Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`14.03.2012
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`1
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`App|icationNo: 96 910 762.2
`Demande n °:
`
`This communication is appended to the summons to oral proceedings under Article
`
`116 EPC. It sets out the matters to be discussed at the oral proceedings and the
`
`preliminary non - binding opinion of the examining division in these matters. A final
`
`decision will only be reached at the end of the oral proceedings.
`
`The examination is being carried out on the following application documents
`
`Description, Pages
`
`2-4, 14-20, 22-36,
`
`as published
`
`38-43, 45-49,
`
`51 -53, 55-62,
`
`65-67, 69, 70, 72,
`
`74, 75
`
`1, 6a, 7-13, 21,
`
`received on
`
`19-07-2007 with letter of
`
`09.07.2007
`
`37, 44, 50, 54, 63,
`
`64, 68, 71, 73, 76
`
`5, 5a, 6
`
`received on
`
`18-11-2009 with letter of
`
`18-11-2009
`
`Claims, Numbers
`
`1-50
`
`received on
`
`29-11-2010 with letter of
`
`29-11-2010
`
`Drawings, Sheets
`
`1/24-24/24
`
`as published
`
`1
`
`Article 123(2) EPC
`
`The amendments filed with the letter dated 29-11-2010 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:
`
`1.1 2
`
`1_1_1
`
`No basis for "the means for obtaining" feature has been given. No proper
`basis could be determined.
`
`EPO Form 2906 O1.91TR|
`
`
`
`EMCVMW 1022
`EMCVMW 1022
`
`

`
`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`14.03.2012
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`2
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`App|icationNo: 96 910 762.2
`Demande n °:
`
`1_1_2
`
`There appear to be no basis in the application as filed for a database
`
`containing only identifiers. The database is therefore an unallowable
`
`intermediate generalisation of the License Table that the application defines
`as basis for this feature.
`
`1_1_3
`
`No basis appears to have been given for the complete "means of ascertaining
`
`feature". Furthermore, regarding the basis given on Section §9, page 62-63,
`
`the claimed elements of these means cannot be directly and unambiguously
`
`derived, indeed the claimed means appear to be a broad generalization of the
`
`content of section §9 without any real basis in the application disclosure.
`
`1_1_4
`
`The feature "wherein access [...] data item" is defined in terms of a result to be
`
`achieved (Article 84 EPC), and has further no basis in the application as filed,
`
`in which the process is at least based on the data of the license table.
`
`Furthermore, there appears to be no basis to define a requestor in relation to
`
`the licensing, which refers to users licensed to have access to the data.
`
`1_1_5
`
`It further appears that no basis has been given for the "access means"
`
`feature. No proper basis could be determined for this feature.
`
`1_1_6
`
`In addition to the above, even if in the original application, there are elements
`
`related to the claimed subject-matter (identifier creation, licensing related
`
`features), it does not appear that there is basis in the application as filed for
`
`the combination of features claimed. The claimed subject-matter appears to
`
`be some generalisation of concept as e.g. authorisation and licensing which
`
`appear in the application, but which cannot be directly and unambiguously
`
`derived from the application as filed.
`
`1_2
`
`In claim 5, the given basis on page 2 of the description refers to the
`
`background art, and therefore does not appear to apply to the invention.
`
`Furthermore, it is not clear what difference is made between a software
`
`product, and an executable software program. The latest is also neither
`
`defined in the application as filed, nor directly and unambiguously derivable in
`
`the context of the ''licensing'' or generally in the application as filed.
`
`1_3
`
`The subject-matter of claim 6 related to entities authorized to access the data
`
`item is a generalisation of the content of the licence table having not basis in
`
`the application as filed.
`
`1_4
`
`The subject-matter of claim 7 appears to duplicate the subject-matter of claim
`
`1
`
`in a different wording, since access is provide only when access is
`
`authorized. This duplication appears to have no basis in the application as
`filed.
`
`EPO Form 2906 O1.91TR|
`
`

`
`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`14.03.2012
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`3
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`App|icationNo: 96 910 762.2
`Demande n°:
`
`1.5
`
`1.6
`
`1.7
`
`Claiming a hash function in claim 8 does not appear to have a basis in the
`
`application as filed. Further, no linking the function to determination of the
`
`identifier does also not appear to have a basis in the application as filed.
`
`The function of claim 9 should be linked to the function of claim 8. Having two
`
`different functions for an undefined purpose has no basis in the application as
`filed.
`
`Having the identity means computing function without link to determination of
`
`the identifier has no basis in the application as filed. Additionally, claiming that
`
`"the function randomly distributes its outputs" is not clear and has no basis in
`
`the application as filed, as it is not claiming over what and how the distribution
`
`takes place.
`
`1.8
`
`In claim 11, the expression "substantially unique value" has no basis in the
`
`application as filed. And as above, it is not linked to the determination of the
`
`identifier. Furthermore, the expression is not clear, as it cannot be determined
`
`with certainty when a value would be substantially unique.
`
`1.9
`
`In claim 12, "said name" has not antecedent in the claims, the function is not
`
`linked to the identifier. Claiming that "the name" or even the identifier "will
`
`change when the data item is modified" is a wished effect (Article 84 EPC)
`which could be directed to the modification of the identifier when an item is
`
`changed or could be directed to the property of the function. Furthermore,
`
`there appears to be no basis for this feature in the context of the licensing, the
`
`indicated basis being directed to file operations.
`
`1.10
`
`The subject-matter of c|aim14 does not appear to have a basis in the
`
`application as filed. The indicated basis refers to file and no being related to
`
`licensing. The claimed subject-matter appears to be an unallowable
`
`generalisation of features taken out of context.
`
`1.11
`
`1.12
`
`The feature of claim 15 appears to duplicate features of claim 1. Further
`
`generalising the licensing table to a list of identifiers has no basis in the
`
`application as filed, as well as defining the table as a list.
`
`The definition of the database of claim 16 is a generalisation of the function of
`
`the license table that encompasses many more different structure (e.g. a
`
`simple list of identifiers) that the one given as basis. Consequently, this does
`
`not have a basis in the application as filed.
`
`1.13
`
`No indexing related to the license table appears to be present if the
`
`application as filed. Consequently, no basis for the feature of claim 17 appears
`to exist.
`
`EPO Form 2906 O1.91TR|
`
`
`
`

`
`Datum
`Date
`Date
`
`1.14
`
`1.15
`
`1.16
`
`1.17
`
`2.1
`
`14.03.2012
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`4
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`App|icationNo: 96 910 762.2
`Demande n°:
`
`The subject-matter of claims 18 appears to be a feature extracted of context
`
`which combination with the claimed subject-matter of claim 1 and a
`
`generalisation, both not having a basis in the application as filed.
`
`The features of claims 19 to 21 appear to have no basis in combination with
`
`the features of claim 1 related to the licensing. It further appears to be a
`
`generalisation of the "tracking for accounting" disclosed on page 61-62 of the
`
`description, which do not find a basis in the application as filed.
`
`A basis in original claim 11 cannot be found for claim 22. Furthermore, it is not
`
`clear how an identifier can comprise a request.
`
`The above objections apply mutatis mutandis to claims 23 to 50.
`
`Article 84 EPC
`
`According to the description, a compound data item is defined according to
`
`the size of the data item. Consequently, in the claims (e.g. claim 2), where the
`
`expression "compound data item" is not defined, this expression is not fully
`
`supported by the description, as it leads to different interpretation which have
`
`no support in the description. The requirements of Article 84 EPC and
`therefore not met.
`
`Article 52(1) EPC
`
`In view of the above objections and with respect to the subject-matter
`
`considered in the communication dated 08.05.2009 (later referred to as C2),
`
`the subject-matter of the independent claims adds that the access control is
`
`based on data stored in a database. The subject-matter of claim 1 would
`
`therefore differ from the disclosure of D1 or D2 in the presence of an access
`
`control using a database to store access control information. As already
`
`argued in C2, implementing an access control in the systems of D1 or D2 is
`
`not considered as involving an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Further using a
`
`database to store access control information is one possibility that a skilled
`
`person would use without use of any inventive skills (Article 56 EPC).
`
`Consequently, it is considered that even if the above objections according to
`
`Article 123(2) EPC and Article 84 EPC would be overcome, the core idea of
`
`subject-matter of claim 1 would not lead to an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
`
`Conclusions
`
`At least some of the objections raised above are such that amendments
`
`overcoming them are not apparent. Refusal of the application under Article 97
`
`(2) EPC should therefore to be expected.
`
`EPO Form 2906 O1.91TR|