T 0366/20 (Multiple identity system for media files/BLACKBERRY Limited) of 27.1.2023

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (applicant) appealed against the examining division's decision to refuse European patent application No. 11156328.4 (published as EP 2492825).

II. The documents cited in the contested decision included:

D1: US 2005/0004941 A1, published on 6 January 2005

III. The examining division decided that claims 1 and 6 of both the main request and the first auxiliary request lacked an inventive step over document D1, contrary to the requirements of Article 56 EPC, and that neither claim 1 nor claim 6 of the first auxiliary request fulfilled the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

IV. In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the contested decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the main request considered in the contested decision and re-submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal or, alternatively, on the basis of either the first or second auxiliary requests submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal.

V. In a communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings, the board expressed its preliminary view that claim 1 of the main request lacked clarity under Article 84 EPC, that there appeared to be no reason for admitting the first and second auxiliary requests under Article 12(6) RPBA 2020, that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request appeared to infringe the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, and that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request and of the first and second auxiliary requests lacked an inventive step over document D1 under Article 56 EPC.

VI. With a letter dated 14 December 2022, the appellant filed a new first auxiliary request together with further arguments concerning the clarity and inventive step of the main request and the new first auxiliary request.

VII. During the oral proceedings, the appellant withdrew the main request and replaced it with the new first auxiliary request as the sole request.

VIII. The appellant requests that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the set of claims of the sole request on file.

IX. The sole request on file has been broken down into features by the board in section 3 of the Reasons below.

X. The appellant's arguments, where relevant to the decision, are discussed in detail below.

Reasons for the Decision

Application

1. The application relates to devices and methods for managing the identity of media content data (see paragraph [0001] of the description as originally filed). It is common for the same media content to be available from numerous sources, each of which may use a different proprietary identification scheme for describing, via the use of metadata, its creator or the artist's name, the (song) title, track number, or other associated information (see paragraph [0003]).

2. The application states that, in addition to the user experiencing frustrating delays while a duplicate file is being downloaded, redundant downloads to the same mobile device place an unnecessary burden on wireless network infrastructures. Furthermore, storing duplicate media content files that are referenced with different identifiers unnecessarily uses the limited storage space within a mobile device. Moreover, managing the identities of these duplicate files is tedious, time- consuming, and annoying for the user of the mobile device (see paragraph [0004]).

Sole request

3. Claim 1 of the sole request reads as follows (broken down into features by the board):

A |A client node, comprising: |

B |a database comprising a plurality of media content data files; |

C |a database comprising local identification data and metadata both associated with the plurality of media content data files; and |

D |processing logic for performing media content identity management operations, |

E |the processing logic used by the client node to reconcile the identity of individual media content data files of the plurality of media content data files, |

F |the processing logic configured to perform: |

F1|selecting a media content data file stored in a media content data source; |

F2|receiving a first set of metadata associated with the selected media content data file from the media content data source; |

F3|providing the first set of metadata to a server node; |

F4|receiving from a server node a first master identifier corresponding to the first set of metadata; |

F5|processing the first master identifier to identify whether there is any second master identifier stored in the database of local identification data and metadata that matches the first master identifier; and |

F6|acquiring the selected media content data file in response to determining that there is no second master identifier stored in the database of local identification data and metadata matching the first master identifier.|

4. Admissibility - sole request

5. During the oral proceedings, the board admitted the new first auxiliary request, which became the sole request on file. The exceptional circumstances for admitting said request under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 were that the board had raised new objections under Article 84 EPC against what was then the pending main request in sections 9 to 13 of the board's communication, and the new first auxiliary request overcame these objections.

6. Inventive step - claim 1

7. D1 was considered by the examining division to be the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim 1 of the pending main request. The board also considers it to be the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim 1 of the sole request and the appellant has not contested this.

8. In a first embodiment of document D1, a network crawler 200 is connected to a server 210 and is arranged to obtain multimedia objects that clients are sharing over a file sharing network 100. It can contact the server 110/210 to obtain a list of all the available multimedia objects, and then directly access all the individual clients 101 to 105 to download all the available multimedia objects (see paragraph [0042] together with Figures 1 and 2). The crawler 200 also obtains a set of metadata for the multimedia object from the client from which it obtains the multimedia object itself (see paragraph [0044]). Having downloaded a multimedia object, the crawler 200 then computes a fingerprint from the multimedia object (see paragraph [0045]).

9. In a sub-embodiment of the first embodiment, the server 210 maintains the database 211. A networking module 301 in the server 210 receives the computed fingerprint and the obtained set of metadata from the crawler 200. A verifying module 302 of the server checks whether the received fingerprint is already present in the database 211. If the received fingerprint is already in the database 211, the verifying module 302 submits the set of metadata to a Database Management System (DBMS) backend module 303, which updates the database 211 to associate the set of metadata with the fingerprint already in the database 211. If the received fingerprint is not already in the database 211, the verifying module 302 submits the computed fingerprint and the obtained set of metadata to the DBMS back-end module 303, which adds the fingerprint and the set of metadata, associated with each other, to the database 211 (see paragraphs [0050] and [0051] and Figure 3 reproduced below).

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

10. Once the definite set of metadata for a particular fingerprint has been determined (i.e. once a "sufficient" number of sets of metadata are associated with said particular fingerprint in the database 211), the definite set of metadata can be fed back to the clients to enable them to update their metadata for the song in question (see paragraph [0065]; emphasis by the board). The server 210 can make at least a portion of the database 211 available to others by offering a search interface 305 through which clients can submit a fingerprint and receive a set of metadata in return (see paragraph [0066], emphasis by the board).

11. A fingerprint of the method of document D1 can thus be equated to a "master identifier" according to claim 1, while a set of metadata in document D1 corresponds to a "set of metadata" according to claim 1.

12. One of the clients 101 to 105 of document D1 can be equated to a "client node" of claim 1. In document D1, the multimedia objects that a client is sharing over a file sharing network, together with their respective set of associated metadata, are stored in a (local) database in the client. Indeed, paragraph [0069] states that it is also possible to maintain the database with fingerprints and sets of metadata in a distributed fashion in one or more of the file sharing clients 101 to 105. The local "fingerprint" would then correspond to the "local identification data" according to claim 1.

13. Each (file sharing) client of document D1 also comprises some "processing logic" for performing media content identity management by using a database 405 comprising fingerprints and associated sets of metadata for each shared multimedia object stored in storage 403 (see paragraphs [0069] to [0073] and Figure 4).

14. Thus, document D1 discloses features A to D of claim 1 of the main request. It also discloses features F, F1 and F2 when retrieving a multimedia object as a "media content data file" according to claim 1 from the database of another client node sharing its media content as a "media content data source" as according to claim 1.

15. Paragraph [0073] of document D1 reads: "A fingerprint for a multimedia object can be computed while that object is being downloaded, since only a relatively small portion of the object is necessary to compute a fingerprint. [...] If during this process it is determined that the fingerprint is already in the database 405, it is very likely that the user already has a copy of this particular multimedia object in his possession. The user could then be warned, so that he could abort the downloading".

It is well known to the skilled person that when the downloading of a file to a storage place is aborted (for example because the user already has a copy of this particular multimedia object), the incompletely downloaded file is usually removed from this storage place. Thus, document D1 additionally discloses, in the sub-embodiment in which the database with fingerprints and the sets of metadata are maintained in a distributed fashion (see D1, paragraphs [0069] to [0073]), feature F6 and the following features (wherein the parts in italics are not present in claim 1 and the crossed out parts are present in claim 1 but not in document D1):

F4' |receiving from a server node a part of a media content data file to compute a first master identifier [deleted: corresponding to][deleted: the first set of metadata] (the another client acting as a server node); |

F5' |[deleted: processing] using the first master identifier to identify whether there is any second master identifier stored in the database of local identification data and metadata that [deleted: matches] is the same as the first master identifier; and|

16. Therefore, the board is of the opinion that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the main request over document D1 are feature E (in particular "to reconcile the identity of individual media content data files") and, in essence, features F3 to F5.

17. In reply to the board's communication and during the oral proceedings before the board, the appellant argued that the objective technical problem to be solved was "how to provide, at a client node, a more efficient non-duplicate downloading and file identity reconciliation".

18. The appellant argued that this corresponded to an advantageous technical effect because even if a small portion of the selected file could be sufficient to derive a file identifier at the client node (as in the case of the fingerprints disclosed in D1), and even if this portion of the file could be removed from the client node if the download was aborted, a small portion of a large selected file (e.g. a video file) still corresponded to a large amount of data relative to the limited storage capabilities of the client node (this could cause problems or inefficiencies of operation of the client node even with a limited storage time).

19. The appellant argued in its statement of grounds that, according to claim 1 of the pending main request, a first master identifier was fetched from a remote server node on the basis of metadata associated with the selected media content data file.

19.1 According to D1, the fingerprint for a multimedia object was computed while that object was being downloaded (and reference was made to paragraph [0073]). Once the fingerprint was computed, it could be compared to fingerprints stored in the local database of the user, and accordingly the user could be warned if a matching fingerprint was found. Therefore, with the method presented in document D1, a portion of the selected multimedia object would need to be downloaded to the personal computer of the user before the fingerprint for the selected multimedia object could be computed and compared to the fingerprints stored in the local database. In the case where a duplicate object was identified in the local database after the computation of the fingerprint, the downloaded portion, irrespective of its size, would have unnecessarily used up storage space in the user's personal computer device and placed an undue burden on the bandwidth of the file sharing network.

20. According to the appellant, the claimed solution provided downloading of non-duplicate media files along with reconciliation of file identities based on received metadata of media files selected for possible download. By contrast, D1 taught a solution for downloading of non-duplicate media files based on received initial portions of the files selected for possible download and was concerned at most with reconciling metadata based on file identifiers (according to paragraphs [0051] to [0064] of document D1, different metadata associated with different instances of the same file were aggregated to a respective file identifier, and then filtered to elect a definite set of metadata for the file identifier). As a further advantage, the claimed solution avoided conflicts due to having copies of the same file identifier (associated with respective copies of the same file) that were locally stored in association with the same or similar metadata.

21. However, the board is of the opinion that no technical effect of the distinguishing features can be derived over the whole scope of the claim (see decision G 1/19 of 10 March 2021, sections 82 and 95).

21.1 The board first notes that the "local identification data" are not further defined in claim 1 (see feature C). They are also only stored in a database of the client node but are not further used by the processing logic stipulated in, or the client defined by, claim 1.

21.2 Concerning feature F5, the board also notes that the expression "matching", while encompassing "being identical to", does not exclude other types of correspondences such as "having some similarity", "being analogous to", "being paired with", etc.

21.3 Moreover, the board is of the view that claim 1 does also not exclude the fact that the selected media content data file is acquired when there is a second master identifier stored in the database of local identification data and metadata matching the first master identifier (see feature F6).

21.4 During the oral proceedings, the appellant stated that only the first set of metadata were received, and not the selected media content data file (see features F1 and F2). The metadata were associated with the media content data files but outside of the media content data files.

21.4.1 The board notes that it is stated in the description of the application that a proprietary identification scheme based on an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file schema or ID3 tags accommodates metadata such as the artist's name or the creator, track number, song title, or "other associated information" (see paragraph [0003] of the description as originally filed). During the oral proceedings, the board informed the appellant that a multimedia file in some cases comprised metadata associated with the file. Moreover, D1 discloses that, often, the set of metadata is included in or with the multimedia object, so that obtaining the set of metadata happens automatically when obtaining the multimedia object. For instance, a multimedia object with music in the popular MP3 format often contains metadata as an ID3 tag at the end of the object (paragraph [0044] of document D1). D1 teaches that a fingerprint (or "(robust) hash") of a multimedia object is a representation of the "most relevant perceptual features" of the object in question: thus, for two multimedia objects to be considered the same, their fingerprints should be the same (paragraph [0002] of document D1). This concurs with the appellant's argument that according to document D1, the fingerprint could be computed based on the extraction of time-frequency characteristics of the multimedia object, which were unique for each multimedia file (see the board's communication, section 25.2).

21.5 The appellant argued during the oral proceedings that the set of metadata were used as an index for retrieving a first master identifier based on associations between master identifiers and metadata at the server node. Furthermore, the appellant argued that according to document D1, the fingerprint could be computed based on the extraction of time-frequency characteristics of the multimedia object, which were unique for each multimedia file, and not based on metadata. In the method of document D1, the metadata was only an optional feature and did not contribute to the computation of the fingerprint.

21.6 The board notes that in claim 1 of the sole request, the metadata does not appear to contribute to the computation of the "master identifier" (as a "fingerprint"). Feature F4 recites "receiving from a server node a first master identifier corresponding to the first set of metadata", but this can be interpreted as using the first set of metadata as an index for retrieving a first master identifier. This appears to be confirmed by the appellant, which stated that the application disclosed a mechanism to generate and maintain master identifiers at the server node, whereby upon collection of a media file from a respective source along with its associated metadata:

- the server node searched to identify pre-existing metadata corresponding to the media file;

- if no pre-existing metadata were identified, the server node generated the master identifier and associated it with the collected metadata; and

- if pre-existing metadata were identified, the server node identified a pre-existing master identifier associated with the identified pre-existing metadata and re-indexed this identified pre-existing master identifier to both the pre-existing and newly collected metadata.

Thus, the server nodes could maintain master identifiers each associated with respective sets of metadata belonging to different instances of the same file (the appellant referred to paragraphs [0051] and [0052], paragraphs [0060] to [0062] and Figure 6 of the application).

21.7 However, claim 1 does not define how the "first master identifier" received from a server node corresponds to the "first set of metadata" provided by the client to this server node (see feature F4). Since the first master identifier seems to be determined based only on the metadata, and since the metadata may be incomplete or incorrect or otherwise not identifying for the media content or may not capture differences in actual content of the media content data files (for example due to different versions of the same song, movie etc.) the result of the claimed method seems to be essentially unpredictable with respect to the detection of duplicate media content files over the whole scope of the claim.

21.8 Moreover, the claim does not define what "processing" is performed on the first master identifier to identify whether a second master identifier is stored in the database of local identification data and metadata that matches the first master identifier (see feature F5).

21.9 Since there is no technical effect over the whole scope of the claim, no technical problem is solved over the whole scope of the claim and the claimed method therefore lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.