T 2277/15 - Information displayed on user interface supports inventive step

In T 2277/15 the independent claim defined a power injection apparatus with a user interface, the user interface showing a plurality of screens (ref. 230), each screen including a status window (ref. 266) at a particular place, and the status of the apparatus is shown in the status window at all times when the device is powered on.

The opponent had argued that the display of status information, as  a distinguishing feature, was non-technical and could not support inventive step.

The Board, however, saw it differently. They found the claim was inventive. In particular, the status screen allowed monitoring of the status of the apparatus so that an operator could intervene, if the status window indicated an error. The Board considered that this would make the apparatus safer. The technical problem was thus formulated as providing an injection apparatus, which is safer to use. Since the prior art did not teach a status window which provides status information at all times when the apparatus is powered on, the claim was regarded inventive.

This decision is in line with a number of earlier decisions, including T 1091/17, which held that presentation of information on a user interface can exceptionally contribute to the technical character of an invention if it "credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and guided human-machine interaction process”. See also T 1741/08, T 336/14, T 1802/13.

 

The full text of the T 2277/15 can be accessed here.

T 264/17 - Synthetic lubricant as a synovial fluid replacement

Art. 54(5) EPC provides for protecting the second or further medical indication for compounds which are otherwise (i.e., structurally) known. The proper claim format is the purpose-limited product claim format (e.g., "Compound X for use in medical method Y.", see G 2/08).

Traditionally the Boards have held that the  "substance or composition" of Art. 54(4) and (5) must be an "active agent or ingredient", in the sense of a pharmaceutically active agent. Chemicals which merely acted physically, such as injected collagen agents, were considered more a "device" rather than a "substance or composition" (see, e.g., T 1758/15). 

T 264/17 takes a different view on the issue.