/17 (HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION DEVICE WITH OVERLAPPING KEYBOARD AND TOUCH PAD / Qiu, Bo) 26-01-2021

Reasons for the Decision

1. The application in this case pertains to a human-computer interaction device comprising two input devices, with these two devices or parts thereof overlapping.

Document D5 discloses keyboard and mouse input modes in an overlapping physical space.

Main request

2. Admissibility, Article 12(4) RPBA 2007

2.1 In section 1.1 of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal the appellant stated that "claim 1 now includes only one alternative of original claim 1, and the other amendments in claim 1 are merely improvements of the English translation" (underlined by the appellant).

In the board's view, in submitting at appeal an amended claim which closely corresponds to one alternative of an original independent claim, the appellant is essentially requesting that the substantive examination be restarted. Moreover, the applicant submitted a total of 16 amended requests in the course of the first-instance proceedings.

2.2 However, proceedings before the boards of appeal in ex parte cases are primarily concerned with examining the contested decision (G 10/93, OJ EPO 1995, 172, point 4 of the reasons).

2.3 In this case, the examining division raised numerous objections under Article 123(2) EPC. The board thus holds that the appellant should have addressed those objections by presenting to the department of first instance at least one request containing an independent claim similar to claim 1 of the main request under discussion. In view of the numerous amended requests on file, the appellant had had ample opportunity to do so.

2.4 The appellant argued at the oral proceedings before the board that the examining division's decision was based not just on the latest sets of claims but on all sets of claims that had been filed during the examination proceedings. In particular, the claims filed on 24 June 2013 related to the same alternative as the claims of the current main request.

The board disagrees. The appellant subsequently replaced the claims submitted on 24 June 2013 with other claims, namely the claims filed on 5 July 2016, 13 February 2017 and 10 March 2017. Pursuant to Article 113(2) EPC, at the oral proceedings on 13 March 2017 the examining division ruled on the application solely on the basis of the latest sets of claims submitted by the appellant on 10 March 2017 (the then main request and first to sixth auxiliary requests). These sets of claims replaced all previously filed sets of claims.

2.5 For these reasons, the board uses its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 not to admit the main request.

First auxiliary request

3. Amendments

The board finds that the claim 1 as amended does not satisfy the criteria of Article 123(2) EPC.

3.1 The appellant submitted that claim 1 was based on claim 5 of the main request. Claim 5 of the main request corresponds to original claim 12, which depends on claim 3, which in turn depends on claim 2.

However, a number of non-optional features of original claim 2 regarding types of devices have not been added to claim 1 under discussion. Furthermore, no features from original claim 3 have been added to claim 1.

3.2 According to the appellant, newly added claim 2 is based on the first paragraph of the description of "Example 1", page 17.

While this paragraph does refer to a "hard touch pad" and to "small hard touch pads", it states clearly that "the hard touch pad at least includes a part or the whole surface of an operating key" (line 10 on page 17 of the description). The board holds that the hard touch pad and the small hard touch pads are only disclosed in close functional relationship with this surface-related aspect.

3.3 The appellant argued at the oral proceedings that according to claim 1 the press-key input device and the main simulating device were both hardware devices. It was thus clear for the skilled person that a normal keyboard and a normal touch pad were what was meant. As such, it was not necessary to include the features from claims 2 and 3 of the main request, so as to keep claim 1 of the first auxiliary request concise.

The board is not convinced. The original claims clearly disclose the features of claims 1, 2, 3 and 12 in combination and there is no apparent basis for selectively including only some of those features in claim 1 of the first auxiliary request.

Second auxiliary request

4. Amendments

The board holds that claim 1 as amended does not satisfy the criteria of Article 123(2) EPC.

4.1 The appellant submitted that claim 1 was based on "Example 1" of the description (lines 8 to 16 on page 17).

4.2 The board agrees that "Example 1" discloses a hardware keyboard (e.g. lines 8, 13 and 14 on page 17). However, the section of the description which corresponds to "Example 1", i.e. page 17, line 8 to page 19, line 3, discloses the hardware keyboard in close functional relationship with other features. According to lines 30 to 33 on page 17:

"As there is overlapping part between the keyboard and hard touch pad, it is necessary to switch the working mode of this part, that is, during the process of keyboard input, open the hard touch pad provided within the operating key area of the keyboard to carry out operations of hard touch pad" (emphasis added by the board).

Furthermore, lines 2 and 3 on page 18 state the following:

"In order to facilitate the operation, it is required to set up the control switch in the keyboard to turn on or turn off the mouse functions, i.e. the functions of the hard touch pad" (emphasis added by the board).

From these passages it is apparent that a hardware keyboard and a hardware touch pad which includes a surface of one or more keys of the hardware keyboard are disclosed only in combination with a control function for switching the working mode of those keys. "Example 1" thus does not provide a basis for claiming a hardware keyboard without any such control function.

4.3 At the oral proceedings the appellant further argued that the wording "electrical input devices" (claim 2 of the main request and page 16, line 32) provided a basis for a hardware keyboard. The board disagrees because a hardware keyboard is more specific than an electrical input device.

Additionally, the appellant submitted that according to original claim 12, "said key input device and the said main analog device are both the hard device", that according to original claim 2 "said first input device is the press-key input device, that is, the device to realize the input through the key operations", that the key could be a button, and that the skilled person would derive a hardware keyboard from these passages. The board is not persuaded and does not agree that the specific notion of a hardware keyboard can be derived unambiguously because these passages have a much broader teaching, i.e. a hard (or hardware) device with keys, or buttons, for making inputs.

Third and fourth auxiliary requests

5. Clarity

Claim 1 of these two requests does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

Claim 1 recites that "a part of the main simulating device in a press-key region of said press-key input device consists of one or more small block main simulating devices" and further that the part of the main simulating device is "divided according to the boundary of a normal key mapping" (emphasis added by the board). A part of the main simulating device cannot be divided as claimed since it consists of one small block simulating device and doing so would require the presence of at least two small block simulating devices. Claim 1 is therefore not clear.

Conclusion

None of the requests is allowable. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.