User Requirements and Inventive Step in GUI Interactions — A Case Note on T 0035/20 (Apple Double Press to Pay)

1. Introduction

In contemporary mobile payment practice, Apple Pay has established a highly streamlined interaction model. A user can initiate a payment directly from the locked state of the device by pressing a physical button twice and authenticating via biometric verification, without the need to explicitly unlock the device or launch a payment application. This interaction is widely used and appears highly intuitive from a user experience perspective.

However, in patent law, what appears “intuitive” does not necessarily equate to being non-technical. Indeed, this functionality was the subject of a patent application and formed the central issue in T 0035/20. Although the decision was issued on 17 May 2024, it was only made available online recently on 31 March 2026.

In this case, the Board of Appeal considered whether an interaction design — namely, activating contactless payment from a locked device by means of a double press of a physical input mechanism in combination with fingerprint verification — constituted merely a specification of user requirements, or whether it involved technical considerations capable of supporting an inventive step.

2. Background and Procedural History

The application, filed by Apple Inc., relates to a user interface for simplifying contactless payment on a mobile device.

The claimed method essentially provides that, when the device is in a locked state, a physical input mechanism with an integrated fingerprint sensor detects user input. If only a single press is detected, the device is unlocked in the usual manner. If, however, two presses are detected within a predetermined time interval and the fingerprint is successfully verified, the device transitions into a payment mode in which contactless transactions can be performed without unlocking the device.

The Examining Division considered that the invention merely defined “when and how” to enable payment functionality and therefore amounted to a specification of user requirements. On that basis, it concluded that the distinguishing features did not contribute to the technical character of the invention, and that the claimed subject-matter lacked an inventive step under Article 56 EPC.

The applicant appealed.

In the appeal proceedings, the Board identified the iPhone 6 as the closest prior art. This device already featured fingerprint authentication (Touch ID) and contactless payment functionality (Apple Pay), but required the user to unlock the device and open the payment application before making a payment. It did not provide a mechanism for initiating payment directly from the locked state via a double press.

3. The Notion of “User Requirements”

A central issue in the case concerns the interpretation of “user requirements” in the context of inventive step.

According to the principles established in T 641/00, where a claim comprises both technical and non-technical features, only those features which contribute to the technical character of the invention are to be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step. Non-technical aspects may be included in the formulation of the objective technical problem but do not themselves support inventive step.

In the present case, the Board observed that:

“The term ‘user requirement’ is often used when assessing the technicality of features of user interfaces.” (R. 8)

Referring also to T 1463/11, the Board confirmed that such requirements typically reflect the needs or preferences of an end user who does not possess technical knowledge of the system, and that they normally do not involve technical considerations or define technical means.

On this basis, requirements such as simplifying payment, reducing the number of steps, or enabling payment from the lock screen may fall within the category of user requirements. Likewise, where the technical means are already known, a simple mapping between a user input and a function—for example, pressing a “pay” button to initiate payment—may be regarded as non-technical.

4. Technical Considerations in the Claimed Interaction

The Examining Division took the view that the distinguishing features—such as detecting a double press within a certain time interval and using fingerprint authentication for payment instead of a separate authentication step—merely concerned the manner in which a user interacts with the device, and therefore did not involve technical considerations.

The Board did not agree.

It considered that the claimed interaction went beyond a simple mapping between input and function, and instead involved several aspects of technical implementation. In particular, the same physical input mechanism was used both for unlocking the device and for activating payment; the fingerprint sensor served not only for authentication but also in determining which function to trigger; and the system had to distinguish between different operational states (unlocking versus payment mode) based on both timing and biometric input.

In this context, the Board stated:

“…using the home button on the iPhone for activating payment from the lock screen was not without technical difficulty, as the same button and fingerprint sensor were already used for unlocking the device. Those are technical considerations for a technically skilled person…” (R. 13)

The Board therefore concluded that the claimed features involved technical considerations relating to the implementation of the user interface, and could not be reduced to mere user requirements.

5. Assessment of Inventive Step

Having established that the distinguishing features contribute to the technical character of the invention, the Board proceeded to assess inventive step.

The objective technical problem was understood as how to simplify contactless payment while using fingerprint authentication. The applicant also argued that the invention improved security; however, the Board considered that any such improvement was at most a “bonus effect”, since the underlying security was already provided by the known locking mechanism.

With regard to obviousness, the Board found no teaching in the prior art suggesting the specific combination of a double press input with fingerprint verification to enable payment directly from the locked state.

Furthermore, the Board noted that, in the closest prior art, the home button already performed multiple functions. In such circumstances, the skilled person would not have been prompted to assign yet another function to the same input mechanism. The Board also observed that alternative interaction mechanisms were available—for example, accessing functions from the lock screen by gesture (such as opening the camera by swiping). Accordingly, even if the skilled person had sought to simplify payment, they would not necessarily have adopted the specific interaction claimed.

The Board thus concluded that the claimed solution was not obvious and involved an inventive step.

6. Relationship with Existing Case Law

The decision further refines the application of the COMVIK approach in the context of graphical user interfaces.

While T 641/00 establishes that non-technical features do not contribute to inventive step, the present case illustrates that user interactions may nonetheless be technical where they involve considerations of system implementation.

The Board also drew an analogy with T 1188/04, in which a user-driven objective (simplifying interaction) led to a specific interaction technique that was considered to involve technical considerations.

7. Takeaways

This decision highlights that, in the context of user interface inventions, the notion of “user requirements” should not be applied too broadly. The decisive question is not whether a feature reflects a user preference, but whether its implementation involves technical considerations.

Where an interaction design requires coordination between hardware inputs, sensor functionality, and system states, it may well contribute to the technical character of the invention and support an inventive step.

In this sense, the case illustrates that improvements in human–machine interaction, even where they appear incremental or intuitive, may still be patentable if they are grounded in technical implementation.