T 1261/06 – Important But Not Essential

[2.5] The board notes that the definition of the matter for which protection is sought in claim 1 is somewhat broader than the preferred embodiment of the invention. In particular, the claim does not specify that the first information is “important information” as in the case of the preferred embodiment […]. Likewise, the definition of the modulation scheme in the claim is not limited to the 8PSK scheme illustrated in Fig.2. However, in the present case the board judges that these generalisations of the claimed subject-matter are permissible when due account is taken of the disclosure as a whole.

[2.5.1] Although the first information is designated as “important information” in the preferred embodiment of the invention […], the board judges that this is not an essential technical feature of the invention. It is noted in this regard that the description states more generally that the information to be placed on the first and/or second bit of the group of bits is “information selected from all information to be communicated” […] and, likewise, that the specification “important information” does not in itself imply any particular technical limitation in respect of the first information.

Moreover, as may be inferred from the description, the recited placement of bits of the first information on bit positions which are less susceptible to errors results in an optimal error rate characteristic for the first information […]. This in turn implies an inherent prioritisation of the “first information” over the “second information”. On this basis the board concludes that an explicit specification to the effect that the first information is “important information” is not necessary.

[2.5.2] Concerning the definition of the modulation scheme it is noted that claim 1 specifies that a first and a second bit position of each group of bits are less susceptible to errors than the remaining bit positions and that the bits of the first information are placed on the first and/or the second bit position of each group of bits associated with a modulation symbol.

The board is satisfied that the skilled person would be able to infer from the specific example of the preferred embodiment that the invention can be practised more generally as long as the modulation scheme is such that a first and a second bit position of each group of bits are more reliable (i.e. less susceptible to errors) than the remaining bit positions. Provided that the modulation scheme fulfils this criterion, the technical effect on which the invention is based, i.e. providing an optimal error rate characteristic for the first information, can be achieved by selectively placing the bits of the first information on the more reliable bit positions. Therefore, in the board’s judgement, it is not necessary to limit the definition of the modulation scheme to the specific example of the 8PSK scheme illustrated in Fig.2.

[2.6] In view of the foregoing, the board is satisfied that claim 1 now provides a definition of the matter for which protection is sought which expresses the essential technical features of the invention with adequate clarity and in a manner supported by the description. On this basis, the claim is found to comply with the requirements of A 84.

To read the whole decision, click here.