Client Login Camera-Based “display visibility” as a Technical Security Measure in Remote Gaming

The application concerned a gaming installation enabling remote play of a physical gaming machine. A digital camera captures real-time images of the machine’s physical display and streams them to a remote player terminal, where the remote player can issue game commands via “remote selecting means” corresponding to the machine’s physical controls.

The examining division refused the application for lack of inventive step over D1 (US 2006/217199 A1). On appeal, the Board issued a preliminary opinion indicating that the then-main request lacked inventive step. In response, the applicant made a new claim request, which included additional features regarding server separation and camera-based blocking control mechanism, which forms the basis of this decision. The Board treated D1 as the closest prior art and accepted that it disclosed the remote control concept with real-time video and command transmission, but not all claimed implementation details.

Key findings of the decision

The Board identified two relevant distinguishing aspects in the claimed invention, the separation of the remote server into a control server and video server (feature W), and feature (X), a recognition unit in the control module programmed to issue a blocking signal preventing activation of the gaming machine from the remote terminal when the camera does not capture images of the physical viewing display.

Technical effects and objective technical problem

The Board attributed to feature (X) a technical effect of increased “gaming efficiency and security”, because the system automatically blocks remote activation when a local player’s presence prevents viewing of the display. It further stated that, by avoiding log-in/log-out via a graphical user interface (GUI) or button operations, feature (X) maintains or improves data security standards and simplifies and accelerates switching between remote and local play. The objective technical problem was framed accordingly as achieving these effects.

Non-obviousness over D1

The Board held that D1 did not disclose or suggest feature (X). In particular, the skilled person would not, based on D1 and common general knowledge, be prompted to install a video data evaluation system based on image recognition capable of assessing whether someone was in front of the machine and thereby disabling remote gaming. D1 mentioned a “combination mode” for local and remote play but did not teach how to implement disabling of remote gaming when a local player uses the machine.

The Board accepted that, starting from D1, the skilled person might consider “standard” alternatives such as a button for local players or a detector recognising local activation. However, it considered camera-based disabling when the display cannot be detected to be an efficient and relatively simple solution, avoiding dedicated user actions and additional hardware controls.

Article 83 EPC in the context of feature (X)

The examining division had argued that feature (X) either lacked technical effect or (if it had one) was not sufficiently disclosed. The Board disagreed: it treated the effects relied on for inventive step as technical and held that implementing an algorithm to detect when the display is covered was technically feasible at the filing date “without any problems”, so no further detail was required for sufficiency.

Analysis and implications

T 2030/22 illustrates that an image-recognition condition used to block remote actuation can contribute to inventive step where it credibly improves security and operational switching in a concrete system, and where the prior art points instead towards simpler, conventional mechanisms (buttons/detectors). It also shows the Board’s willingness, on the facts, to align sufficiency with the skilled person’s ability to implement a known class of algorithms without exhaustive disclosure, once the functional teaching is clear and technically feasible.

Conclusion

The Board found the amended claims to meet the requirements of Articles 52(1), 56 and 83 EPC, as well as Articles 123(2) and 84 EPC, and set aside the refusal. It remitted the case to the examining division with the order to grant on the basis of the applicant’s sole request.