The appeal case T 0163/85, concerning European Patent Application No.82 902076.7, dealt with patent claims related to “Colour TV Signal Processing” technology. The adjudication of this milestone case settled the issue of whether data processing inventions qualified for patent protection under European patent law.
The claimed invention pertained to a colour television signal and receiver, which enabled unconventional pictures with an aspect ratio greater than 4:3, by increasing the proportion of each line used for active video.
The patent application of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was initially refused for lack of inventive step under Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Code (EPC) based on common technical knowledge and prior documents, which included journal articles and conference papers.
BBC challenged the decision before the Board of Appeals.
The appellant argued that the invention provided a wider aspect ratio without increasing bandwidth, achieving partial compatibility with existing television systems and transmission links. The primary contention of the appellant, who asserted non-obviousness, was that the simplicity of the approach masked its ingenuity as no prior art suggested this method.
The Board initially questioned whether a television signal could be a patentable invention under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, suggesting it might constitute excluded subject-matter, such as a “presentation of information.” It also initially doubted the subsistence of an inventive step in the receiver claims.
During oral proceedings, the appellant submitted that none of the cited documents dealt with increasing the active portion of each line to enhance aspect ratio with no increase in bandwidth. Earlier systems either accepted greater bandwidth or reduced image height, whereas the invention achieved wider images within the same transmission limits.
The Board of Appeals ultimately ruled that the claimed television signal is patentable. It reasoned that the claimed invention inherently incorporates the technological features of the television system producing or using it. Unlike a mere “presentation of information,” it represents a physical technologically detectable entity rather than an abstract concept. Hence, it cannot be considered as a non-technical or purely informational creation under Article 52(2)(d) EPC.
The prior art discussed higher aspect ratios such as 5:3, but always in connection with high-definition television (HDTV) requiring greater bandwidth. No prior document suggested achieving a wider aspect ratio by solely increasing the active-video portion of each line within standard bandwidth
.jpg)
Although disclosures existed in respect of some synchronisation and signal details, they did not address the concept of effective horizontal scan rate or how to modify it to achieve a higher aspect ratio. Prior art consistently associated improved aspect ratios with increased bandwidth.
The Board of Appeals concluded that the claimed invention: (i) was novel; and, (ii) entailed an inventive step. Therefore, it ruled that the appeal was admissible and the provisional view of the signal claim being unpatentable was reversed.
Consequently, the decision of the Examining Division was set aside and the case was remitted to the first instance for the grant of a patent.
This decision was notable for recognising that a television signal could constitute patentable subject-matter under the EPC, when item bodied technical features of the system that produced it.
The Board distinguished such information-bearing technical signals from mere information content, setting an early precedent for the patentability thereof—a vital principle of great relevance in later software and data structure cases
This case gained importance in later EPO jurisprudence. It has been cited in subsequent Board of Appeals decisions as precedent for evaluating the patentability of technical data processing inventions. It represents an early important decision in the EPO's development of case law regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions and technical data processing.
At Blaze Ventures, we have qualified professionals and elaborate processes for helping enterprises and inventors file patent applications for ‘non-obvious’ computer-implemented and technical data processing ideas, innovations and inventions.
