Key points
“3.2 Double patenting - G4/19 : Claim 1 of the present divisional application differs from claim 1 [of the parent application which was discussed in T 871/14] in that a randomizing program performs the selection instead of only providing the randomized selection as an option in the user interface as claimed in the parent application. The present application therefore does not claim the same subject-matter as the parent application and the criteria for double patenting set out in G 4/19 (cf. headnote) are not fulfilled.”T 0943/17 -
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170943eu1.html
3.2 Double patenting - G4/19
Claim 1 of the present divisional application differs from claim 1 discussed in T 871/14 in that a randomizing program performs the selection instead of only providing the randomized selection as an option in the user interface as claimed in the parent application. The present application therefore does not claim the same subject-matter as the parent application and the criteria for double patenting set out in G 4/19 (cf. headnote) are not fulfilled.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/09/t-094317-double-patenting.html
