T 2124/08 24-01-2012

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Main request: inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973)

2.1 It is not disputed that Dl may be considered as reflecting the closest prior art with respect to the subject-matter of claim 1.

2.2 D1 discloses a computer-implemented method for composing an electronic product such as a synthetic image (see paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0038] and figures 1, 11 and 13). The product design starts by selecting and displaying a template which contains image containers, each of a known height and width, that are designated as outer and inner frames. In order to modify the content of an image container the corresponding frame and one of several images represented by thumbnail views (39) are selected by the user. The selected image is displayed in a main display area (37) as a base image. A portion of the base image is cut out using a cropping operation and pasted into the selected frame of the template (see D1, figure 5 together with paragraphs [0053] to [0055], [0068], [0069] and [0077] to [0079]).

2.3 D1 discloses two options to revise the design of the synthetic image. The first alternative is to replace completely the content of an image container. This option involves a repetition of the process of selecting, cropping and pasting an image of a selected frame (see paragraph [0110]).

The second option is to modify the position or size of an inner frame relative to the outer frame. To allow for these modifications, "image data of the image pasted in the outer frame" and "image data of the image pasted in the inner frame" are stored in separate files (see D1, paragraph [0114]). In addition, location data representing the position of the inner frame relative to the outer frame is stored (see paragraphs [0112], [0114] and [0115]). D1 implies that repositioning of the inner frame makes it necessary to store those parts of the outer frame image which were initially covered by the inner frame. Otherwise, pixels of the outer frame that were hidden before a repositioning of the inner frame could not be made visible. However, image information outside the initially selected cropping window need not necessarily be stored for the purpose of repositioning and resizing the same content. Cropping of the base image for the inner frame can therefore be characterised as a lossy operation in the sense that, after the cropped portion is pasted into the inner frame, the cropping operation cannot be resumed using the base image together with the current settings of the cropping window.

2.4 Hence, D1 discloses a method in accordance with the pre-characterising portion of claim 1. This was not contested. But D1 does not disclose the feature of the characterising portion of claim 1.

2.5 The board concurs with the appellant that the associated technical problem may be seen as being how to improve the user-friendliness of the above method known from D1.

2.6 D2 also concerns a computer-implemented method for user customisation of image content in the design of electronic products such as image prints (column 7, line 48 to column 8, line 31). Images are uploaded from a client computer to a server, where they are stored in a database together with attributes indicating how the images are to be processed and embodied in the electronic product. Image attributes may relate to "cropping information such as the boundary, shape and orientation of the selected portion of the image" (see column 21, lines 7 to 13). New attributes are stored on the server every time a modification of the image is carried out on the client computer. These attributes together with the stored image can be used to generate a preview image indicating what the final product will look like "even if the user accesses the ... image after a substantial time period has passed", and to "resume whatever editing operations the user was performing when the user last accessed the image" (D2, column 20, line 37 to column 21, line 5). Because a history of the modification process is stored, changes to the attributes can be undone (D2, column 6, lines 29 to 45 and column 20, lines 36 to 63).

2.7 Consequently, cropping operations according to D2 only affect the corresponding attributes on the server but do not change the content of the base image that is stored on the server. This approach increases the flexibility and user-friendliness of the image processing software, which is, for example, illustrated by the fact that all modifications of image attributes can be undone and that "the user can resume manipulating the product attributes associated with the image starting from the point where the user was when the user last accessed the image" (see D2, column 6, lines 24 to 29 and column 21, lines 3 to 5).

2.8 A skilled person, starting from D1 and trying to improve user-friendliness, would have considered adopting the storage concept of D2 in view of the advantage that image manipulation can then be resumed at any time as in D2. This did not require major changes since D1 already discloses separate storage of image attributes, namely of the inner and outer frame image and location data. Whereas the storage concept of D1 only allows for repositioning and resizing of the inner frame with respect to the outer frame after completion of the initial design process (see D1, paragraph [0115]), D2 extends this concept and provides for an unlimited resumption of the design process at any time.

2.9 The arguments of the appellant did not convince the board. Details of a cropping operation are disclosed in D2, figures 9a and 9b and column 13, line 26 to column 15, line 16. According to this disclosure the image is always displayed as a base image together with a cropping indicator ("crop mask" in D2), which is superimposed on the base image and which indicates the portion of the base image "that will be visible in an image-based product" (D2, column 13, line 32). There is no indication in D2 that a cropping (or recropping) operation could start from a different image than the base image if the user intends to modify the cropping. But D2 consistently describes the image editing process as a repetitive process which can be resumed at any time "starting from the point where the user was when the user last accessed the image" (see D2, column 6, lines 23 to 28; column 20, line 66 to column 21, line 5). The board thus considers that a skilled person would understand this disclosure of D2 as an indication that it enables an "undo" functionality in that, if a user is not satisfied with the retrieved preview image, a recropping operation starting from a previous image can be carried out in the same way as described for a cropping operation.

2.10 The board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 at the priority date was obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to the state of the art in D1 and D2 and thus lacks inventive step.

3. First auxiliary request: inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973)

The additional features of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request (see point VII above) are disclosed in D1 (see paragraphs [0013], [0083] and [0099]). They do not change the board's judgment on inventive step when these features are combined with those of claim 1 of the main request. The appellant acknowledged that these features did not change the arguments for inventive step (see point X above). The board thus considers that also the subject-matter of claim 1 of the auxiliary request lacks inventive step.Second auxiliary request: inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973)Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponds to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request and defines in addition that:the cropping indicator is superimposed upon the base image,the user is allowed to modify the position of the cropping indicator with respect to the base image,upon completion of a cropping indicator modification, the image content of the image container is updated to reflect the portion of the base image indicated by the modified cropping indicator.The superimposed cropping indicator of feature (a) is a common feature and, for example, disclosed in D1 (figure 5: 84). Similarly, a modification of the cropping window position is common practice for cropping operations (see D1, paragraphs [0081], [0099] and D2, column 14, lines 16 to 21). Finally, D1 (paragraph [0061]) also shows that the content of the selected image container is updated upon completion of a cropping indicator modification. In D1 the image content is updated by operating the paste button thereby indicating completion of the cropping indicator modification.The additional features relating to details of the cropping operation are therefore known from D1 and D2 in the context of an initial image editing process. As set out above (see point 3.2), D2 teaches that image editing may resume at any time. Hence, the specification of these features in the context of an image modification does not justify an inventive step.The appellant argued that feature (c) should be understood in the sense of paragraph [0028] of the application. According to this passage, upon releasing the crop box, the image content of the image area was instantaneously updated to reflect the change in the content of the crop box. In contrast, according to D1, the selection of the paste button (56) was necessary as a further step. The board is not convinced by this argument. "[C]ompletion of a cropping indicator modification" as specified in claim 1 and releasing the crop box (in the context of conventional click-and-drag techniques, as in paragraph [0028]) are not identical operations. Activating the paste button completes the cropping indicator modification and is therefore one way to implement feature (c). Hence, also feature (c) is disclosed in D1.The board concludes that also the subject-matter of claim 1 of the second auxiliary request lacks inventive step in view of documents D1 and D2.Referral to the Enlarged Board of AppealIn the communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the board, pointing out that some of the features of the claimed inventions might not contribute to the solution of a technical problem, drew attention to the principles concerning non-technical subject-matter outlined in decision T 641/00. However, since the state of the art, as evidenced by D1 and D2, discloses technical and non-technical considerations in very similar circumstances, the issue of which distinguishing features contribute to the technical solution of the problem did not arise in the oral proceedings and is not relevant for the board's decision. Hence, the appellant's conditional request that questions be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal need not be given any further consideration.