T 2208/15 - Essential features lacking

 Key points

• This is an examination appeal about video compression. Claim 1 specifies: “a downsampling ratio that is determined in accordance with the size of the amount of transition inside the frame”.
• The Board's conclusion is that “to solve the technical problem which the application is concerned with, it is essential to increase the downsampling when the size of the amount of transition increases”
• “The feature of claim 1 stated above[...]  encompasses both the above-described case, where the downsampling ratio increases when the amount of transition increases, and the opposite case, where the downsampling ratio increases when the amount of transition decreases. ”
• Therefore, claim 1 does not comply with Art. 84 (EPC 1973) (EP entry in 2009).
• The Board infers the “technical problem which the application is concerned with” from various passages of the description.
• Hence, it does not seem to matter if the broader feature provides a technical effect and/or solves an objective technical problem, but whether the specific problems discussed in the application are solved by the recited claim features.
• Presumably, the application discloses the broader feature under Article 123(2) EPC. We don't know if the broader feature provides for an inventive step under Article 56 EPC. No prior art is discussed in the Board's decision.

EPO T 2208/15 - link

3.2 However, in the board's view the above-mentioned amended feature of claim 1 ("a downsampling ratio that is determined in accordance with the size of the amount of transition inside the frame") gives rise to a new objection under Article 84 EPC 1973 for the reasons set out below.

3.3 According to the established case law of the boards of appeal, Article 84 EPC 1973 has to be interpreted as meaning not only that a claim must be comprehensible from a technical point of view, but also that it must define the object of the invention clearly, that is to say indicate all the essential features thereof. All features which are necessary for solving the technical problem with which the application is concerned have to be regarded as essential features (see Case Law, II.A.3.2).

3.4 The technical problem with which the application is concerned is to reduce the code amount by downsampling a specific colour space signal, e.g. a chrominance signal, while maintaining the subjective image quality (see description, paragraphs [0007] and [0009]).

3.5 According to the application, the solution to the above problem is based on the observation that when the size of the amount of transition increases, the downsampling ratio can be increased without negatively affecting the subjective image quality (see description, paragraph [0012]: "when a comparison is made between a frame in which there is a large amount of transition and a frame in which there is a small amount of transition, there is a relatively low level of visual sensitivity in the former, and thus, compared with a frame having a small amount of transition, there is no reduction in subjective image quality in a frame having a large amount of transition even if large-scale downsampling is performed").

Corresponding disclosures are found in paragraphs [0015], [0061], [0062], [0070] and [0071] of the description, which the appellant also cited as the basis for the stated feature of claim 1 (see point VIII above).

3.6 The feature of claim 1 stated above using the formulation "in accordance with the size of the amount of transition" encompasses both the above-described case, where the downsampling ratio increases when the amount of transition increases, and the opposite case, where the downsampling ratio increases when the amount of transition decreases. However, only the former solves the problem of the invention; the latter does not maintain the subjective image quality.

3.7 In light of the above, to solve the technical problem which the application is concerned with, it is essential to increase the downsampling when the size of the amount of transition increases.

However, this feature is missing in claim 1.

3.8 As a consequence, claim 1 does not include all the essential features and thus does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC 1973.

4. Conclusion

For the above reasons, the appellant's sole request is not allowable.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.