The applicant (appellant), whose name at the time was Research In Motion Limited, appealed against the decision of the Examining Division refusing European patent application No. In the written proceedings the Examining Division also cited the following prior-art documents: D1: US2005/120123 published on 2 June 2005, D2: US2005/071344 published on 31 March 2005, D3: US2004/224675 published on 11 November 2004, D4: Marco Mesiti et al.: "X-Evolution: A System for XML Schema Evolution and Document Adaptation", 10th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, Munich, Germany, 26-31 March, 2006, LNCS 3896, published on 31 March 2006. With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant submitted a new main request and new first and second auxiliary requests.
No submissions concerning the new document D6 were made. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:"A method of updating and backing up a database (40, 42, 44) comprising data records, to accord with an updated database schema defining un [sic] updated structure of the data records in the database (40, 42, 44), wherein the database (40, 42, 44) is associated with mail store content, the method comprising:obtaining (100) at a portable electronic device (22) the updated database schema associated with the database (40, 42, 44);comparing the updated database schema (106) with a previous database schema associated with the database (40, 42, 44), to determine database schema changes;generating an update command (108) based on said comparing (106), when the updated database schema differs from said previous database schema, said update command comprising said database schema changes;updating the data records (110) of the database (40, 42, 44) according to the update command (108) by:deleting a first field from each of the data records, if said database schema changes comprise a deletion of said first field of the data records;deleting data stored in a second field in each of the data records, if said database schema changes comprise a modification of said second field of the data records; andadding a new field in each of the data records, if said database schema changes comprise an addition of said new field of the data records; andtransmitting said update command (112) from said portable electronic device (22) to a server by way of a radio communication channel, said update command for enabling updating of a backup database (34, 36, 38) associated with the database (40, 42, 44) at the server, by performing the steps deleting a first field, deleting data and adding a new field on backup data records of the backup database (34, 36, 38) according to the update command, so that each of the backup data records of the backup database (34, 36, 38) conforms to the updated structure as defined by the updated database schema."Claims 2 to 10 of the main request are dependent on claim 1.It requested that the decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of one of the main and the first and second auxiliary requests. In a communication pursuant to Rule 100(2) EPC, the Board essentially agreed with the appellant's assessment of document D5 and found that the reasons given by the Examining Division did not justify the refusal of the application.However, as the Board was aware of a further prior-art document which might prejudice the patentability of the claimed subject-matter, the following courses of action were proposed:(a) The Board would decide to set aside the decision under appeal and remit the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution.Jim has been in the DVD business since before there was a DVD business.In 1995 he found out about the upcoming DVD format and began writing articles to let others know about this amazing new technology.