T 2288/22 (Lock screen/FIRSTFACE) 02-07-2024

Reasons for the Decision

1. The application concerns displaying a "lock screen" upon activating a mobile terminal and performing user authentication based on a captured image of the user.

2. Main request

2.1 Distinguishing features

2.1.1 The appellant emphasised that document D1 did not disclose, in addition to the distinguishing feature established by the examining division (i.e. that, in response to pressing the "activation button", a lock screen is displayed on the display unit according to feature (f)), the part of feature (h) that "the terminal [remains] in the locked state" as well as features (i) and (j) of claim 1.

2.1.2 With respect to that part of feature (h), the board notes that the appellant did not argue as to why it considered that it was not disclosed in the passages cited by the examining division. The appellant argued that document D1 "[did] not disclose that the 'lock screen' [was] still shown on the display when the authentication [failed]". However, the board holds that displaying the "lock screen" is not even claimed in the case of a failed authentication.

2.1.3 Having regard to features (i) and (j) of claim 1 (denoted by the appellant as "differences C & D"), the appellant argued that the "key pattern" of D1 was evidently different from the claimed "pressing of the activation button". And even if they could be equated to each other, Figure 3 of document D1 disclosed the claimed "pressing of the activation button" and the "activating the camera" in the opposite order. In other words, Figure 3 disclosed "face authentication A3" followed by "determine key pattern A4".

The board notes that the term "activation button" is not limited to a dedicated button and may thus also comprise any other button having the claimed function. Moreover, as to feature (i), the decision under appeal cites steps A1 to A3 of Fig. 3, but not step A4. Hence, it is evident that the examining division mapped the "pressing of the activation button" to the "input key pattern A1". Since step A1 is disclosed as being performed before steps A2 and A3, the board holds that document D1 in fact discloses these steps in the claimed order. The appellant's respective arguments thus fail to convince the board.

2.1.4 Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure of document D1 in the distinguishing feature identified in the decision under appeal, i.e. feature (f) (see point 2.1.1 above).

2.2 Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

2.2.1 The board considers that the distinguishing feature "to display a lock screen in a lock state" relates to a mere "presentation of information" which does not credibly assist a user in performing a technical task (see e.g. T 336/14, Headnote). Hence, it may not support an inventive step (see e.g. T 641/00, Headnote I).

2.2.2 The board does not agree with the appellant's argument that the distinguishing feature "rendered the system more convenient for the user". The convenience of a particular method of displaying information may vary based on individual user preferences. Therefore, it cannot be objectively verified.

2.2.3 The board is also not convinced by the appellant's argument that the examining division's line of reasoning was based on an "ex post facto analysis" and "slightly illogical". To the contrary, the board considers that a "lock screen" being displayed in response to pressing a button is notoriously known.

2.2.4 Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is not inventive over document D1.

2.3 In view of the above, the main request is not allowable under Article 56 EPC.

3. Auxiliary request

3.1 The board concurs with the examining division that the added feature (compared to the main request) of "a display of an alarm message" is not directly and unambiguously derivable from D1 and thus constitutes a further distinguishing feature. However, the board considers that this distinguishing feature relates again to a mere "presentation of information". As argued above, such a feature may not support an inventive step.

3.2 The appellant's argument that this additional distinguishing feature contributed to solving the problem of "how to improve the authentication process to be more convenient and swift" fails to convince the board. Notably, in the event that an authentication fails, the claimed chain of method steps simply ends. Thus, there is no subsequent authentication step that could be rendered "more convenient and swift" by this difference.

3.3 Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the auxiliary request is not inventive, too.

3.4 Therefore, the auxiliary request is not allowable under Article 56 EPC either.