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
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Find a professional representative
    • 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
      • Guidelines
      • 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
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • 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
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • About the Observatory
      • Our activities
      • Our topics
      • Our partners and networks
      • Digital library
      • Data desk
    • 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
          • 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 web service
      • 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
      • 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
    • Find a professional representative
  • 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
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • 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
      • 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
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • 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
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • 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
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • 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
        • 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
      • 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
        • Culture Space A&T 5-10
          • Go back
          • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
            • Go back
            • aqua_forensic
            • LIMINAL
            • MaterialLab
            • Perfect Sleep
            • Proof of Work
            • TerraPort
            • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
            • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • The European Patent Journey
          • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
          • Next generation statements
          • Open storage
          • Cosmic bar
        • Lange Nacht 2023
    • 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
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the Observatory
      • Our activities
      • Our topics
      • Our partners and networks
      • Digital library
      • Data desk
  • 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
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t100674eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0674/10 (Generation of media program/MEDIC INTERACTIVE) 22-06-2015
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0674/10 (Generation of media program/MEDIC INTERACTIVE) 22-06-2015

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T067410.20150622
Date of decision
22 June 2015
Case number
T 0674/10
Petition for review of
-
Application number
98914394.6
IPC class
G06F 17/30
G11B 27/031
G11B 27/34
G11B 27/36
G11B 27/10
G06F 19/00
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 435.54 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

System for automated generation of media programs from a database of media elements

Applicant name
Medic Interactive, Inc.
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.07
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 111(1)
Keywords

Inventive step - main request (no)

Inventive step - auxiliary requests (no)

Inventive step - mere automation

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0258/03
T 0845/05
T 1928/06
Citing decisions
-

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the Examining Division to refuse European patent application No. 98914394.6, which originated from international application PCT/US98/06420 published as WO 98/44717, for non-compliance of the main request with the requirements of Article 84 EPC, and of the auxiliary request with those of Article 123(2) EPC.

The application concerns the creation of an audio-visual media program from a plurality of media elements.

In the decision, as "Additional Remarks", the Examining Division gave its reasoned opinion that claim 1 of the main request did not involve an inventive step over the disclosure of either document D2 or document D4:

D2: US-A-5 353 391, published on 4 October 1994;

D4: WO 96/19779, published on 27 June 1996.

II. In the notice of appeal the appellant requested that (i) the impugned decision be set aside and a patent be granted on the basis of the main request on file or, if applicable, on the basis of amendments to be filed later, and, as auxiliary requests, that (ii) the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution, and (iii) oral proceedings be held.

III. In the statement of grounds of appeal the appellant requested that the decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request considered in the appealed decision and re-submitted with the grounds of appeal, or on the basis of one of the four auxiliary requests filed with the grounds of appeal.

The appellant presented extensive arguments on clarity as well as on inventive step, and submitted documents D5 and D6 to support its contention that the term "template" was clear:

D5: "Cooperative Computer-Aided Authoring and Learning - A Systems Approach", Mühlhäuser, Max (ed.), pages 293 and 309, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995;

D6: excerpts from "Office 97 Tutorial: Getting Results Book", 16 January 1997, retrieved online.

IV. In a communication accompanying a summons to oral proceedings, the Board expressed the view that none of the requests satisfied the requirements of Article 84 EPC. The Board, making use of its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC, also included a preliminary opinion on the issue of inventive step of the claimed invention. The Board justified this option with the advanced age of the application and the fact that the Examining Division had also treated inventive step in the proceedings and in an obiter dictum in the decision.

In the preliminary opinion of the Board, none of the independent claims of the requests defined inventive subject-matter. The claimed method was defined in terms of steps usually followed by a human editor to create a media program using a system for creating an audio-visual media program, for example the authoring tool of document D4, or the video editing system of document D2. The claimed method corresponded to a mere automation of steps of a well-known process which, especially since the claim did not define specific technical features of the implementation of the automatic steps, was obvious.

The Board also informed the appellant that, with respect to Article 83 EPC, the question might have to be discussed of whether the application sufficiently disclosed a manner of implementing some of the features of the invention related to templates.

V. With a letter of reply the appellant stated that in accordance with request (i) filed with the notice of appeal it maintained the sets of claims according to the main request and the first and second auxiliary requests filed with the grounds of appeal, and filed amended third and fourth auxiliary requests.

VI. With a letter sent in advance of the oral proceedings, the appellant withdrew the request for oral proceedings and informed the Board that it would not attend.

VII. Oral proceedings were held on 22 June 2015 in the absence of the appellant. At the end the chairman pronounced the Board's decision.

VIII. The appellant's final request was that the contested decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of the main request or, alternatively, on the basis of the claims of one of the first or second auxiliary requests submitted with the grounds of appeal, or of the third or fourth auxiliary requests submitted in advance of the oral proceedings in appeal. As an auxiliary procedural request submitted with the notice of appeal, which has not been withdrawn, the appellant requested the remittal of the application to the Examining Division for further prosecution.

IX. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"A method of creating media programming, comprising the steps of:

maintaining a database (100) containing selected information about each of a plurality of media elements;

automatically selecting a plurality of said media elements in response to a request for media programming, and automatically selecting a temporal organization for said selected media elements by using a template that imposes sequential requirements on the elements, said temporal organization not being dictated by said selected information; and

assembling said media elements into media programming."

X. Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request reads as follows:

"A method of creating media programming, comprising the steps of:

maintaining a database (100) containing selected information about each of a plurality of media elements;

selecting a plurality of said media elements in response to a request for media programming, and selecting a temporal organization for said selected media elements according to data in the request and according to information regarding the media elements, wherein said temporal organization is not dictated by said selected information; and

assembling said media elements into media programming;

characterized in that

the steps of selecting the plurality of media elements and of selecting the temporal organization are performed automatically by an editor program."

XI. Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the first auxiliary request in that "media elements" has been replaced by "audiovisual clips" and in that the characterising part of the claim reads as follows:

"characterized by

the additional step of maintaining a template layer containing temporal organizational templates in which preferred temporal modes of presentation of the audiovisual clips are defined; wherein

the steps of selecting the plurality of audiovisual clips and of selecting the temporal organization are performed automatically by using an editor program which selects at least one template which imposes sequential requirements on the audiovisual clips."

XII. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the second auxiliary request in that the characterising part reads as follows:

"characterized by

the additional step of maintaining a template layer containing temporal organizational templates in which preferred temporal modes of presentation of the audiovisual clips are defined; wherein

a user defines demographic characteristics of the intended recipient and an information to be conveyed and the steps of selecting the plurality of audiovisual clips and of selecting the temporal organization are performed automatically by using an editor program which selects at least one of the templates which incorporates the demographic characteristics and information to be conveyed."

XIII. Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the first auxiliary request in that in the preamble the text "wherein said temporal organization is not" was replaced by "said temporal organization not being" and in that the characterising part reads as follows:

"characterized in that

said selected information further comprises a plurality of tags associated with each of said media elements, at least one of said tags being a content tag (120) containing information relating to content of said media element, and at least one of said tags being a control tag (115) containing information other than content information;

the method further comprises the additional step of maintaining a template layer containing temporal organizational templates in which preferred modes of presentation of the elements are defined; and

the steps of selecting the plurality of media elements and of selecting the temporal organization are performed automatically by an editor program which selects at least one of the templates which imposes sequential requirements on the elements;

and wherein said step of selecting further comprises selecting two elements based on said request, selecting a temporal order for said two elements, and determining based on information in said control tags (115) whether said two elements may be assembled in the selected temporal order, and, if not, deselecting at least one of said two elements."

XIV. The reasons given in the decision under appeal can be summarised as follows:

The features "template", "impose sequential requirements on the elements" and "said temporal organisation not being dictated by said selected information" were unclear. The claim did not define which technical features corresponded to the template. Furthermore, these features were in contradiction with the dependent claims and the description.

As "Additional Remarks" the Examining Division explained that "template" could be interpreted in a manner encompassed by the disclosures of D2 and D4. Claim 1 appeared to differ from the prior art in minor details concerning the automation of the method steps, which was not inventive.

XV. The appellant's arguments, insofar as relevant for the present decision, may be summarised as follows:

The term "template" was clear because it was well known to the skilled person at the filing date of the present application. As explained in document D5, which was a standard textbook, a template was an "empty form that can be filled with certain content". In 1997, prior to the date of filing of the application, Microsoft products supported templates, as could be seen from D6.

The feature "said temporal organization not being dictated by said selected information" had a clear technical meaning, which was that the temporal organization of the media elements was not determined by the selected information, or that the system did not use the selected information for ordering the media elements. Rather, the temporal organisation was obtained from the template.

Regarding inventive step, none of the prior art documents disclosed either the automatic selection of media elements or the automatic selection of a temporal organisation of elements. Document D2 disclosed transition templates which could be used for modifying temporal aspects of the transition, but which were selected by a human editor and did not relate to the temporal organisation of the video clips. Document D4 did not disclose templates. In view of the disclosure of D4, the invention solved the technical problem of improving efficiency in customising media programming for specific purposes and users. Since the authoring process of document D4 relied on the aesthetic judgement of a human editor, and on the use of a graphical user interface (GUI) and icons for the video editing, automation of the editing process of document D4 was not obvious.

1. The appeal complies with the provisions referred to in Rule 101 EPC and is therefore admissible.

The invention

2. The invention is directed to the creation of an audio-visual media program from a plurality of media elements, such as video clips and audio elements, stored in a library. A database contains "selected information" about each of the plurality of media elements comprising content and other information. In response to a request for media programming, the system of the invention selects, according to the data in the request, a plurality of media elements and a temporal organisation of those media elements, and assembles them into a media program, named "media programming" in the claim (see page 2, lines 14 to 24 and page 28, claims 1 to 6, of the international publication of the application).

3. The database contains information that allows customisation of the resulting assembled media program. Such customised audio-visual programming can be used in advertising certain products, for example to create promotional videotapes for potential customers, or for instructional purposes, for instance in health care, to provide instructional videos to patients with information regarding managing of various diseases and conditions. The customisation based on demographic characteristics of the individual, such as age, income, educational level, psychographic characteristics and other factors, is considered valuable for "increasing the effectiveness" of the videos "in communicating the information to the recipient" (page 1, lines 7 to 20).

4. The database is described on page 4, line 14 to page 9, line 12 and in Figures 2 and 3. It is organised in hierarchical layers (see Figure 3 and page 5, line 11, to page 7). At the highest level are the stylistic approach and the interface layer. In the next layer, the program layer, the "types of assets" (e.g. training, informational, entertainment) and the core content description (e.g. medical) are defined (page 6, lines 6 to 11). The template layer contains information describing "the range of the target audience in specific demographic and psychographic terms" and "temporal organizational templates" describing the "preferred temporal modes of presentation" (page 6, line 12 to page 7, line 2). The lowest layers are the module layer and the clip layer, the latter including the individual "media elements or assets".

5. The database contains for each audio or visual clip unique identifying information and additional information arranged in a hierarchical manner (page 4, line 14 to page 5, line 10; page 7, lines 15 to 23, Figure 2). The hierarchy consists of a header at the top and individual items of information or tags. The tags in the hierarchy are divided into two general categories: content tags and control tags. The content tags identify the content of the clip, e.g. according to information communicated by the clip, profiles of potential target viewers, and intended use of the clip. Control tags define "audio and video components of clips", for instance luminance range or dominant chroma value for the opening and closing of the clip, preferred or required transitions, including length and type of transition, and start and end points for dialog and action. The application states that this information can be either introduced manually by a user or derived automatically by the system (page 8, line 13 to page 9, line 12).

Clarity - all requests

6. In the contested decision, the Examining Division found that claim 1 of the main request did not clearly define the matter for which protection was sought. In its communication, the Board was also of the preliminary opinion that some claimed features were unclear, but found it appropriate in light of Article 111(1) EPC to examine the claims with regard to inventive step in order to expedite the proceedings (see also section IV above).

The Board still has doubts whether the requests fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC, but opted to decide the case on the basis of the objections for lack of inventive step.

In the following discussion of inventive step, whenever necessary the Board explains how it interprets particular features of the claim, taking into account the appellant's submissions.

Main request - inventive step

7. Independent claim 1 defines the subject-matter in a broad and technically vague manner in terms of the steps performed to create a media program. The steps enumerated by the claim relating to maintaining a database of media elements, selecting media elements in response to a request, selecting a temporal organisation by using a template and assembling the media elements to a media program are standard steps performed by a media designer or programmer, or human editor, in the process of creating such a media program. This has been acknowledged in the description on page 1, line 21 to page 2, line 5, and is not contested by the appellant. The Board notes in this respect that these features appear in the preamble of claim 1 of each of the other requests.

The above also applies to the feature "said temporal organization is not dictated by said selected information". According to the appellant, this phrase described that the selected information was not used for ordering the media elements. The temporal organisation was obtained by the template, which could be set by an instructional designer and defined a sequence of programming content, as was described in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7. This confirms that the feature corresponds to a normal routine of the media designer, who first decides which content to show and in which sequence, expressing these design decisions for example in a script. The designer then chooses media elements according to the content and takes into account other criteria, such as allowable transitions for audio or video.

8. The steps of the claim would usually be performed by a human editor using a system for creating an audio-visual media program, for example the authoring tool for interactive multimedia application development of document D4 (title, abstract).

9. Using the system of document D4, an interactive multimedia application can be created using timelines or timeline tracks. Multimedia objects can be created from multimedia assets, and associated with properties. Placeholder objects can also be created, which correspond to assets to be created (page 11, lines 29 to page 12, line 6).

10. Document D4 also discloses storing information for each of the media assets and media objects, including categories (page 11, lines 11 to 15), identifying information, mnemonics, and starting and ending times, or duration (page 15, lines 7 to 22, page 17, line 21 to page page 18, line 12).

11. Using the graphical user interface a user may place icons representing multimedia objects, obtained from multimedia assets, on a timeline at a time corresponding to when the object should be viewed during playback, thus integrating multimedia objects to build an interactive multimedia application (document D4, page 6, line 31 to page 7, line 15, Figure 5E, page 19, line 12 to page 20, line 4). For rapid prototyping, the user can also use placeholder icons for representing multimedia objects from assets that have not yet been stored (page 7, lines 12 to 15). The system merges the timelines into an interactive decision list (IDL) (page 20, lines 5 to 14, page 22, lines 1 to 33, figures 6 and 7), which captures the editing decisions made by the user and is used for "control of playback or execution" of interactive objects (page 7, lines 16 to 20).

12. The Board agrees with the Examining Division that a timeline or script is a template or a "temporal organizational template". The Board notes that the example of a template given in the paragraph connecting pages 6 and 7 of the application is covered by such an interpretation.

The appellant argued that document D4 did not disclose a template imposing sequential requirements. With the conventional technique, the temporal organisation was input by the author. The IDL alone, without the author, was not able to provide a temporal organisation of the media elements.

The Board does not find this argument persuasive. A timeline, especially one using placeholders, constitutes what the appellant agreed to be a template, an "empty form which can be filled with certain content". The claim does not further specify what the template is, how it is implemented or created, or how the temporal organisation is automatically selected. In the claimed method the template may also have been created by a user. Furthermore, even though document D4 does not disclose choosing a timeline or substituting the placeholders by media elements automatically, the system of D4 automatically merges the timelines into an IDL (page 20, lines 5 to 14, page 22, lines 1 to 33, Figures 6 and 7).

13. The claimed method differs from that known method of creating a media program in that some steps, namely the selection of a plurality of media elements and of a temporal organisation, are performed automatically.

14. This difference corresponds to an automation of some steps of the well-known process of creating a media program. Given that the claim does not define specific technical features of the implementation of the automatic steps, the Board finds that the difference is a mere automation of the known steps.

15. In its communication, the Board was of the view that such a mere automation did not involve an inventive step.

In its reply to the Board's preliminary opinion the appellant accepted that, as a general rule, a mere automation of a known process would not be considered to involve an inventive step. However, the decisions cited in section I.D.9.18.4 of the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 7th edition, 2013, related to methods wherein functions were fulfilled automatically which previously were performed manually. In those examples, mechanical components were replaced by available automated components, which replaced the manual operation, combined with control means. On the contrary, the present invention taught an automation of an editing process, which previously required a mental activity of an editor, like the author of document D4. Comparable "automated components" were unknown for the editing process before the invention. It could not be obvious to replace the interactive ordering of document D4 by using a template that imposes sequential requirements on the media elements as claimed.

Although the appeal cases mentioned in the cited passage are different from the present case, the Board cannot follow the appellant's argument. Editing a media program using the system of document D4 also involves performing steps manually using the GUI of the system of D4. In the opinion of the Board, templates were known and used in the context of the creation of media programs, and supported in an at a least semi-automated version by many editing programs, including D4 (see point 12 above). Moreover, since mental activity is as such excluded from patentability under Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC, the mere automation of a non-technical mental activity can in specific cases additionally be seen as lacking inventive step due to the lack of technical character of the mental activity. In such a case, the inventive step could only reside in the technical details of the implementation of the automated method. As explained above, the Board finds the few technical features mentioned in the claim to be known or obvious.

These conclusions are in line with established jurisprudence. Decision T 845/05 of 10 October 2007, reasons 1.4 states that "[t]he mere wish to automate a manually performed administrative procedure, such as an application for finance, must be regarded as obvious, and clearly a computer would be used for this purpose". Even though the Board in that case refers to the procedure as being "manually performed", it is clear that the administrative process involves mental activity. Similarly, decision T 258/03 (OJ EPO 2004, 575) held that the mere automation of a method of performing an auction did not involve an inventive step (reasons 5.7) and in decision T 1928/06 of 20 October 2009 the Board found that the mere automation of a method of generating a user profile was an obvious programming task (reasons 1.1 and 1.2).

16. The appellant contended in the grounds of appeal that the technical problem solved by the invention over the method of document D4 was to improve the efficiency in customising media programming for specific purposes and users.

However, in the Board's view, none of the features of the claimed invention supports the allegation that the automatic method of the invention is able to better adapt the customisation for specific purposes and users than a human editor performing the same method. It is furthermore arguable whether such an "efficiency" in customisation for different purposes, for example of a commercial nature, is a technical effect. Interpreting efficiency improvement in the sense of faster generation of a media program with less effort by the human media editor, the Board finds that this is a well-known advantage of automation.

17. The appellant also argued that the method according to document D4, providing a graphical user interface and icons for representing the video elements, would be useless if the editing process was automated. Therefore, an automation of the editing process of selecting and ordering video elements was not obvious from document D4.

The Board on the contrary finds that the graphical user interface and icons would neither be useless in the system of D4 if the steps were performed automatically, nor contradict the other features of the method performed using an automated version of the system of document D4. The GUI and icons would support further processing by the human editor. It is common practice in computer systems to allow a user to manually adapt and change the results of automatic processing. The system of the invention also includes a GUI designed to give the human editor the possibility of changing, adding to, and previewing the edit decision list (EDL) automatically produced by the method of the invention (page 12, lines 15 to 17).

18. From the above reasoning, it follows that the subject-matter of independent claim 1 of the main request does not involve an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC).

First Auxiliary Request

19. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 differs from that of the main request in that the feature reciting the use of a template was removed. It further specifies that selecting a temporal organisation is done "according to data in the request and according to information regarding the media elements", and that the steps of selecting media elements and the temporal organisation are performed automatically by an editor program.

Inventive step

20. In a manual creation of a media program, the user also selects the temporal organisation of the media elements according to information regarding the media elements, for example according to what is shown in the media element.

It is common among systems supporting automated processes to support input parameters for tuning the desired outcome of the processes. In the process of automating the manual creation of a media program using templates, it would therefore be obvious for the skilled person to support such parameters or, in other words, to perform the method "according to data in the request".

21. The fact that the automatic steps, which are editing steps, are performed by an "editor program" is self evident in the present context. The additional feature "performed ... by an editor program" hence does not change the way the Board interprets the claimed method.

22. With regard to the first auxiliary request, the appellant submitted that the automating step was not a minor design detail since it required complex decisions by an author or editor. The invention employed an expert system. None of the documents suggested that complex editing decisions could be made automatically by an editor program without human interaction.

The Board, however, finds that it was well known at the time of priority of the present application that computer programs, for example expert systems, could take over complex tasks normally performed by humans. The claim does not recite the technical features necessary to carry out those complex tasks, beyond those discussed above and known from document D4.

23. Therefore, the additional features of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request do not confer an inventive step on the claimed invention (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC).

Second auxiliary request

24. Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request differs from that of the first auxiliary request in that it refers to "audiovisual clips" instead of "media elements" and in that the method is further defined by the additional step of maintaining a template layer containing the temporal organisational templates in which the preferred temporal modes of presentation of the audio-visual clips are defined. The claim also recites that the editor program selects at least one template which imposes sequential requirements on the audio-visual clips.

Inventive step

25. The change of the "media elements" to "audiovisual clips" does not affect the above reasoning on inventive step, which equally applies to that type of media elements.

26. Regarding the second additional feature, the use of layers in software systems was well known at the time of priority of the present application. In its letter, the appellant agreed that this was generally true, but nevertheless disputed the Board's preliminary view that it would be an obvious minor design option. It argued that the feature had to be considered in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and that the template layer was the result of the automation approach.

The Board is not persuaded by those arguments. The use of a template layer is independent of the automation, its benefits being at the programming level and being the same independently of whether the templates are chosen automatically by the program or by a user as in document D4. The Board does not discern any additional effect, beyond those well known to the skilled person, based on the combination of this feature with the other features of the claim. The appellant did not mention any concrete synergistic effect either. Consequently, the Board considers it to be an obvious minor design option.

27. As to the third additional feature relating to the selection of a template, the Board notes that in the manual design of a media program, for example using the system of document D4, the selection of a template is done by the media designer. The mere automation of the selection is not considered to involve an inventive step for the reasons given above for the higher-ranking requests.

28. The subject-matter of independent claim 1 of the second auxiliary request therefore does not involve an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC).

Third auxiliary request

29. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request further specifies that the user defines demographic characteristics of the intended recipient and information to be conveyed. The claim also recites that the editor program selects at least one template which incorporates the demographic characteristics and information to be conveyed.

Inventive step

30. The additional features of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request have the effect that the user obtains a media program which is more adequate for a specific audience and to convey a given information. In its letter, the appellant argued that claim 1 of the third auxiliary request restricted the invention to the field of media programming for applications in medicine. The prior art solutions were not dedicated to a particular application. The Board disagrees. The claimed method could be used, for instance, to obtain a promotional video for luxury cars for potential customers with high income. This example illustrates that the claim is not restricted to the field of medicine, contrary to the appellant's argument.

Independently of whether the field of application is restricted to medicine or not, the Board notes that the adaptation of a media program for a given audience and information to be conveyed does not constitute a technical effect. The conveyed information is not necessarily technical, and the adaptation for an audience involves considerations about aesthetic aspects and cognitive processes, for example which colours are more appealing to a particular demographic group.

The additional features therefore solve the problem of adapting the media program to the demographic characteristics of the intended recipient and the information to be conveyed. Templates are often used, even in a non-technical context, for storing different styles for different audiences and fields of application. It would therefore be obvious to use specific scripts, timelines or templates for different demographic characteristics and information to be conveyed in order to solve the mentioned problem. In the opinion of the Board, this is true independently of the degree of automation of the system.

31. Consequently, claim 1 of the third auxiliary request does not fulfil the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

Fourth auxiliary request

32. Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request differs from that of the first auxiliary request in that it further defines that

(a) the selected information further comprises a plurality of tags associated with each of said media elements, at least one of the tags being a content tag containing information relating to content of said media element, and at least one of the tags being a control tag containing information other than content information;

(b) a template layer is maintained containing temporal organisational templates in which preferred modes of presentation of the elements are defined;

(c) the editor program selects at least one of the templates which imposes sequential requirements on the elements;

(d) the step of selecting further comprises selecting two elements based on the request, selecting a temporal order for said two elements, and determining on the basis of information in said control tags whether said two elements may be assembled in the selected temporal order and, if not, deselecting at least one of said two elements.

Inventive step

33. The features of claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request which are common to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request do not involve an inventive step for the reasons given above for the first auxiliary request.

Additionally, claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request recites features (a) to (d) listed above.

34. The Board has discussed above, for the first and second auxiliary requests, features which are very similar to features (b) related to the template layer, and features (c) referring to the fact that the editor program selects a template which imposes sequential requirements. For the reasons given under points 20 to 22, 26 and 27 above, those features do not involve an inventive step.

35. With regard to features (a), the Board notes that in the system of document D4, objects are created from assets and have associated properties such as duration (page 11, line 11 to page 12, line 16). The media objects are stored in bins or subdirectories according to type or category (page 11, lines 13 to 15), and are individually labeled and stored in industry standard format, e.g. in the open media framework format (page 14, lines 12 to 21). The skilled person assumes from this passage that the labels or properties of an object may encompass attributes describing its content, such as a name or descriptive text. The passage on page 15, lines 7 to 22 discloses that time codes and edit points are properties associated with an object to allow its precise identification within the asset for "control and editing purposes". The passage on page 17, line 21 to page 18, line 12 mentions the storage of an icon representing the object and a multimedia mnemonic such as a preview of a clip. In the Board's view, the duration and edit points constitute control information, whereas the categories, multimedia mnemonics, and possibly the icons and labels, give information about the content.

Document D4 does not disclose how the object's properties are stored, but it was standard practice at the time of priority of the application to store meta-data using tags. Since the application does not give details about the way they are implemented, the Board assumes that the tags used in the invention correspond to standard tags as those known in the art, for example from markup languages often used to store meta-data.

36. Features (d) solve conflicts when assembling two media elements.

With respect to the question of inventive step of the subject-matter of the fourth auxiliary request, the appellant referred to its letter of 28 August 2009. In that letter it is explained, regarding features similar to features (d), that they had the advantage that video clips were concatenated in such a way to improve audience acceptance, for example by using asymmetric audio transitions (see also page 17, lines 7 to 10 of the description). The Board notes that improving audience acceptance is in itself not a technical effect.

In the opinion of the Board, solving conflicts when assembling media elements, for instance with the purpose of improving audience acceptance, is part of the work of a designer or editor of media programs. Furthermore, document D4 also discloses the use of control information regarding starting and ending times, or duration of media objects, as well as of content information (see point 35 above). When selecting objects to use in a timeline, for example to substitute the placeholders in a prototype timeline, the editor chooses the objects according to the content to be conveyed at the different phases of the media program. In a second step, the editor checks, based on the control information, whether the media objects can be assembled in the selected order. In the opinion of the Board, it is also normal, in case elements cannot be assembled in the selected temporal order, to deselect one or more of the media objects.

The Board considers that it would be obvious for the skilled person to implement an automated version of this process in the system of document D4 by using tags to store the control and content information. The Board notes that the claim does not describe further technical details of the steps recited in (d). Consequently, features (a) and (d) do not involve an inventive step.

37. The Board does not recognise a synergistic effect in the combination of features (a) and (d) with the other distinguishing features.

38. From the above reasoning, it follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Conclusion

39. The appellant has two final procedural requests: (i) that the decision be set aside and a patent be granted on the basis of the main request or of one of the four auxiliary requests, and (ii) that the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution (see section VIII above).

As explained in its communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the Board decided, using its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC, to examine the requests with respect to inventive step (see also section IV and point 6 above). Given that additionally the Board concluded that none of the sets of claims of the main and auxiliary requests is allowable, both procedural requests, to set aside the decision and grant a patent and to remit the case, have to be refused.

Therefore, the appeal is to be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • 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