In view of these distinguishing features, the appellant proposed to formulate the objective technical problem as "how to synchronise database schemas of an email database at a portable electronic device and a backup server over a bandwidth-limited and intermittent wireless link" (features F1 and F6).
This objective technical problem was solved by generating an update command comprising the plurality of database schema changes (feature F3).
Inventive step - Article 56 EPC4.1 According to the contested decision, all features of the then pending claim 1, apart from the use of a portable electronic device, are disclosed in document D5.4.2 In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant argued that D5 did not disclose the following features F1 to F6 of claim 1 of the main request (features F2 and F4 and parts of features F1, F3 and F5 were already present in claim 1 of the main request underlying the contested decision):- D5 did not disclose a portable device and a transmission of the updated command from the electronic portable device to the backup server by way of a radio communication channel (hereinafter: feature F1).- D5 did not disclose the step of "comparing the updated database schema with a previous database schema associated with the database, to determine database schema changes on the portable electronic device" (hereinafter: feature F2).- D5 did not disclose the step of "generating an update command based on said comparing, when the updated database schema differs from said previous database schema, said update command comprising said database schema changes" (hereinafter: feature F3).
D5 did not disclose the step of transmitting a specific update command from the portable electronic device to the corresponding backup server (hereinafter: feature F4).- D5 did not disclose the step of "deleting data stored in a second field in each of the data records, if said database schema changes comprise modification of said second field of the data records" (hereinafter: feature F5).- D5 did not disclose a database which was associated with mail store content (hereinafter: feature F6).
With respect to feature F2, the appellant submitted that according to the Examining Division "a comparison, in a general sense," was disclosed in D5.