T 2483/11 14-09-2012

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Main request

2.1 It is common ground that document D1 constitutes the closest prior art.

D1 discloses a recording apparatus, such as a DVD recorder, which comprises management information generating means, recording means and control means (figure 10: 1536, 101, 1530 and column 16, line 59 to column 17, line 15). A first part of the recorded information (common information 2001 according to the terminology of D1) complies with the DVD video standard and may therefore be played back by a multitude of DVD players from different manufacturers (see figure 12, column 2, lines 38 to 48 and column 26, line 61 to column 27, line 48). This common information is separated into management/control information 2005, 1011 and object information including video information 2007, 1012, which contains data from moving picture files (see column 8, lines 66 and 67). Both the management/control information and the object information as well as backup information for the management/control information are each stored in a single file and "continuously recorded in a single file" on the DVD (see figure 1: 1011, 1012, figure 2 and column 36, lines 7 to 22). The appellant has not contested that these passages disclose that these pieces of information are "recorded sequentially" in the context of the moving picture file (DVD format).

D1 also discloses recording the address of the management/control information to a management table (anchor pointer 1015), which is stored at the beginning of the audio and video data area 1009 and, hence, in a predetermined area of the disk (see figure 1: 1015 and column 5, lines 56 to 61).

To allow for extensions of the DVD standard, D1 discloses storage of information pertaining to a specific manufacturer. This specific information is stored separately from the common information and divided into specific object information, which corresponds to an extension file in the present application, and specific control information corresponding to management information for the extension file (see column 27, lines 9 to 48). The specific object information is not restricted to moving picture files but may also contain program data (see column 47, line 64 to column 48, line 2). In addition, guide information for the extension files is stored as first priority link designation information for the specific information (see figures 13A-C: 2055). This guide information is contained in the link information and thus stored as an element of the control information 1011 (see column 36, lines 48 to 64). It follows that the guide information is indirectly referenced by the anchor pointer 1015 corresponding to the management table of the present application.

D1 also discloses first and second file management data generated from management information for all files recorded on the medium and for only the moving picture files, respectively. Both the first and second file management data are recorded to respective recording areas on the medium (see figure 1, column 7, lines 4 to 10 and column 12, lines 11 to 37).

2.2 As a consequence, D1 discloses all the features of claim 1 except for the feature that "the control means is operable to select a recording format for the file and management information by recording the file and management information", "when the file is the extension file, in such a manner that the extension file and extension-file management information are recorded sequentially".

2.3 The appellants argued that the distinguishing feature has the technical effects of improved space management of the recordable area on the medium and potentially quicker access to the sequentially recorded data. However, a significant effect of an improved space management can hardly be achieved by sequential recording of management and file information because management information is insignificant in terms of required storage space. With respect to the second effect the board holds that, contrary to the appellants' assertion, quicker access to a sequentially recorded extension file and associated management information is not explicitly disclosed in the application as filed. The application relates to the effect that "a desired one of recorded files can be searched more quickly" (see page 6, last paragraph). The passages on page 48, lines 8 to 12 and page 51, line 10 to 13 relate to the latter effect in the context of the extension-file management information, which is stored "in one place" such that it may be read in one piece. However, quick access to management information being recorded in one place and as a single file is not the same as quick access to sequentially recorded files. Hence, a technical effect originating from sequential recording of an extension file and the extension-file management information is not explicitly addressed by these passages.

2.4 It is established case law that as a matter of principle, any effect provided by the invention may be used as a basis for reformulating the technical problem, as long as that effect is derivable from the application as filed. Regarding the effect of the invention, reformulation of the problem can be allowed provided the skilled person could recognise the same as implied or related to the problem initially suggested (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 6th edition, 2010, section I.D.4.4).

2.5 The board considers the adverse effect of fragmentation of recorded information on access time to be well known in the art. As a consequence, the skilled person would regard it to be implied in the application that the access time to the extension file together with its associated management information can be reduced if these pieces of information are stored sequentially, in the meaning of next to one another, thereby avoiding a search for this information across different places on the disk (and corresponding head movements). Hence, the technical problem can be regarded as how to reduce the access time for the extension file and associated management information.

2.6 D1 discloses that moving picture file management information and associated moving picture files are each stored in a single file and are continuously recorded on an optical disk (see point 2.1 above). Similarly, the present application refers to the conventional restricted overwrite (ROW) method. According to this method, video title sets (VTS) consisting of moving picture files (VTSTT VOBS) and associated management information (VTSI, VTSM VOBS) are "sequentially recorded" (see figure 2 together with pages 4 and 5). Moreover, as set out above (see point 2.5) the skilled person was aware of the adverse effect of fragmentation of information. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled person also to apply sequential recording to an extension file and associated management information.

2.7 As a result, starting from D1 the skilled person would have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 without an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).

3. First auxiliary request

3.1 Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request is identical in substance to claim 1 of the main request, except that the term "sequentially" has been replaced by "next to one another". To take account of this situation, the board has already based its reasoning in section 2 above on the more limited interpretation of this term.

3.2 Hence, for the reasons given above (see point 2), the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the first auxiliary request also lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).

4. Second auxiliary request

4.1 The additional feature of claim 1 according to the second auxiliary request refers to the embodiment of figure 7 and pages 30 and 31 of the description. According to this embodiment and as specified in claim 1, extension-file management information (DK, CI, EXF1 to EXF3) is recorded next to the corresponding extension files (EF1 to EF3). If one or more additional extension files (EF4 to EF6) are recorded after recording of the extension-file management information is finished, management information relating to all extension files together (CI, EXF1 to EXF6) is generated and recorded next to the additional extension files. The previously recorded extension-file management information is discarded by updating the pointer to the extension-file management information in the extension-file guide information (TE).

4.2 D1 discloses that the extension-file management information relating to extension files of a specific manufacturer may be recorded as a single file (see column 37, lines 39 to 57 and column 38, lines 1 to 18). However, it is not disclosed how this file is modified if extension files are added to previously recorded ones. The corresponding feature of present claim 1 ensures that the extension-file management information is always recorded in one place. This provides the technical effect that the extension-file management information can be accessed in a short time (see, for example, page 48, lines 8 to 12 and page 51, lines 10 to 13). The corresponding technical problem can be regarded as how to reduce the access time for the extension-files and associated management information in an efficient manner when additional extension files are to be recorded (updating).

4.3 The board holds that the skilled person only has a limited number of options for how to update the extension-file management information when additional extension files are recorded. Apart from the proposed solution, and as argued by the appellants, the management information could be split between disk locations, other data could be shuffled to new positions so as to make room for the newly added management information or a sufficient amount of disk space could be reserved for the extension-file management information from the beginning. It would have been apparent to the skilled person that each of these solutions has its advantages and disadvantages. In particular, the disadvantages of fragmentation of files are considered to be well known to the skilled person. The skilled person would therefore have considered recording the added extension files and the updated extension-file management information sequentially.

4.4 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the second auxiliary request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).

5. Third auxiliary request

5.1 Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request and claim 1 of the third auxiliary request are identical in substance, except for the replacement of the term "sequentially" by "next to one another". Since the board has already taken account of this more limited meaning of sequentially (see point 3.1 above), the reasons given under point 4 above equally apply.

5.2 It follows from the above that the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the third auxiliary request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).