T 1767/19 - In principle the subjective technical problem

Key points

•  The Board recalls that the objective technical problem should in principle be based on the [subjective] problem set out in the patent (application).
• The Board in translation: " When objectively determining the problem solved according to the invention, the problem formulated in the patent in suit should first be taken as a basis. Only if the problem formulated in the application does not do justice to the state of the art and/or is not solved in accordance with the features of the invention does it have to be adapted to the state of the art and/or the actual technical success (T 1060/11, Reasons 7.2) . " 
• " The task in the present application is technically sensible and is solved by the features of the independent claim. The objectively closest prior art is said to be identical to that stated as the closest prior art in the present application. Consequently, the subjective task specified in the present application [" der in der vorliegenden Anmeldung genannten subjektiven Aufgabenstellung"] may not be deviated from. " 
• "Furthermore, the task should not be generalized ("improving the quality of the hologram"), nor should the task be specified to such an extent that the solution would be anticipated ("avoidance of multiple reflections and interference"). The solution is based on the finding that the incorrect exposure of the pixels is due to optical interference in the holographic recording material, which in turn is caused by the multiple reflections between the parallel surfaces of the light modulator and the beam splitter cube." 

EPO  T 1767/19

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t191767du1.html

Machine translation

4.3 Effect

4.3.1 According to the description, page 5, line 16 - page 6, line 4, feature (D) prevents multiple reflections of light from occurring at the spatial light modulator and the upstream optical component in the beam path and leading to unwanted interference in the holographic recording medium. This reduces interference in the pixels and thus incorrect exposure of the pixels. However, the board comes to the conclusion that the interferences defined in the claim are not clearly related to this "optical interference" and that any kind of reflections and ("mechanical") interferences can be meant.

4.4 Problem

4.4.1 The appellant [applicant] argues that the task is to generate a spatially modulated light beam whose light intensity reliably corresponds at every point to the specified modulation to be effected by the spatial light modulator. If the apparatus fulfils this specification, incorrect exposures would no longer occur in a hologram exposure. In summary, this means that an even exposure is guaranteed, pixel errors are reduced and the imaging of the light field, ie the hologram quality, is improved.

4.4.2 When objectively determining the problem solved according to the invention, the problem formulated in the patent in suit should first be taken as a basis. Only if the problem formulated in the application does not do justice to the state of the art and/or is not solved in accordance with the features of the invention does it have to be adapted to the state of the art and/or the actual technical success (T 1060/11, Reasons 7.2) . The task in the present application is technically sensible and is solved by the features of the independent claim. The objectively closest prior art is said to be identical to that stated as the closest prior art in the present application. Consequently, the subjective task specified in the present application may not be deviated from. Furthermore, the task should not be generalized ("improving the quality of the hologram"), nor should the task be specified to such an extent that the solution would be anticipated ("avoidance of multiple reflections and interference"). The solution is based on the finding that the incorrect exposure of the pixels is due to optical interference in the holographic recording material, which in turn is caused by the multiple reflections between the parallel surfaces of the light modulator and the beam splitter cube.

4.4.3 Based on the above reasoning and RSdBK, 9th edition, section ID4.3.2, the board formulates the objective technical problem identically to the subjective technical problem formulated on page 5, lines 11 to 14 of the present application:

The invention is therefore based on the technical problem of creating an improved individualization device and an improved exposure device for holograms, with which holograms can be exposed without unintentional faulty exposures occurring.

However, the improved exposure or elimination of incorrect exposures can be related both to “optical” and to reflections or “mechanical interferences”.