T 0643/00 (Searching image data/CANON) 16-10-2003

1. The appeal is admissible. It is also allowable on the merits since the grant of a patent can be envisaged on the basis of the amended claims, which meet the mandatory provisions of the EPC.

Amendments and claim requirements

2. The Board is satisfied that the amended claims comply with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC as well as with the requirements of Article 84 EPC in respect of support by the description.

Independent claims 1 and 6 include all features which are essential to the conversion of non-hierarchical image data into hierarchically encoded image data and to image processing under user control for searching an image which is the basis of the four embodiments of the invention described with reference to figures 6 to 13, 14. to 18, 19 to 23, and 24, respectively. These embodiments were already subject of the original application.

Dependent claims 2, 5, 7 and 9 have a basis in the first embodiment, dependent claims 3, 4, and 8 in the second embodiment of the invention.

3. Furthermore, the Board considers the amended claims to comply with the provisions of Rule 86(4) EPC.

The Board holds that this provision only applies if in connection with the claims as originally filed lack of unity existed with the amended claims, requiring the payment of a further search fee under Rule 46(1) EPC.

The amendments to the claims, however, only narrowed the scope of the original claims 1 and 5 without introducing any alternative solutions so that the subject-matter of the amended claims cannot be nor include "other inventions" within the meaning of Rule 46(1) EPC.

4. The claim wording is also in compliance with the clarity requirement of Article 84 EPC, i.e. the scope of protection as conferred by the claims can be determined and the invention for which the claims seek protection can be examined for patentability (see, for example, decision T 49/99 - Information modelling/INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS, not published in OJ EPO, point 12).

Most of the claim wording is plainly clear in this sense. Only few definitions require interpretation: it is prima facie left open whether selecting an image and providing the "commands" and "instructions" as defined in the claims are functions of the image processing apparatus or refer to direct user interaction. However, in the light of the description it becomes clear that the invention, and in particular the method of searching an image as claimed, invoke human interaction for "selecting" a particular image from the displayed image data, for providing (at least as a result of such interaction) a "command" to display the selected image, and for providing the "instructions" for displaying, redisplaying and outputting the respective images.

Although there are no principal objections to be raised against claiming subject-matter involving human interaction, such claims have to be carefully examined with regard to the technical character of such features.

Examination for patentability

5. The examination for patentability can be limited to the subject-matter of claims 1 and 6 since claims 2 to 5 and 7 to 9. are truly dependent claims merely defining particular embodiments of the invention.

6. From the description, column 3, lines 34 to 49 as well as from the arguments forwarded by the appellant in the course of the appeal proceedings it must be concluded that the claimed inventions are the result of the idea to make the searching process easier to the (human) user, who has conventionally to comb the images one by one on the display at a high resolution in order to select a particular image for output. This goal is achieved by arranging a plurality of images in a side-by-side manner at a low resolution and providing for hierarchical display at higher resolutions so that a comprehensive survey as well as a fast check for details are possible.

Requirement of novelty (Article 54(1) and (2) EPC)

7. The publication HAMPEL et al. (see point II, supra) and the document US-A-5 159 468 deal with subject-matters like bi- level image compression, image browsing over communication links, and progressive image transmission, but they do not disclose any method or apparatus for searching images in databases in the sense the present application is concerned with. In the present case therefore these citations are irrelevant in respect of the invention claimed. Hence, the question of whether or not the priority dates of the present application are valid need not be considered.

This leaves document EP-A-0 392 753 as the only relevant piece of prior art.

8. This EP-document discloses an image searching apparatus comprising input means (figure 1: reader 4) for inputting non- hierarchically coded image data (from a photoelectrically read original image, see column 2, lines 26 to 27) and decoding means (reader 4) for decoding the non-hierarchically coded input image data to generate first image data of a first resolution (at the digital output of reader 4). Hierarchically encoding means (encoder 9) are adapted hierarchically to encode said first image data with different resolutions and to store the hierarchically encoded image data in storage means (database 5) in an order of registration. Decoding means (decoder 10) are operational for decoding image data stored in said storage means and video frame memory (either memory 26 or a separate memory in display 3) for storing image data decoded by said first decoding means, whereby based on the data stored in said video frame memory the user may display images on display means (display 3) or output them to another system (see column 4, lines 15 to 18). The apparatus is controlled by control means (CPU 1) and comprises means (keyboard 2) by which images can be selected from the image data stored in the database 5 (see column 2, lines 47 to 53).

9. The prior art of document EP-A-0 392 753 seems to aim at a high speed search of images by using the lowest resolution image data of the images hierarchically encoded and stored in the database 5 (see figure 1, and in particular column 1, lines 28 to 34, column 2, lines 51 to 53, column 3, lines 25 to 27, column 4, lines 32 to 34, column 5, lines 4 to 15, column 6, lines 42 to 44 and claim 13). The details how the search could be done, however, remain in the dark.

Apparatus

10. The image processing apparatus of claim 1, therefore, differs from the prior art of document EP-A-0 392 753 in the functionality which allows the image processing apparatus, in response to user input, to decode and render a predetermined plural number of hierarchically encoded images, in the order of registration and at the lowest level of resolution, in separated portions of the display, and to select and render one of these images at any of four different levels of resolution, and finally to output the selected image or to continue the search with the predetermined plural number of images next in the order of registration. The apparatus claimed is thus not anticipated by the EP-document.

Method

11. The method of claim 6 is closely related to the image processing apparatus of claim 1 in that the image search is defined essentially by the steps of operating the said apparatus functions rendering the apparatus novel.

12. In summary it follows that the requirement of novelty is met by the apparatus as well as the method as claimed.

Inventive step

13. The Board applies, as a test for inventive step, the "problem-and-solution approach" according to which an invention is to be understood as a technical solution to a technical problem, assessed by the person skilled in the relevant field of technology in the light of the prior art (see the decision T 641/00 - Two identities/COMVIK, OJ EPO 2003, 352, point 5 of the Reasons).

Apparatus

14. Starting from document EP-A-0 392 753, the objective technical problem solved may be seen in providing a technical tool for efficient search, retrieval and evaluation of images stored in an image processing apparatus.

15. Although in the present case human activities are involved in solving this problem, which activities may relate to the information contents of images looked for and may be motivated by personal interests and/or other non-technical preferences, the Board considers the claimed features relating to the format of images displayed, not to be presentation of information as such.

16. It is true that non-technical aspects may be found in the design and the use of an interface through which the user interacts with a system (see decision T 244/00-Remote- control/MATSUSHITA, not published in OJ EPO). Indeed, presenting information through a user interface, if the only relevant effect of the presentation relates to the visually attractive nature of the graphic design or artwork, does not have technical character. However, in its decision the Board has not excluded that an arrangement of menu items (or images) on a screen may be determined by technical considerations. Such considerations may aim at enabling the user to manage a technical task, such as searching and retrieving images stored in an image processing apparatus, in a more efficient or faster manner, even if an evaluation by the user on a mental level is involved. Although such evaluation per se does not fall within the meaning of "invention" pursuant to Article 52 EPC, the mere fact that mental activities are involved does not necessarily qualify subject matter as non-technical since any technical solutions in the end aim at providing tools which serve, assist or replace human activities of different kinds, including mental ones.

Furthermore, in accordance with case law, the use of a piece of information in a technical system, or its usability for this purpose, may confer a technical character on the information itself in that it reflects the properties of the technical system, for instance by being specifically formatted or processed (see decision T 1177/97-Translating natural languages/ SYSTRAN, not published in OJ EPO, point 2 of the Reasons). Additionally, functional data (line numbers, coded picture lines, addresses and synchronisations) recorded on a record carrier to be used in a picture retrieval system are to be distinguished from the cognitive content encoded (see decision T 1194/97-Data structure product/PHILIPS, OJ EPO 2000, 525, point 3.3 of the Reasons). Even if the overall information could be interpreted in an infinite number of different ways in other technical or human contexts, this does not detract from its technical function in the relevant context of the claimed invention (see T 1194/97, at the end of point 3.3). In this context, the Board cannot see a fundamental difference between an image processing system using a specific electrical picture access structure (binary code string) for easy image retrieval and an image processing system using a specific optical picture access structure (simultaneous display of a plurality of low resolution images) for the same purpose. Whether the actual retrieval and selection process is then carried out automatically or with the aid of human interaction is, in the Board's view, not decisive for the technical character of the claimed image processing functions.

17. In the present case, the functions/steps of processing the images in a specific format, i.e. a predetermined plural number of images in a side-by-side manner at a low level of resolution, and allowing selection and display of an image at higher resolutions provide information to the user in the form of a technical tool for an intellectual task he has to master, and hence contribute to the technical solution of the technical problem of an efficient search, retrieval and evaluation of images stored in an image processing apparatus insofar as this is supported by the specific image format chosen. In this respect it is neither mere aspects of art design, like a pleasant look or feeling, that matter, nor the mere information content of images presented, but the organisation of an overall image structure in view of a technical problem.

18. The invention solves this problem by providing a bundle of image processing functions which, if applied in a concerted manner by the user, ensure a time-saving and well manageable search operation as compared to the rudimentary disclosure of document EP-A-0 392 753. Even if each single one of these image processing functions, taken alone, were considered obvious to the skilled person in the light of common general knowledge and normal programming practices, in the technical context of an image database storing hierarchically encoded image data, these functions combine to yield a fast, easy to handle and in summary efficient searching tool, which goes beyond the mere aggregation of normal design options. The fact that the prior art lacks any clear hint to the claimed combination of image processing functions thus carries weight and must lead to the conclusion that the presence of inventive step as required by Article 56 EPC has to be acknowledged.

Method

19. Since the method of claim 6 involves the application of the said bundle of apparatus functions the requirement of inventive step is met by the method as well, substantially for the same reasons as indicated above in respect of the apparatus claim.

Summary

20. It follows that the amended claims form a valid basis for granting a patent. The adaptation of the description to the claims can be the subject of the further prosecution of the application in the first instance.