T 2341/13 - No need to explain why

Key points

• This examination appeal deals with an interleaver, so the technology is not easy (at least for me). The problem addressed by the invention is, essentially, providing a hardware chip design (for a mobile phone) "capable of interleaving input data frames with a size that is not a multiple of 2**(m)". The difficulty for the Examining Division was that the application does not explain why you would want to use frame sizes (and presumably, such frame sizes are not common in the art).
• " In the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, it was repeatedly asked why the invention should use a frame size that was not a multiple of 2**(m). The Examining Division appears to have considered it problematic that the application suggests that the invention may be used in a communication system based on a standard that was neither publicly available at the priority date nor fully disclosed in the application.

• The Board observes that knowledge of any communication standard is not necessary to carry out the claimed invention and that it is perfectly valid to pose the problem of obtaining interleavers for frame sizes that are not a multiple of 2**(m). If the claimed solution to this problem is not rendered obvious by the prior art, then an inventive step is present. " 

EPO T 2341/13 -  link 




5.4 Neither document D1 nor document D3 addresses the problem of constructing, from a plurality of m-stage PN generators, an interleaver of low hardware complexity which is capable of interleaving input data frames with a size that is not a multiple of 2**(m). In particular, neither document hints at the solution as claimed.

5.5 In the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, it was repeatedly asked why the invention should use a frame size that was not a multiple of 2**(m). The Examining Division appears to have considered it problematic that the application suggests that the invention may be used in a communication system based on a standard that was neither publicly available at the priority date nor fully disclosed in the application.

The Board observes that knowledge of any communication standard is not necessary to carry out the claimed invention and that it is perfectly valid to pose the problem of obtaining interleavers for frame sizes that are not a multiple of 2**(m). If the claimed solution to this problem is not rendered obvious by the prior art, then an inventive step is present. Whether the application sufficiently discloses the advantages of such frame sizes is irrelevant, unless it is argued - unlike in the present case - that the mere idea of using such frame sizes is itself inventive (and may therefore not be included in the problem formulation). The Examining Division's concerns as expressed in the oral proceedings are therefore not justified.

5.6 None of the documents cited in the international search report and the supplementary European search report (all cited as "A" and none having been cited by the Examining Division) comes closer to the claimed invention than documents D1 and D3.

5.7 Document D2 was cited by the Board as evidence of common general knowledge about linear-feedback shift registers. It does not relate to interleavers.

5.8 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 and of corresponding claim 2 is not rendered obvious by the available prior art and thus involves an inventive step (Articles 52(1) and 56 EPC).

6. Since the application now complies with the requirements of the EPC, the appeal is to be allowed.