2016年1月28日 星期四

只是美學效果缺乏進步性 - 歐洲訴願T 0050/07討論

如果相較於先前技術差異僅剩下「美學效果」,缺乏進步性,並不是沒有可專利性,我覺得是這件案例給的最好註解。

案件資訊:
案件編號:T 0050/07 - 3.4.03
申請號:00986288.9
歐洲公開號:1249014
申請人:Apple Inc.
涉及法條:EPC Art. 52(2), 52(3), 56 (http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/05/article-52.html
引用前案:US 6002402 (D2)

系爭案(對應美案已核准:US6396520)涉及視窗狀態改變時使用者介面的轉換,比如以下圖示,將視窗"最小化"會有一個逐漸縮小的轉換畫面。

請求項1反映出這個動作:電腦螢幕上有個視窗,在開啟與最小化之間的步驟有,取得視窗開啟位置資訊、取得視窗縮小的位置資訊、定義出連接這兩個視窗狀態的一組曲線,以及根據以上位置連續顯示視窗變化。

提出訴願時,申請人可以提出幾種修正方案
Claim 1第一方案:
"A method of transitioning a window (200; 300; 400; 500) on a computer screen between an open state and a minimized state, comprising the steps of:
obtaining location information associated with a first window position (210) in the open state;
obtaining location information associated with a second window position (220) in the minimized state;
defining a set of curves (230, 240; 330, 340; 415,420), wherein said curves (230, 240; 330, 340; 415, 420) connect two selected points that relate to a dimension of said window in its first position (210) to corresponding points of said window in its second position (220); and
displaying said window (200; 300; 400; 500) at successive positions within said curves (230, 240; 330, 340; 415, 420) from said first position to said second position while scaling said dimension of the window to fit within said curves (230, 240; 330, 340; 415, 420) in a manner so as to give the appearance of sliding."

第二方案加入"連續變化縮放"的描述:
"...while continuously scaling said dimension of the window to fit within said curves...".

第三方案將縮放的步驟描述出來:
"the scaling comprising:
determining the scaled length of each scan line as defined by a corresponding distance between said curves (230, 240; 330, 340) as the scan lines are shifted (625; 710) along a path in the direction from said first window position (210) to said second window position (220), and to scale (625; 710) the scan lines to fit between the corresponding distance between the curves (230, 240; 330, 340) in transitioning from said first window position (210) to said second window position (220)"

本案自EPO審查不具進步性以後提出訴願。

訴願人主張,雖然請求項範圍是一個美學方案("aesthetical aspects"),但是用技術實現出來,改善了使用者操作的視覺效果,具有技術特徵,引證前案也沒有這個視窗的轉換變化。

訴願決定中,認為引證前案(D2)並未揭露系爭案所定義的該組曲線,具有新穎性。
D2:US 6002402

在討論進步性時,即討論其中技術問題,因為系爭案關於一種操作視窗產生的美感,其中是以技術手段實現而得到這個視覺美感,應該不是EPC 52(2)所排除可專利性的「美學創作」

然而,相較於先前技術(D2),D2也是解決畫面的變化,但是兩者有差異(因此有新穎性),不過,差異被認為只剩下美學效果,也就是,美學效果的特徵缺少技術特徵,並無助於專利進步性

結論:
實現這個美學效果的技術(軟體程式)僅是資料處理與驅動,為相關技術人員顯而易知的技術,不具進步性。
"Hence, the technical implementation as claimed is merely limited to such implied data processing and driving, which is considered to be a straightforward, if not the only solution for obtaining this specified aesthetic effect on the computer screen, and would be obvious to a skilled person in the field of computer graphics and in particular of graphical user interfaces. Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973)."

訴願駁回。

歐洲訴願資料:
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t070050eu1.html
(訴願決定備份:https://app.box.com/s/2pzfb2z5jejtdjzbnxzxe2py66tdf3zb

Ron

沒有留言: