T 1787/23 (The need for rendering an icon/T1V) 23-07-2025

1. Claim requests filed on 21 July 2025

1.1 On 21 July 2025, the appellant filed "corrected sets of the Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 and 10", addressing clerical errors in the dependent claims of the respective claim requests filed or re-filed on 9 July 2025.

1.2 Since those corrections do not affect the independent claims and in view of the outcome of these appeal proceedings, there is no need to decide on the admissibility of the corrected claim requests filed on 21 July 2025.

1.3 For the purposes of the following considerations on admittance, the board assumes that the main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 10 were effectively filed when the uncorrected claim requests were filed.

2. Main request and auxiliary request 1 - admittance

2.1 The main request and auxiliary request 1 were filed after the notification of the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA. Therefore, they are not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons by the appellant (Article 13(2) RPBA).

2.2 The appellant argued that there were "exceptional circumstances" as the board raised in its preliminary opinion new added subject-matter and clarity objections against the then auxiliary requests 1 and 2, although the examining division had rejected these claim requests based only on Article 56 EPC.

2.3 However, these claim requests are not based on the appellant's former auxiliary requests 1 and 2 but on its former main request. The examining division rejected that main request based on Article 123(2) EPC. In its preliminary opinion, the board agreed with those objections under Article 123(2) EPC. Therefore, and irrespective of whether "new objections" raised by a board may, per se, constitute "exceptional circumstances" (see e.g. T 2271/18, catchword and T 2632/18, catchword), there are thus no "exceptional circumstances" here which could indeed justify the filing of amendments based on the main request on which the contested decision is based.

2.4 Therefore, the board did not admit the main request and auxiliary request 1 into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(2) RPBA).

3. Auxiliary request 2 - clarity (Article 84 EPC)

3.1 Auxiliary request 2 corresponds to auxiliary request 1 on which the contested decision is based.

3.2 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 includes the following features (board's labelling):

(a) A method of connecting a mobile device to a common display associated with a display computer controlling the common display, the common display comprising a display region wherein different mobile device windows corresponding to different mobile devices are to be displayed and a tray region outside the display region wherein mobile device icons corresponding to different mobile devices are to be displayed, the mobile device window being an editable window that can be moved, resized, and marked on, and the display computer comprising a virtual canvas being a virtual region that expands to greater than the physical area of the display region of the common display and where any section of the virtual canvas can be viewed on the display region,

(b) the method comprising, for the mobile device:

- downloading a display application onto the mobile device;

- selecting the display computer for the common display in the display application;

- connecting the mobile device to the display computer;

- selecting, on the mobile device, a data stream being a video signal to be displayed on the common display; and

- sending the data stream of the selection to the display computer to be displayed in a corresponding mobile device window in the display region or in a corresponding mobile device icon in the tray region,

(c) wherein the display computer is to:

- determine a second resolution (R2) associated with the display region or tray region in which the data stream is to be presented,

(d) the display computer is further to determine a first resolution (R1) of the data stream sent by the mobile device to the display computer,

(e) the display computer is further to display the data stream from the mobile device in the mobile device window in the display region or in the mobile device icon in the tray region,

(f) when R2 is less than R1, then the display computer is to send a third resolution (R3) to the mobile device, where R1 > R3 >= R2, and the display application on the mobile device is to

- down sample the selection in accordance with the third resolution, R3, and

- only transmit the down sampled resolution (R3) to the display computer;

(g) when the second resolution (R2) changes to an updated second resolution (R2), the display computer is to send an updated third resolution (R3) to the mobile device, and the mobile device is to transmit the data stream to the display computer in accordance with the updated third resolution (R3); and

(h) when the mobile device window is moved off of the section of the virtual canvas viewable on the display region, the display computer is to send, to the mobile device, a resolution and a frame rate needed to render the mobile device icon of the mobile device data stream in the tray region, and the mobile device is to transmit the data stream to the display computer in accordance with the resolution needed to render the icon.

3.3 The board understands the term "mobile device icon" mentioned in features (a), (b), (e) and (h) of present claim 1 as referring to a symbol of the entity that it represents, i.e. a "mobile device" in the case at hand.

3.4 As to feature (h), it is not clear in technical terms what is meant by the phrase "a frame rate needed to render [an] icon", since there is actually no need to use more than one frame to render an "icon".

Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant in technical terms by the phrase "a resolution [...] needed to render [an] icon". In particular, the rendering of an "icon" does not need to have any one-to-one correspondence with the data stream transmitted from a mobile device.

Thus, it is also not clear what the mobile device has to do in terms of technical steps in order to actually "transmit the data stream to the display computer in accordance with the resolution needed to render the icon", since there is indeed no technical need to transmit a data stream for this purpose.

3.5 The appellant argued that the board's interpretation of the term "icon" was merely linguistic and ignored the clear technical teaching conveyed by the wording of claim 1. In particular, the appellant referred to features (a), (b) and (e), which respectively state that "the common display compris[es] a display region wherein different mobile device windows corresponding to different mobile devices are to be displayed and a tray region outside the display region wherein mobile device icons corresponding to different mobile devices are to be displayed", "the data stream of the selection [is sent] to the display computer to be displayed in a corresponding mobile device window in the display region or in a corresponding mobile device icon in the tray region" and that "the display computer is further to display the data stream from the mobile device in the mobile device window in the display region or in the mobile device icon in the tray region". From this context, it was clear that the "mobile device icons" within the meaning of claim 1 displayed video data streams just like the "mobile device windows". They were merely smaller in size and did not provide for a detailed inspection of the data streams due to their size. Instead, they only served the purpose of giving an overview of what is displayed on the mobile device.

The board is not convinced by the appellant's arguments. First, features (b) and (e) do not state that the "data stream" is sent to and displayed in both "mobile device windows" in the display region and in "mobile device icons" in the tray region. Instead, both features use the conjunction "or". Since the data stream should necessarily be displayed in a streaming mode in the "mobile device window", it follows that the "mobile device icon" corresponding to the mobile device sending the data stream may well display a still (i.e. static) image symbolising the stream displayed in the "mobile device window" or the mobile device sending that stream. Second, feature (a) explicitly states that the "mobile device icon" corresponds to a "mobile device" and not to the "data stream" being sent by the mobile device. This interpretation is reinforced by its very name "mobile device icon". Third, feature (c) indeed already determines a "resolution R2" associated with the tray region. Thus, it is not clear in feature (h), how the "resolution [...] needed to render the mobile device icon [...] in the tray region" differs from this resolution associated with the tray region.

3.6 Therefore, claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 is not clear (Article 84 EPC).

4. Auxiliary requests 3 to 9 - admittance

4.1 Auxiliary requests 3 to 9 were filed after the notification of the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA. Therefore, their admittance is at the board's discretion under Article 13(2) RPBA. The board, when exercising its discretion, may however also apply the criteria of Article 13(1) RPBA such as, inter alia, the suitability of the amendments for resolving the issues which were raised by the board.

4.2 In these auxiliary requests, the appellant tried out combinations of three different amendments, labelled A3, A4 and A5 by the appellant, with auxiliary request 2.

- In amendment A3, the terms "mobile device icon", "device icon", and "icon" were replaced by the term "thumbnail".

- In amendment A4, the last part of feature (h), namely "the mobile device is to transmit the data stream to the display computer in accordance with the resolution needed to render the icon" was deleted.

- In amendment A5, an additional feature (i) from the description was added at the end of the claim, namely:

(i) wherein the display computer is to request a third resolution (R3) from the mobile device, the third resolution (R3) being larger than the second resolution (R2) needed for the mobile device window, but not as large as the full resolution of the display region.

Auxiliary request 3 comprises amendment A3, auxiliary request 4 comprises amendment A4, auxiliary request 5 comprises amendments A3 and A4, auxiliary request 6 comprises amendment A5, auxiliary request 7 comprises amendments A3 and A5, auxiliary request 8 comprises amendments A4 and A5 and auxiliary request 9 comprises amendments A3, A4 and A5.

4.3 The appellant submitted that amendments A3 and A4 were to overcome, inter alia, the clarity objections raised by the board, while amendment A5 was to overcome the inventive-step objections.

However, amendment A3 is in fact not suitable for overcoming the board's clarity objections raised above in points 3.4 and 3.5. In particular, the board did not object to the term "icon" as being unclear but to "a resolution and a frame rate needed to render [an icon]".

Amendment A4 is likewise not suitable for overcoming the board's clarity objections which relate not only to the last but also the first part of feature (h), which refers to "a resolution and a frame rate needed to render the mobile device icon of the mobile device data stream in the tray region".

Finally, amendment A5 was filed not to overcome clarity objections but to overcome inventive-step objections. Therefore, it is simply not suitable for overcoming the outstanding clarity objections.

4.4 For these reasons, the board did not admit auxiliary requests 3 to 9 into the appeal proceedings.

5. Auxiliary requests 10 and 11 - clarity (Article 84 EPC)

5.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 10 and 11 corresponds to claim 1 of the main request and of auxiliary request 2 on which the contested decision is based.

5.2 The last feature of claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 reads:

"when a mobile device window is moved off of the display region, the display computer is to send, to the mobile device, a resolution needed to render an icon of the mobile device data stream on the common display, and the mobile device is to transmit the data stream to the display computer in accordance with the resolution needed to render the icon [emphases by the board]".

This wording is similar to that of feature (h) of auxiliary request 2, in particular including the same unclear expression "a resolution [...] needed to render [an icon]". Therefore, the clarity objections raised against claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 in points 3.4 and 3.5 above apply also to claim 1 of auxiliary request 10.

5.3 Since claim 1 of auxiliary request 11 likewise includes feature (h) of auxiliary request 2, the clarity objections to claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 apply also to claim 1 of auxiliary request 11.

5.4 Therefore, claim 1 of auxiliary requests 10 and 11 is at least not clear (Article 84 EPC).