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