T 0515/00 25-06-2003

Reasons for the Decision

Main request

1. Admissibility of the amendments (Article 123(2) EPC)

Apart from amendments to a few reference numerals, the following features of claim 1 have been added with respect to claim 1 as granted:

(i) command input means for enabling a user to input command data specifying on which of the plurality of lines an input character is to be printed;

(ii) input data buffer (31) for storing the data input from said character and command input means;

(iii)(printing setting means (27)), responsive to the command data input from said command input means, for selectively setting input character data in at least one of a plurality of printing lines,

(iv) wherein said data arrangement means includes a plurality of pointers (34, 35),

(v) each of said plurality of pointers corresponding to one of said plurality of printing lines;

A basis for the first four amendments in the application as filed (cf. published version) is the following: feature (i): see column 7, lines 49 to 53, and column 9, lines 50 to 51 (the operator can select in which printing line a character is printed); feature (ii): see column 7, lines 7 to 11, and Figure 11; feature (iii): see again column 7, lines 49 to 53, and column 9, lines 50 to 51; feature (iv): see Figure 3.

It was not disputed by the appellant that there is a basis in the application as filed for the features (i) to (iii). The contentious features are features (iv) and (v). The main objection of the appellant against feature (iv) is, that arrangement memories should have been recited in the claim with a view to avoid intermediate generalization. With respect to feature (v) the appellant argued essentially that the way pointers interact with the arrangement memories and what the exact correspondence between the pointers and the printing lines is, should have been defined in the claim as well.

Turning first to feature (v), the following is noted. The term pointer has a precise meaning in the art, as the documents D17 and D18 show. According to these documents, a pointer is a variable that contains the address of another variable. In other words, it is a link to a data item. A pointer has an address and it points to an address. In the block diagram of the control system according to a preferred embodiment of the invention (cf. Figure 3) the memory locations in the RAM of the pointers are shown. In the judgement of the Board, a pointer in the context of the invention is thus a memory location in the RAM which stores an address in a memory, see also column 6, line 59, to column 7, line 2. This is fully consistent with the statement in document D17: In low-level languages, a pointer would hold the store address of the data item (see Section 3.1, second paragraph). In this respect it is noted that in the data arrangement process and in a subsequent process called the data revising process, wherein the dot pattern data of an upper line character and the dot pattern data of the characters of the lower line(s) to be printed directly below the character of the upper line are combined ("composed") and stored in a printing buffer (not specified in claim 1), pointers are merely used for indexing the respective arrangement memories.

Claim 1 relates to a tape printing device, not a tape printing process. Feature (v) should thus be understood as a device feature. It is immediately clear to the person skilled in the art reading the application as filed that from a hardware point of view the number of pointers in RAM must correspond in a one-to-one relationship to the number of printing lines. The expression "corresponding to" in feature (v) should be understood in this sense. This is also clear from Figure 3 as filed, which discloses two pointers for the case that there are two lines. It may be noted that the memory space needed for the first pointer is equal to the length of the input data buffer.

The appellant has argued that the successive contents of the first pointer did not correspond to the characters of the first printing line, whereby reference was made to the arrangement process control described in column 12, line 14ff. The Board comments that, although this observation is correct, it is beside the point, since feature (v) should not be interpreted as expressing a relationship between the contents of pointers and the contents of printing lines.

Now turning to feature (iv), the issue is whether pointers should have been claimed together with the respective arrangement memories or can be claimed in their own right. The feature that the data arrangement means includes a plurality of pointers is a clear restriction. It implies that the tape printing device must comprise data arrangement means, which include memory locations for storing addresses. In claim 1 according to the main request, the data arrangement means are further specified in functional terms, viz. in order to enable the printing of a plurality of printing lines of characters directly adjacent to each other across the tape width, which feature was already present in claim 1 as granted. This manner of claiming is perfectly acceptable; there is no need to give the details of the data arrangement process for achieving this aim in a device claim.

The block diagram of the RAM shown in Figure 3 admittedly shows not only the input data buffer and first and second pointers, it also shows first and second arrangement memories, a baseline change memory, a printing buffer and a flag memory. In the judgement of the Board, these various pieces of hardware can be individually claimed without contravening the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. The absence of arrangement memories in the claim does not imply that by default the skilled person is taught by the claim that the pointers must interact with the only piece of memory recited in the claim, viz. the input data buffer. This would indeed constitute a new teaching for which there is no basis in the application as filed. To sum up, in the opinion of the Board, there is no need to define the arrangement memories in the claim for the purpose of Article 123(2) EPC. There is also no need to give further details of the data arrangement process over and above the functional feature recited above already present in the claim.

The Board is satisfied that the subject-matter of claim 1 is disclosed as a whole in the application as filed, cf. Article 123(2) EPC.

Since the above-mentioned features have been added, the scope of protection conferred by claim 1 is restricted with respect to claim 1 of the patent in suit as granted. Claim 1 thus meets the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC as well.

2. Support in the description and clarity (Article 84 EPC)

The analysis given under point 1 above rebuts the objections of the appellant under Article 84 EPC to a large extent, since according to the appellant the alleged lack of support arises from a lack of disclosure.

Claim 1 requires that each of the pointers included in the data arrangement means corresponds one-to-one to a printing line. At the hardware level this is a clear statement. At the software level there is a more complicated relationship, since the address of a pointer is not fixed during the data arrangement process, it is incremented after each search cycle, cf. block S84 of the flowchart depicted in Figure 9A. The pointer corresponding to the nth printing line is in fact a set of pointers, each having a different address. The first of these pointers points to code data identifying the nth printing line (n unequal 1), whereas the remaining pointers point to character data in the nth printing line (see e.g. Figure 13, wherein the code data for the second line is denoted by Delta). In the opinion of the Board there is, from the point of view of clarity, no need or necessity to specify the relationship between pointers and printing lines at the process level, in a feature pertaining to data arrangement means.

Summarizing, in the judgement of the Board the subject-matter of claim 1 is clear and supported by the description, cf. Article 84 EPC.

3. Sufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC)

The main thrust of the appellant's argument is that there was no disclosure of carrying out the invention other than using arrangement memories for each printing line. In particular, it was alleged that the invention could not be performed with a single arrangement memory, or without arrangement memories at all, i.e. a mode of operation whereby the pointers would act on the input data buffer.

The appellant's argument on insufficiency of disclosure is a variation on the theme of intermediate generalization expounded on in point 1 above: subject- matter for which there is no disclosure in the application as filed not only contravenes Article 123(2) EPC, but must also contravene Article 83 EPC, since if the application as filed is silent about such subject-matter, it is a fortiori silent about how to carry out such subject-matter.

In the judgement of the Board, the patent in suit discloses the invention as claimed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, cf. Articles 83 and 100(b) EPC, for the following reasons.

The Board is satisfied that a person skilled in the art can carry out the invention as described in the preferred embodiment of the patent in suit (see column 4, line 34ff). The aim of the data arrangement process is primarily to add space codes to the string of characters of the lower or upper printing line, such that both strings have the same length. As a result of this process, input characters are arranged in such a way that, in a subsequent printing operation, the characters of the lower line(s) are located directly below characters of the upper line.

Whether this aim could also be achieved by using a single arrangement memory, or by using the input data buffer itself, does not need to be answered, since such modes of operations are not explicitly claimed. The breadth of a claim should be assessed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 of the Convention. An invention cannot be considered to be irreproducible merely because a claim encompasses (a) hypothetical embodiment(s) laying outside the breadth of the claim as determined by said Protocol, which embodiment(s) cannot be reproduced. It is noted that the appellant has not convincingly shown that the claimed data arrangement cannot be achieved without arrangement memories, i.e. that this hypothetical embodiment is indeed irreproducible.

4. Entitlement to priority (Article 87 EPC)

The appellant has submitted that the amendments, that were allegedly inadmissible under Article 123(2) EPC, were not disclosed in the priority document and had the effect that claim 1 was not entitled to the claimed priority. Moreover, claim 1 of the priority document specified several essential hardware components, such as a pattern data storing means, a printing buffer and data composing means, which were no longer present in the claim.

The application as filed is, apart from minor editorial changes, substantially identical to the priority document. In particular, the Board is satisfied that the features of claim 1 as granted and the passages in the application as filed forming a basis for the amendments (i) through (v) have counterparts in the priority document. The issue is not, however, whether individual features have been disclosed in the priority document, the key issue is whether the claimed combination of features of a claim as a whole is disclosed in the priority document. To this end, the second argument of the appellant must be addressed as well.

The second argument of the appellant is that features pertaining to hardware components relating to the printing process were no longer present in the claim. There was no basis in the priority document for the deletion of these features.

The Enlarged Board has decided in G 2/98 (OJ EPO 2000, 111) that if the subject-matter of a claim can be derived, directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole, priority of a previous application in respect of a claim in a European patent application in accordance with Article 88 EPC is to be acknowledged. In Section 8.3. the Enlarged Board has warned against an approach, whereby a distinction is made between technical features which are related to the function and the effect of the invention and technical features which are not. Priority cannot be acknowledged if a feature is modified or deleted, or a further feature is added.

It is important to note that a claim passes the priority test if its subject-matter can be derived from the previous application as a whole (emphasis added). It follows that comparing the claim with the corresponding claim of the previous application is not a valid approach to perform the "priority test". The priority test is basically a disclosure test, whereby the skilled reader may use common general knowledge. If, in the description of the previous application, a distinction is made between features that are essential for the performance of the invention, and features which are not, the latter can be deleted from the subject-matter of a claim without losing the right to priority.

The pattern data storing means, the printing buffer and the data composing means do not relate to the data arrangement process, they relate to the printing process. These hardware components are nowhere presented in the description of the priority document as being essential features. The skilled reader would not have any reason to assume that they are, merely because these hardware components are present in claim 1 of the priority document. It is true that there is also no explicit statement in the priority document that the printing hardware components can be dispensed with. However, for substantially the same reason as given in point 1 above, namely that claiming individual pieces of hardware shown in Figure 3 is allowable under Article 123(2) EPC, the same holds true for claiming individual pieces of hardware without losing the right to priority.

In view of the above, the Board is satisfied that a tape printing device having all the features of claim 1 of the main request, is disclosed in the priority document.

It follows that claim 1 of the main request is entitled to the priority date of 28 March 1991 claimed by virtue of the Japanese patent application 91492/91.

Document D19 was made available to the public around July 1991, which is after the priority date of the patent in suit. This document therefore does not belong to the state of the art defined in Article 54(2), (3) EPC for claim 1 of the main request. The appellant no longer relied on document D19, neither for assessing novelty and/or inventive step of claim 1 of the main request, nor for the same assessment of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request.

5. Novelty (Article 54 EPC)

Claim 1 relates to a tape printing device for printing lines of characters at different positions across the width of a print medium tape, comprising inter alia a printing head for printing characters on said print medium tape.

A print medium tape is a printable medium, having a width which is substantially constant and having a length which is quasi endless. In a tape printer device, the tape is fed (direction A in Figure 4), or manually drawn out (see column 15, line 59), in the machine direction, viz. in the longitudinal direction of the tape. The machine direction substantially coincides with the direction of the printing lines. The movement of the print head(s) is in the cross direction ("across the width of the tape").

The appellant has submitted that the subject-matter of claim 1 was not new with respect to the disclosure of document D1.

This document discloses a tape printing device comprising character and command input means (keyboard, see page 21), an input data buffer (edit mode, see page 34), a printing head (see page 8), printing setting means (see Typing and Printing, pages 34 to 35), data arrangement means (see example of printed text on page 34, point 9) and controlling means for controlling the printing head (implicitly disclosed in view of the example referred to above).

Document D1 does not disclose pointers in the sense of the definition "a memory location in the RAM which stores an address in a memory". The carriage returns (pressing the cut key) to end and enter a line of text cannot be considered pointers in the above sense. Consequently, claim 1 is new with respect to document D1.

Document D12 discloses a label printing device, whereby the labels are peelably adhered to a supporting tape. If one would consider, to the advantage of the appellant, that such a print medium, or a single label, constitutes a tape, the label printing device known from document D12 could be called a tape printing device, if (i) the printing lines are in the machine direction and (ii) the actual printing is performed in the cross direction. There is however no direct and unambiguous disclosure in document D12 that this is the case.

The main thrust of the appellant's argument is that it is impossible to locate data in memory without using pointers. By applying this statement to the disclosure of document D12, the appellant concludes that the information in the memory blocks PT1-(1), PT1-(2) and PT1-(3) (see document D12, page 12, penultimate paragraph) was "pointed to", and that the reference positions ("printing positions") of the printing area stored in the format blocks of the print format table also constitute "pointers".

However, document D12 fails to disclose pointers within the meaning of the invention, viz. a memory location in RAM which stores an address in a memory. Consequently, claim 1 is new with respect to document D12.

None of the other cited documents disclose a tape printing device with all the features of claim 1. Since this was not disputed, there is no need for further substantiation of this matter.

The subject-matter of claim 1 is therefore novel within the meaning of Article 54 EPC.

6. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

Document D1 represents the closest state of the art. The subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the tape printing device known from this document in that the data arrangement means includes a plurality of pointers, each of said plurality of pointers corresponding to one of said plurality of printing lines.

In the judgement of the Board, it was obvious for the person skilled in the art, confronted with the problem of arranging data in an input data buffer with a view to enabling the printing of a plurality of printing lines of characters directly adjacent to each other across the tape width, to use pointers for this purpose, since the advantages of pointers in programming are well-known in the art, see for example document D17, wherein it is stated (see Chapter 3.1, last paragraph) that: Pointers are needed when a data structure is dynamic, that is items are continually being added or deleted from the structure.

The respondent has submitted that to use pointers was one step, to use one pointer per printing line was another leap. The Board cannot accept this for the following reason. Since the data has to be arranged such that input characters from different printing lines can be printed adjacent to each other across the width of the tape, it is a straightforward, natural choice for the skilled person to define a dedicated pointer for each printing line.

The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore lacks an inventive step in the meaning of Article 56 EPC and, consequently, the main request of the respondent is not allowable.

First auxiliary request

7. Admissibility of the amendments

Claim 1 according to the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 according to the main request, which was found to meet the requirements of Articles 84 and 123 EPC, in that the following feature has been added: and wherein said data arrangement means further includes a plurality of arrangement memories (32, 33), each having addresses, each of said plurality of arrangement memories corresponding to one of said plurality of printing lines, each pointer (34, 35) storing one of the addresses in the corresponding arrangement memory (32, 33).

A basis for this feature is found in column 7, lines 14 to 31 (see also claim 6 and the data arrangement process described in column 12, line 14, to column 13, line 58).

The Board is satisfied that the subject-matter of claim 1 is disclosed as a whole in the application as filed, cf. Article 123(2) EPC. The subject-matter of claim 1 is also clear and supported by the description of the patent in suit, cf. Article 84 EPC.

Since the above-mentioned feature has been added, the scope of protection conferred by claim 1 is further restricted with respect to claim 1 of the main request and with respect to claim 1 of the patent in suit as granted. Claim 1 thus meets the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC as well.

8. Novelty

It is noted that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was already found to be novel, see point 5 above. The subject-matter of claim 1 is hence also novel within the meaning of Article 54 EPC.

The additional feature with respect to claim 1 of the main request (see point 7 above) is not disclosed in any of the cited documents belonging to the state of the art.

9. Inventive step

A tape printing device comprising data arrangement means which includes a plurality of arrangement memories, one for each printing line, the addresses of which are stored in pointers, is neither known from nor suggested by the cited prior art. The arrangement memories and the pointers provide a means to arrange the characters from each printing line such that, in the multi-line mode, characters that are to be printed directly adjacent to each other across the width of the tape have corresponding addresses in the arrangement memories, which greatly facilitates reading out the contents of the arrangement memories with a view of printing the characters of the lower printing lines underneath the characters of the upper printing line.

The appellant has submitted that data arrangement means which includes a plurality of arrangement memories, one for each printing line, were known from documents D7, D15 and D16. Consequently, no positive contribution to inventive step could be seen in providing the tape printing device known from document D1 with a plurality of arrangement memories as taught by documents D7, D15 or D16.

Document D7 relates to a thermal dot-matrix printer, which uses an inked ribbon. The problem the invention seeks to solve is to double the print speed for the case where print quality is of little importance, cf. page 1, lines 19 to 22. This problem is solved by simply reducing the height of the characters by a factor of at least two, so that two lines, or even more lines, can be printed simultaneously while using the standard ink ribbon for full-size printing. In order to achieve double-line printing, character data for the upper and lower line are stored in a first and second character line buffer, cf. page 8, lines 9 to 23.

In the opinion of the Board, the problem of reducing the size of the printed output is totally unrelated to the problem addressed by the patent in suit, which is to provide a tape printing device capable of receiving characters (input characters) and printing the characters on a plurality of printing lines which are defined by dividing the printing area of the printing medium tape across its width, the input characters being printed in a plurality of desired printing lines so that characters of the lower line are located below characters of the upper line, thereby permitting the printing of many more characters along a predefined length of tape than was previously possible, cf. column 1, lines 49 to 58, of the patent in suit. Document D7 does not relate to a tape printing device. Not surprisingly, document D7 is silent about the use of pointers, because an arrangement of data in the sense of the invention is not required. To sum up, document D7 is not considered a relevant document for assessing inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1.

Document D15 discloses a wire printing device, whereby the inclination of the writing ends of the wire relative to the writing direction is selectively variable from a first position in which the wires can write simultaneously at least two lines of writing, to a plurality of other positions in which the wires can write on one line only characters with variable definition dot matrices, cf. column 1, lines 49 to 58. In the first position the printing device shown in Figures 4 and 5 may write either simultaneously two lines of characters of standard height, or a single line of characters of double height. With respect to double-line printing, the printing device according to document D15 is very similar to the printing device known from document D7. For example, the character data of the upper and lower printing line are stored in two RAM memories (66, 67), cf. column 4, lines 54 to 60, and Figure 3. Also in document D15, double-line printing results in a speed doubling, see column 4, lines 49 to 54. Document D15 is thus not relevant for assessing inventive step for substantially the same reasons given for document D7: document D15 does not relate to a tape printing device, it addresses a different problem than the invention of the patent in suit and it is silent about the use of pointers.

Document D16 relates to an index label for documents or the like. The index label has the same information printed on each side of its centerline, which defines a left and right printing line (or an upper and lower printing line). The printed index label is adhered to and folded around the edge of a sheet of paper such that the edge of the paper is between the folded halves of the index label. Depending on which printing style mode is selected, the text in the two printing lines is printed such that it is readable in the same direction (cf. Figure 5, where the text runs from the left to the right, or Figure 7, where the text is readable from top to bottom), or the text is printed such that the label must be turned by 180° to read the text in the upper line (cf. Figure 6). The gist of the invention according to document D16 is that both halves of the label, each carrying essentially the same text, is printed simultaneously. Apart from the order and orientation of the characters, the contents of the first and second printing line is the same. The dot pattern data corresponding to the characters stored in the input buffer (73) are transferred, and, depending on the selected printing mode style, rotated or reversed in parallel to two (upper and lower bit array) shift registers, from which the text is printed. An arrangement of data in the sense of the invention is therefore not necessary. Document D16 does not disclose pointers for storing the addresses of the shift registers. In the judgement of the Board, a person skilled in the art would not have any incentive to consult document D16 if confronted with the problem of providing an alternative data arranging means for the tape printing device known from document D1.

Consequently, the subject-matter of independent claim 1 involves an inventive step.

The subject-matter of claims 2 to 12, which are appendant to the claim 1 similarly involves an inventive step.

Therefore, the request of the respondent that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the documents filed as first auxiliary request is allowable.