Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • Professional hub
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by area by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t070486eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0486/07 (Processing intersymbol interference with RSSE/LUCENT) 26-11-2010
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 0486/07 (Processing intersymbol interference with RSSE/LUCENT) 26-11-2010

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T048607.20101126
Date of decision
26 November 2010
Case number
T 0486/07
Petition for review of
-
Application number
00304366.8
IPC class
H04L 25/03
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 79.71 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Method and apparatus for reducing the computational complexity and relaxing the critical path of reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) techniques

Applicant name
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.05
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 84
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(3)
European Patent Convention Art 106 1973
European Patent Convention Art 107 1973
European Patent Convention Art 108 1973
Keywords

Support by the description (no) - main and first auxiliary request

Clarity (no) - second auxiliary request

Clarity and inventive step (no) - third auxiliary request

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
J 0010/07
T 1129/97
Citing decisions
-

I. This appeal is against the decision of the examining division, dispatched 19 October 2006, refusing European patent application No. 00304366.8 because of lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC 1973) and lack of novelty (Articles 52(1) EPC and 54(2) EPC 1973) having regard to the disclosure of

D1: LEE W U ET AL: "A MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD SEQUENCE ESTIMATOR WITH DECISION-FEEDBACK EQUALIZATION", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, IEEE INC. NEW YORK, US, vol. 25, no. 9, 1 September 1977 (1977-09-01), pages 971-979, ISSN: 0090-6778, or

D2: CHEVILLAT P R ET AL: "DECODING OF TRELLIS-ENCODED SIGNALS IN THE PRESENCE OF INTERSYMBOL INTERFERENCE AND NOISE", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, IEEE INC. NEW YORK, US, vol. 37, no. 7, 1 July 1989 (1989-07-01), pages 669-676, ISSN: 0090-6778, or

D7: EYUBOGLU M V; QURESHI S U H: "REDUCED-STATE SEQUENCE ESTIMATION FOR CODED MODULATION ON INTERSYMBOL INTERFERENCE CHANNELS" IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, vol. 7, no. 6, August 1989 (1989-08), pages 989-995,

and because of lack of inventive step (Articles 52(1) EPC and 56 EPC 1973) having regard to a combination of D1 with D2 or with D7.

II. The notice of appeal was received on 14 December 2006. The appeal fee was paid on the same day. The statement setting out the grounds of appeal was received on 23 February 2007. The appellant requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the documents on which the appealed decision was based, namely claims 1 to 7 filed by fax on 28 September 2005 and claims 8 and 9 filed with letter of 8 October 2004. Oral proceedings were requested on an auxiliary basis.

III. A summons to oral proceedings to be held on 11 November 2010 was issued on 25 August 2010. In an annex accompanying the summons the board expressed the preliminary opinion that the subject-matter of the independent claims did not fulfil the requirements of Articles 52(1), 54(2), 56 and 84 EPC. The board gave its reasons for the objections and stated that the appellant's arguments were not convincing.

IV. In response to the appellant's submissions dated 3 September 2010 the board agreed to postpone the date of the oral proceedings to 26 November 2010.

V. With a letter dated 25 October 2010 the appellant submitted four sets of claims according to a main request and first to third auxiliary requests together with arguments that these claims fulfilled the requirements of Article 84 EPC, were novel and met the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

VI. Independent claim 1 according to the main request reads as follows:

"1. A method for processing a signal received from a dispersive channel, said channel being modeled as a filter having L taps, said method comprising the steps of:

processing intersymbol interference due to more significant taps with a reduced state sequence estimation technique; and

processing intersymbol interference due to less significant taps with a cancellation algorithm using tentative decisions, wherein said cancellation algorithm is of lower complexity than said reduced-state sequence estimation technique."

Independent claim 1 according to the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request by the following additional feature:

"and wherein said processing intersymbol interference due to less significant taps step is performed prior to said processing intersymbol interference due to more significant taps."

Independent claim 1 according to the second auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the first auxiliary request by the following additional feature for the first processing step:

"wherein said reduced state sequence estimation technique cancels an ISI contribution from taps 1 to U"

and by the following additional feature for the second processing step:

"and cancels an ISI contribution from taps U+1 to L,".

Independent claim 1 according to the third auxiliary request reads as follows:

"1. A method for processing a signal received from a dispersive channel, said channel being modeled as a filter having L taps, said method comprising the steps of:

processing intersymbol interference due to more significant taps with a reduced state sequence estimation technique, wherein said reduced state sequence estimation technique cancels an ISI contribution from taps 1 to U based on a trellis and a decision feedback unit, wherein said trellis accounts for an ISI contribution from taps 1 to K and wherein said decision feedback unit cancels an ISI contribution from taps K+1 to U; and

processing intersymbol interference due to less significant taps with a cancellation algorithm using tentative decisions, wherein said cancellation algorithm is of lower complexity than said reduced-state sequence estimation technique and cancels an ISI

contribution from taps U+1 to L, and wherein said processing intersymbol interference due to less significant taps step is performed prior to said processing intersymbol interference due to more significant taps."

Independent claims 5 of all requests are directed to a corresponding receiver.

VII. By facsimile received on 25 November 2010 the appellant informed the board that it would not be represented at the oral proceedings.

VIII. The appellant requested in writing that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request, or, subsidiarily, on the basis of any of the first, second or third auxiliary requests as filed with letter dated 25 October 2010.

IX. Oral proceedings were held on 26 November 2010 in the absence of the appellant. After due deliberation on the basis of the written submissions in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the letter of 25 October 2010 and the requests, the board announced its decision.

1. Admissibility

The appeal complies with the provisions of Articles 106 to 108 EPC 1973, which are applicable according to J 0010/07, point 1 (see Facts and Submissions, point II above). Therefore the appeal is admissible.

2. Non-attendance at oral proceedings

In its letter of 25 November 2010 the appellant announced that it would not be represented at the oral proceedings. The board considered it expedient to maintain the date set for oral proceedings. Nobody attended the hearing on behalf of the appellant.

Article 15(3) RPBA stipulates that the board shall not be obliged to delay any step in the proceedings, including its decision, by reason only of the absence at the oral proceedings of any party duly summoned who may then be treated as relying only on its written case.

Thus, the board was in a position to take a decision at the end of the hearing.

Main request

3. Article 84 EPC

3.1 Independent method claim 1 specifies a sequence of steps which is not supported by the description. Claim 1 leaves open whether the step of using reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) takes place before the step of using an algorithm of lower complexity (e.g. decision feedback equalizer DFE). This is in contrast to original claim 1 and to column 3, lines 5 to 8, ("The DFE technique initially removes the intersymbol interference associated with the tail taps, then the RSSE technique is applied only to the more important tail taps" - emphasis added) and column 4, line 41 ("Thereafter") or line 44 ("initially") of the application as published. Claim 1 is therefore not supported by the description in this regard.

3.2 In addition, the expression "lower complexity" was objected to in the appealed decision. The appellant argued that the complexity of an algorithm according to claim 1 was based on the number of taps. However, as is apparent from the examining division's argument that the complexity can depend on the number of computations required to carry out the algorithm, the board is not convinced by the appellant's argument that the skilled person would recognise that the claimed invention is directed to the number of taps as the criterion for complexity. In the light of the fact that the application explicitly refers to the hardware complexity (see the last sentence of paragraph [0016] of the published application), it is conceivable that the complexity depends on the space for a hardware implementation on a chip and it is at least unclear according to which criterion it is to be decided whether the complexity is "lower", rendering the wording of claim 1 unclear. The appellant's arguments submitted with letter dated 25 October 2010 (see page 2, last paragraph onwards), based on the assumption of a decision feedback unit DFU with parallel decision feedback cells DFC, are not convincing, because the wording of a claim has to be clear in itself without there being a need for the skilled person to refer to the description (see e.g. T 1129/97, OJ EPO 2001, 273). Claim 1, however, in contrast to the specific embodiment of the description referred to by the appellant, does not specify a decision feedback unit DFU with parallel decision feedback cells DFC and therefore does not allow the skilled person to infer according to which criterion it is to be decided whether the complexity is "lower".

Claim 1 therefore does not to fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

First auxiliary request

4. Article 84 EPC

4.1 In the appealed decision, independent claim 1 was objected to because the expressions "more significant taps" and "less significant taps" were considered to be unclear. The board agrees that there is no established meaning of these expressions in the art.

4.2 According to the appellant's argumentation, an interpretation of the expressions objected to in the light of the description could be based either on the tap value or the tap position. With regard to an interpretation directed to the tap value, the appellant referred to the following passage of the description:

"the initial taps provide the largest contribution to the signal energy of the channel output, and the corresponding power decreases to zero as the taps approach infinity" (see paragraph [0012] of the application as published). However, for referring to a tap value, as argued by the appellant, it remains unclear what exactly is such a "largest" contribution (e.g. 60% or 80% etc.). The disclosure is silent in this regard, leaving the skilled reader in doubt as to how to distinguish between more significant and less significant taps.

4.3 Regarding an interpretation directed to the tap position, the description discloses that

"the less significant tail taps (U+1 through L) are processed with a lower complexity cancellation algorithm, such as a decision-feedback equalizer (DFE) technique, that cancels the tail taps using tentative decisions. Thereafter, only the more significant initial taps (1 through U) are processed with a reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) technique." (see paragraph [0008] of the application as published).

4.4 The application fails to give any embodiment for a concrete value of U. According to e.g. column 3, line 15, "a well-chosen value of U" is required. According to the last sentence of paragraph [0016] of the published application, the "design parameter U" is a crucial feature for solving the problem of the invention, which, however, is not specified in claim 1. While the board agrees with the appellant's argument that the "predefined percentage of the overall signal energy" is a design choice (see page 2, second paragraph of the letter dated 25 October 2010), claim 1 neither makes reference to the "overall signal energy" nor gives any information regarding the position U being the criterion on which a distinction between more significant taps and less significant taps is to be made.

Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 is considered to be an undue generalisation of the "overall signal energy". Claim 1 is therefore not supported by the description in the whole range claimed.

Claim 1 therefore does not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

4.5 The expression "lower complexity" is still part of claim 1 and the afore-mentioned problem of lack of clarity therefore persists.

Claim 1 therefore does not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC, for the reasons set out in point 3.2.

Second auxiliary request

5. Article 84 EPC

The expression "lower complexity" is still part of claim 1 and the problem of lack of clarity as presented above therefore persists.

Claim 1 therefore does not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC, for the reasons set out in point 3.2.

Third auxiliary request

6. Article 123(2) EPC

The board has doubts that the application provides for a direct and unambiguous disclosure of the parameter K introduced with the added features of this request, in particular with regard to the relation between the parameters U and K. Paragraph [0015] of the published application refers to an Index "k" for the channel taps fk, followed by a relation K<=U<=L for "K" (i.e. capital K). In the next paragraph it is disclosed that K can be the number of taps that are accounted for in the combined code and channel state inside the RSSE circuitry 500. The exact relation between K and U according to the added feature of claim 1 of this request is, however, ambiguous.

7. Article 84 EPC

The expression "lower complexity" is equally part of claim 1. For the reasons given above (see point 3.2), claim 1 does not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

8. Inventive step - Article 56 EPC

Even if the requirements under Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC were fulfilled, the subject-matter of claim 1 of this request at least would not involve an inventive step.

8.1 D1, which is considered to be the closest prior art document, discloses a decision feedback equalizer DFE as a prefilter to a Viterbi Decoder VA, in which the DFE has been embedded to truncate the channel impulse response through feedback subtraction (see figure 2, section II of D1), which is suitable for processing a signal received from a dispersive channel (see e.g. page 971, right-hand column, second paragraph) and which is modelled as a filter having taps (see in particular equations 2 and 3). In the board's view figure 2 of D1 can be compared to figures 2 and 4 of the published application with the exception that figure 2 of D1 shows a Viterbi algorithm VA in contrast to element 500 in figure 2 of the application showing the reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) circuitry.

8.2 In the decision under appeal it was argued that the feature of a reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) algorithm of claim 1 could be interpreted in a broad manner. The examining division argued that from the disclosure "the first V out of the total number of v of intersymbol interference terms are to be operated on by the VA ..., resulting in an M**(v)-state receiver" (see the text following equation 2 of D1) it followed that a reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) was used, since V was smaller than v and the number of trellis states was reduced from M**(v) to M**(v). D1 further disclosed that the remaining intersymbol interference should be equalised with DFE making a tentative decision (which corresponds to the embodiment given in paragraphs [0008] and [0013] of the description of the published application).

8.3 The board agrees with the examining division that the formulation of the feature "a reduced state sequence estimation technique" of claim 1 can be interpreted in a broad manner, since the application does not give a concrete definition of what exactly is to be understood by this expression according to the claimed invention, hence not limiting the scope of this feature. Therefore any technique which cancels intersymbol interference (ISI) contribution taps and which can be regarded as RSSE falls under the scope of claim 1. In principle, the reduced-state sequence estimation is a detection algorithm that provides a direct trade-off between complexity and performance in the presence of intersymbol interference channels by reusing determined data in order to reduce the hardware size (as also disclosed in D1, e.g. page 973, left-hand column, last sentence of second paragraph, or section IV). It employs the basic idea of set partitioning for obtaining reduced state trellises (see for example paragraphs [0005] and [0006] of the published application).

8.4 In the passage "the first V out of the total number of v of intersymbol interference terms are to be operated on by the VA ..., resulting in an M**(v)-state receiver" (see page 972, right-hand column, last paragraph), D1 explicitly discloses that this is done with the "first" intersymbol interference (ISI) terms. According to claim 1 the more significant taps are usually the intial taps or taps 1 to U. By operating with a Viterbi algorithm on the first V of the ISI terms, D1 discloses processing the more significant taps with the reduced state decoder. The "rest" of the ISI terms are equalised by a DFE as a prefilter (see figure 2 of D1), which terms can apparently therefore be regarded as the less significant taps being processed prior to the ISI due to the more significant taps according to claim 1.

8.5 Since DFE is used for equalisation, the board does not agree with the appellant's argument that D1 used the DFE only to reduce the number of states and taught away from the use of DFE to reduce the number of taps (see the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal). The subject-matter of claim 1 requires that all L taps are processed either with RSSE or with a cancellation algorithm using tentative decisions such as DFE.

8.6 According to the description of the application as referred to above, under certain circumstances (here DFSE being a specialisation of RSSE for U=K becomes a pure Viterbi decoder) RSSE can result in using a Viterbi algorithm for processing intersymbol interference. The appellant argued that the claims did not cover the case of a DFSE with U=K (see the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, page 3, paragraphs 4 and 5). In particular, the statement "The limitations in the cited claim … do not contradict the statements in the specification that … the present invention includes the case U equal to K" is not clear to the board. Because of the appellant's absence during oral proceedings, this issue could not be clarified. The board still has doubts that this is correct, because the corresponding feature of claim 1 does not exclude the embodiment with U=K as described in the application.

8.7 Even if one assumed that the special case with U=K as disclosed in the present application was not comprised by the subject-matter of claim 1, and one interpreted the feature of a reduced state sequence estimation (RSSE) algorithm in a narrow manner (having a particular meaning as argued by the examining division), it has to be considered that D1 already suggests the idea of reducing the number of intersymbol interference (ISI) terms to be operated on by the Viterbi algorithm (see page 972, equation (2) and subsequent text). D1 explicitly suggests to "simplify the VA itself" (see page 972, left-hand column, fourth paragraph).

The skilled reader of D1 is therefore motivated to take other reduced state techniques into consideration in order to find a solution for the problem of reducing hardware complexity and optimising the critical path of the Viterbi algorithm used in D1, which is considered to be the objective problem underlying the only difference between the subject-matter of claim 1 and the teaching of D1, i.e. the concrete type of algorithm used for reducing the number of trellis states.

8.8 As described in the introductory portion of the present application, RSSE was a technique which was well known before the priority date of the present application. As an example, see the publication D2 which discloses a reduced-state decoding technique similar to the embodiment using DFSE described in paragraph [0024] of the present application (see D2, page 671, left-hand column onwards, in particular the disclosure dealing with the case K

8.9 This is in contrast to the appellant's argument that D2 computed all of the ISI terms using an RSSE technique (see page 4, paragraph 4 of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal), which therefore does not convince. The board interprets D2 to the effect that the ISI terms 0 to K can be considered to correspond to the more significant taps, whereas the remaining K to L ISI terms correspond to the less significant taps. Hence, D2 discloses a reduced-state decoding technique similar to the DFSE of the embodiment described in paragraph [0024] of the present application (see D2, page 671, left-hand column onwards) and further implies the use of DFE for processing ISI terms. D1 discloses placing a DFE in front of the Viterbi decoder. As argued above, the board does not agree with the appellant's argument that D1 used the DFE only to reduce the number of states and taught away from the use of DFE to reduce the number of taps. The subject-matter of claim 1 requires that taps 1 to U are processed with a reduced-state sequence estimation algorithm RSSE and taps U+1 to L are processed with a cancellation algorithm using tentative decisions such as DFE. The board therefore judges that the skilled person would take a combination of the teaching of D1 with that of D2 into consideration without the use of inventive skills, thereby arriving at a solution of the objective problem by using the RSSE technique DFSE instead of the Viterbi decoder disclosed in D1.

8.10 As far as the appellant's argument on page 4, paragraph 4 of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal and on page 8, paragraph 3 of the letter dated 25 October 2010 regarding the allegedly surprising results of the claimed invention is concerned, the board notes that even if the publications mentioned by the appellant contained such a statement, this is merely a secondary consideration showing the subjective opinion of the authors, but not an objective reasoning that an inventive activity was involved. It has to be considered that the author of the publications referred to by the appellant is one of the inventors of the present application. The statements in the cited publications therefore only show that the inventor has overcome his own prejudice which is not considered to be an indication of the existence of an inventive step. In particular, no indication is given that there had been an objective long-felt need for a solution or an objective technical prejudice in the art which could indicate that technical hurdles had to be overcome. This argument of the appellant is therefore not convincing.

Therefore the board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 is obvious in the light of a combination of the teachings of publications D1 and D2.

9. Thus, none of the four requests is allowable.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility