T 1678/17 (TACTILE PRESENTATION DEVICE / Kyocera) 30-06-2020

Reasons for the Decision

1. The present application relates to a device and a method for providing tactile sensation when an object is touching a predetermined area of a touch sensor. The tactile sensation is based additionally on a pressing load on the touch sensor.

2. Document D1 discloses techniques for vibrating a touch screen in accordance with icons displayed on the screen.

Main request

3. Patentability

The board agrees with the examining division that the requirements of Article 52(1) are not fulfilled.

3.1 Throughout the proceedings, the examining division used a translation (by Thomson Scientific) of document D1, which had been sent to the applicant on 4 June 2014.

3.2 The appellant argued that document D1 did not disclose that the main control unit was configured to

(a) activate the tactile sensation provision control unit from a non-active state by an operation start instruction when determining that the object is touching the predetermined area,

or

(b) inactivate the tactile sensation provision control unit from an active state by an operation stop instruction when determining that the object is not touching the predetermined area.

3.3 The appellant did not dispute that document D1 discloses all the other features of claim 1.

3.4 With regard to feature (a), the appellant submitted that the main control unit actively activated the tactile sensation provision control unit from a non-active state by an operation start instruction.

The board holds that document D1 discloses this feature. Paragraphs 175 to 179 and Figure 21 show a user sliding a finger (30) in the direction of the right arrow from a starting point (i) over the icon (31) towards the icon (33). To start with, between the points in time t0 and t1, the vibration control voltage Va is set to zero (Figure 21B) and the touch panel does not vibrate. When the user's finger reaches icon (31), at the point in time t1, processor (54) sends a vibration control waveform pattern (P11) to the D/A converter (52) and the amplifier (56), and the touch panel begins to vibrate. This process anticipates feature (a).

3.5 At the point in time t2, the user's finger leaves the area of icon (31), but stays in contact with the touch panel. The processor sets the vibration control voltage Va to zero again; in other words, the D/A converter is inactivated. D1 does not explicitly disclose an "operation stop instruction", but reducing the control voltage to zero in fact results in the vibration being stopped. Hence, document D1 also discloses feature (b).

3.6 The appellant argued that "to inactivate the tactile sensation provision control unit" meant that "the control unit controls to stop the power supply to the tactile sensation provision control unit".

The board is not convinced. The application under appeal does not refer to stopping, or disconnecting, the power supply. Instead, the description states that the operation of the tactile sensation provision control unit is stopped (paragraphs 13, 18 and 51, among others). Furthermore, claim 1 and paragraph 21 explicitly teach that the main control unit inactivates the tactile sensation provision control unit "by an operation stop instruction".

3.7 The board notes that the independent claims specify that the main control unit is configured to activate or inactivate the tactile sensation provision control unit.

3.8 For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 1 is not novel.

3.9 As an aside, the board notes that during the periods of time t0 to t1 and t2 to t3, although the finger is touching the touch panel it does not vibrate (see D1, Figures 21A and 21B). Consequently, the power consumption is reduced.

Auxiliary request 1

4. Patentability

4.1 Claim 1 additionally specifies that the tactile sensation provision control unit is inactivated, "although the object is touching the touch face".

4.2 Document D1 discloses this additional feature. For instance, the vibration is stopped during the period of time t2 to t3, while the user's finger is sliding from icon (31) to icon (33) (Figures 21A and 21B).

4.3 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 is not novel.

Auxiliary request 2

5. Patentability

5.1 The board agrees with the appellant that document D1 does not disclose the features added to claim 1 of auxiliary request 2:

"the tactile sensation provision control unit (14) is configured to stop detection of the pressing load when the tactile sensation provision control unit (14) has been inactivated from the active state to the non-active state".

5.2 The board also agrees that these distinguishing features result in the technical effect of reducing the power consumption of the apparatus.

5.3 The objective technical problem to be solved is accordingly how to modify D1's apparatus to reduce the power consumption.

5.4 The board notes that D1 relates to a portable device (paragraph 1, Figures 14, 16 and 20). In such a device, reducing the power consumption is clearly an important and recurring task. Hence, the skilled person would be motivated to look for a solution to this problem.

5.5 One generally known possibility for reducing the total power consumption is to avoid any unnecessary power consumption.

5.6 As disclosed in document D1, the pressing load detected by the load detection unit is used by the tactile sensation provision control unit to control the drive of the tactile sensation providing unit (paragraph 56, to which the examining division referred in the decision under appeal, section 1.2 on page 5). Clearly, the drive of the tactile sensation providing unit is controlled only when the tactile sensation providing control unit is in an active state, i.e. when a vibration is generated (D1, Figure 21, periods of time t1 to t2 and t3 to t4). From this it plainly follows that when the tactile sensation providing control unit is in a non-active state (period of time t2 to t3) there is no need to detect and evaluate the pressing load value. To avoid any unnecessary processing and thus any unnecessary power consumption, the skilled person would clearly adapt the apparatus of document D1 to avoid the pressing load being detected and processed when no vibration is generated. Hence, they will arrive in an obvious way at the subject-matter of claim 1.

5.7 The board holds that the above reasoning does not amount to an impermissible hindsight, because it follows the problem-solution approach and is based on the teaching of document D1 and the common general knowledge of the skilled person.

5.8 For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step.

Partial reimbursement of the appeal fee

6. By letter dated 13 May 2020, the appellant withdrew its request for oral proceedings and requested a partial refund of the appeal fee.

6.1 No oral proceedings took place.

6.2 The request for oral proceedings was not in fact withdrawn within one month of notification of the communication issued by the Board of Appeal in preparation for the oral proceedings. However, in view of the Notice from the European Patent Office dated 1 May 2020 concerning the disruptions due to the COVID-19 outbreak (Official Journal EPO, 2020, A60) and Rule 134(2) and (4) EPC, the board holds that the conditions for reimbursement of 25% of the appeal fee, stipulated in Rule 103(4)(c) EPC, are fulfilled.