T 0417/24 (Content editing/HUAWEI) 06-05-2025

1. The application relates to content editing.

Main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 8

2. Admission into the appeal proceedings - Article 12(4) RPBA

2.1 The main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 8 were all filed for the first time with the statement of grounds of appeal. Their admission into the appeal proceedings is therefore at the board's discretion (Article 12(4), first and second sentences, RPBA).

2.2 The primary object of the appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner (Article 12(2) RPBA). The appeal proceedings are not a continuation of the first-instance proceedings. Hence, any amendments to the application filed in the appeal proceedings should be directed to rendering the application allowable and be accompanied with reasons why they overcome the objections raised (Article 12(4), third and fourth sentences, RPBA).

2.3 In the present case, the amendments made to the main request, as compared with the version refused by the examining division, included the incorporation of newly drafted dependent claims 6 and 7 (see point VIII. above). At least dependent claim 6 was also included in each of auxiliary requests 1 to 8 (see point IX. above).

2.4 The appellant argued that dependent claims 6 and 7 had been included to address "possible clarity objections" in connection with the expressions "multimedia content", "extended content editing area" and "preset position".

However, the decision under appeal contained no clarity objections to these terms, and dependent claims are in any event unsuitable to clarify the terms used in an independent claim.

2.5 The inclusion of new dependent claims in the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 8 is unnecessary for the purpose of rendering the refused application allowable. It is an attempt not to render the refused application allowable but to continue the first-instance proceedings. The board therefore does not admit the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 8 into the appeal proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA).

Auxiliary request 9

3. Admission in the appeal proceedings - Article 13(2) RPBA

3.1 Auxiliary request 9 is identical to the main request considered in the decision under appeal and therefore no longer includes the newly drafted dependent claims 6 and 7. However, it reintroduces dependent claims which had been deleted in the main request filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. In particular, the appellant had deleted dependent claim 7 in view of the clarity objection raised in the decision under appeal to then auxiliary request 1, which included the additional feature of dependent claim 7.

3.2 The appropriate reaction to the board's admissibility concerns with respect to the amendments introducing additional dependent claims compared to the requests refused by the examining division would have been to delete those claims without reverting other amendments.

While the deletion of dependent claims still constitutes an amendment to the appeal case and must therefore be assessed under Article 13 RPBA, in the present case such an amendment would have directly and straightforwardly resolved an issue which was not central to the appeal case and would not have otherwise affected the substance of the case. This circumstance may be regarded as exceptional, thereby justifying the amendment's admission under Article 13(2) RPBA. The board further notes that such relative leniency is warranted to balance its strict approach to the admissibility of amendments introducing dependent claims (see point 2. above).

3.3 Since the appellant, at the oral proceedings, expressed its willingness to delete dependent claim 7 from auxiliary request 9, the board found it appropriate to discuss the merits of the request. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the board, as set out below, there ultimately was no need to invite the appellant to file an amended version of auxiliary request 9 with claim 7 deleted.

3.4 Hence, auxiliary request 9 is admitted into the appeal proceedings.

4. Clarity

4.1 Claim 1 is directed to a content editing method performed by a terminal. The terminal displays an "editable user interface" which displays multimedia and doodle content. The editable user interface comprises a "content editing area" which is used to add or edit the content. The terminal displays the added or edited content in the content editing area in response to an operation of adding or editing the content. When the terminal detects that the added content reaches or exceeds a preset position in the content editing area, it automatically extends the content editing area by a preset size.

4.2 In the board's view, the skilled person reading claim 1 on its own, i.e. without consulting the description or drawings, understands that the "content editing area" is a specific area within the displayed editable user interface. In this area, the multimedia and doodle content is displayed, and by interacting with this area, the user may add or edit the content. With this interpretation, automatically extending the content editing area by a preset size means extending the size of the area that the content editing area takes up within the displayed user interface, for example by reducing the size of other parts of the user interface or by resizing the window in which the editable user interface is displayed.

4.3 However, Figures 8A and 8B, which are described on page 20, lines 2 to 5, of the description as filed show the display 151 of a terminal 100 which displays a user interface 800. In area 810 of the display 151, a portion of "content editing area 801" is displayed. Content editing area 801 includes an area 802 which is "an extension area of an initial content editing area". The area 810 of display 151 shows the upper portion of the content area 801, which coincides, at least approximately, with the initial content area. The description states that the terminal 100 may respond to a slide-up or slide-down operation of the user in the area 810 "so that the display 151 displays content that is in a corresponding position in the corresponding content editing area 801". In the context of Figures 8A and 8B, the skilled person understands this as meaning that the user can bring part or all of the lower portion of the content editing area 801, approximately coinciding with the extension area 802, into view by means of a slide-up operation. The skilled person also understands that it is area 810 rather than "content editing area" 801 that is used to add or edit the content.

4.4 Hence, the skilled person understands from Figures 8A and 8B and their description that, at least in one embodiment of the claimed invention, the "content editing area" is not a specific area of the displayed editable user interface (such as area 810 in Figure 8A) within which the content is displayed and with which the user interacts to add and edit content but instead refers to the scrollable content (such as "area" 801 in Figures 8A and 8B) of such an area.

4.5 Since the claims are to be interpreted in the light of the description and drawings (see decisions T 2766/17, Reasons 6; T 3097/19, Reasons 29; T 367/20, Reasons 1.3.2 and 1.3.3), the scope of the term "content editing area", on its proper interpretation, encompasses the "content editing area" of the embodiment disclosed in Figures 8A and 8B and their description. It follows that the meaning of the term "content editing area" deviates substantially from the meaning which the skilled person would ascribe to it based solely on the wording of the claim alone. Claim 1 therefore fails to meet the requirement of Article 84 EPC that, as far as possible, the meaning of the terms of the claims be clear from their wording alone (G 1/04, OJ EPO 2006, 334, Reasons 6.2; T 3097/19, Reasons 35 and 36).

4.6 The appellant argued that there was no contradiction between the expression "the editable user interface comprises a content editing area" in claim 1 and the disclosure on page 20, lines 2 to 5, in connection with Figures 8A and 8B. The application disclosed that there could be an "extended content editing area" which comprised the "content editing area" and an extension area of the content editing area. In Figures 8A and 8B, the "content editing area" was not necessarily the full document being edited (or the "scrollable content", to use the board's wording in point 4.4 above) but could be one of several regions shown in these figures.

However, Figures 8A and 8B and the description on page 20, lines 2 to 5, leave no doubt that the content editing area 801 is indeed the whole scrollable content shown in Figure 8B, only a portion of which is visible within the area 810 of the user interface shown in Figure 8A. The appellant's argument is therefore not convincing.

Auxiliary requests 10 to 13

5. Admission into the appeal proceedings - Article 13(2) RPBA

5.1 Since the clarity objection raised in point 4. above appeared to apply, at least at first sight, also to claim 1 of each of auxiliary requests 10 to 13, for reasons of procedural efficiency the board heard the appellant at the oral proceedings first on whether the clarity objection was overcome by claim 1 of any of auxiliary requests 10 to 13.

5.2 In view of the board's conclusion on this matter, as set out below, there was no need to hear the appellant on the admissibility of auxiliary requests 10 to 13 under Article 13(2) RPBA. The board therefore admits these requests into the appeal proceedings.

6. Clarity

6.1 Claim 1 of each of auxiliary requests 10 to 13 includes the features which led the board to its interpretation of the term "content editing area" set out in points 4.1 and 4.2 above:

- displaying, by a terminal, an editable user interface, wherein the editable user interface displays multimedia content and doodle content;

- the editable user interface comprises a content editing area;

- the content editing area is used to add or edit the multimedia content and/or the doodle content;

- displaying, by the terminal, the added or edited doodle content in the content editing area in response to an operation of adding or editing the doodle content; or displaying, by the terminal, the added or edited multimedia content in the content editing area in response to an operation of adding or editing the multimedia content;

- automatically extending, by the terminal, the content editing area by a preset size after detecting that the added doodle content or multimedia content reaches or exceeds a preset position in the content editing area.

6.2 Moreover, none of the amendments made in these requests contradicts or otherwise affects this interpretation.

6.2.1 In particular, the features of claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 which specify that the content editing area is extended by a preset size only if its current size does not exceed a maximum limit are fully in line with the interpretation of the "content editing area" as a specific area within the displayed editable user interface which can be extended - if total screen area permits - by reducing the size of other parts of the user interface or by resizing the window in which the editable user interface is displayed.

6.2.2 Likewise, the features of claim 1 of auxiliary request 11 which specify that the content editing area comprises a first layer which is used to add or edit the multimedia content and a second layer which is used to add or edit the doodle content do not contradict the interpretation of the "content editing area" as a specific area within the displayed editable user interface with which the user can interact to add or edit content.

6.2.3 The remaining amendments, which relate to the "preset position", the behaviour of the "layers" and the data format for storing the doodle content, have no bearing on the interpretation of the term "content editing area".

6.3 It follows that none of auxiliary requests 10 to 13 overcomes the objection of lack of clarity raised in point 4. above (Article 84 EPC).

Auxiliary request 14

7. Admission into the appeal proceedings - Article 13(2) RPBA

7.1 Auxiliary request 14 was filed during the oral proceedings before the board. Apart from the deletion of certain reference signs and the replacement of an occurrence of "comprises" with "includes", claim 1 of auxiliary request 14 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 in the addition of the following features:

- wherein the editable user interface (800) includes the content editing area (801) and the extension area (802) and

- the terminal (100) responds to a slide-up or slide-down operation of the user in an area (810) of a display (151) of the terminal (100) so that the display (151) displays the multimedia content and doodle content in positions in the corresponding content editing area (801) and in the corresponding extension area (802).

7.2 The appellant argued that the added features, which had been taken from the description on page 20, lines 2 to 5, brought the claim in line with the embodiment described in this passage and therefore overcame the clarity objection raised in point 4. above.

7.3 Since the clarity objection raised in point 4. above was communicated to the appellant in the board's communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the appellant could have filed amendments to address it already with its letter submitted in preparation for those oral proceedings. This objection therefore does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying the admission of auxiliary request 14 under Article 13(2) RPBA.

7.4 Moreover, auxiliary request 14 does not prima facie comply with Article 84 EPC, which is an argument against its admission under Article 13(1), fourth sentence, RPBA. According to page 20, lines 2 to 5, read in combination with Figure 8B, the extension area 802 is a portion of the content editing area 801, not an area separate from the content editing area. In addition, whereas the passage of the description states that "the display 151 displays content that is in a corresponding position in the corresponding content editing area", which is in line with what is shown in Figures 8A and 8B, claim 1 of auxiliary request 14 now states that "display (151) displays the multimedia content and doodle content in positions in the corresponding content editing area (801) and in the corresponding extension area (802)", which is rather in line with the board's interpretation as set out in points 4.1 and 4.2 above.

7.5 For these reasons, the board does not admit auxiliary request 14 into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(1) and (2) RPBA).

8. Since none of the requests admitted into the appeal proceedings is allowable, the appeal is to be dismissed.