Anmelde-Nr.‘
`Blatt
`Datum
`96 910 762.2
`ApplicationNo.:
`1
`Sheet
`08.05.2009
`Date
`Demande n°:
`Feutlle
`Date
`
`
`The examination is being carried out on the following application documents:
`
`Description, Pages
`
`2-4, 14-20, 22-36, 38- as published
`43, 45-49, 51-53, 55-
`62, 65-67, 69, 70, 72,
`74, 75
`
`1,5, 6, 6a, 7—13, 21,
`37, 44, 50, 54, 63, 64,
`68, 71,73, 76
`
`Claims, Numbers
`1—58
`
`receivedon
`
`19.07.2007 with letterof
`
`09.07.2007
`
`received on
`
`19.07.2007 with letter of
`
`09.07.2007
`
`Drawings, Sheets
`1/24-24/24
`
`as published
`
`1. The following document (D2) is cited by the Examiner (see Guidelines C-VI, 8.2 and
`
`8.3). A copy of the document is annexed to the communication and the numbering will be
`
`adhered to in the rest of the procedure:
`
`D2: MCGREGOR D. R. ;MAR|AN| J. A.: "Fingerprinting - A technique forfile
`
`identification and maintenance" SOFTWARE: PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE,
`
`vol. 12, no. 12, December 1982 (1982-12), pages 1165-1166
`
`2. Article 123(2) EPC
`
`The amendments filed with the letter dated 19.07.2007 introduce subject-matter which
`
`extends beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. The
`
`amendments concerned are the following:
`
`
`EPA Form 2906 12.07CSX
`
`EMCVMW 1020
`EMCVMW 1020
`
`

`

`Ahmelde-Nr.‘
`Blatt
`Datum
`96 910 762.2
`ApplicationNo.:
`2
`Sheet
`08.05.2009
`Date
`Demande n°:
`Feullle
`Date
`
`
`2.1 In the independent claims 1 and 37, features related to access control have been
`
`introduced into the claims. The applicant refers for basis in the description to passages
`
`referring to licensing content. Consequently, it does not appear that claimed subject-matter
`
`is directly and unambiguously derivable from the description as originally filed, as generic
`
`access control as claimed does not appear to have a basis in the description.
`
`2.2 The dependencies between the dependent claims have been amended. However, no
`
`basis has been provided for all the new combinations of subject-matter, and not all of them
`
`appear to have a basis in the description. The applicant is requested to provide a basis for
`
`the amendments in the combination of the subject-matter of the dependent claims.
`
`2.3 New dependent claims have been introduced (27 to 36 and 44 to 57), the applicant is
`
`requested to provide basis in the application as originally filed for the introduced subject-
`matter.
`
`3. Article 52(1) EPC
`
`Compared to the subject-matter considered in section 5 of the communication dated
`
`17.01.2007 (later referred to as C1), the features including access control based on the
`
`identifier have been introduced. Having access control information associated with an
`
`object identifier (object name) in order to authorize access to an object content is standard
`
`in the art. Consequently, a skilled person would implement access control in the system of
`
`D1 based on the object identifier without use of any inventive skills (Article 56 EPC).
`
`Consequently, the present application does not meet the requirements of Article 52(1)
`
`EPC because the subject-matter of claims 1 and 37 does not involve an inventive step
`
`within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.
`
`The same objection could be substantiated based on the disclosure of D2.
`
`It should be noted that if the applicant intended to claim a license control features, this
`
`should be based on the basis of the application as originally filed and should be properly
`
`supported by the description.
`
`4. Conclusion
`
`
`EPA Form 2906 12.07CSX
`
`

`

`Anmelde-Nr.‘
`Blatt
`Datum
`96 910 762.2
`ApplicationNo.:
`3
`Sheet
`08.05.2009
`Date
`Demande n°:
`Feuille
`Date
`
`
`It is not at present apparent which part of the application could serve as a basis for a new,
`
`allowable claim. Should the applicant nevertheless regard some particular matter as
`
`patentable, an independent claim should be filed taking account of Rule 43(1) EPC. The
`
`applicant should also indicate in the letter of reply the difference of the subject-matter of
`
`the new claim vis-a-vis the state of the art and the significance thereof.
`
`4.1 When filing amended claims the applicant should at the same time bring the
`
`description into conformity with the amended claims. Care should be taken during revision,
`
`especially of the introductory portion and any statements of problem or advantage, not to
`
`add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed
`
`(Article 123(2) EPC).
`
`4.2 April 2009 In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended
`
`application with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, the applicant is requested to
`
`clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern
`
`amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the
`
`application as filed on which these amendments are based.
`
`
`EPA Form 2906 12.07CSX
`
`