I think you missed the other seven pages. Page 2 paragraph 6:
> The present application does not meet the criteria of Article 33(1) PCT, because the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step in the sense of Article 33(3) PCT.
The PDF it gives you on mobile is indeed one page.
But reading all the other pages it still doesn't change my view.
The part you cite is about whether that claim is patentable at all in view of the paper, it's unrelated to the prior art emails.
If that is upheld it would mean the person complaining here could not get a patent either.
They've made no determination that what is in the emails is relevant to anything that I can see.
It would also be par for the course since examination tends to take a while.
> it's unrelated to the prior art... they've made no determination that what is in the emails is relevant to anything that I can see
Paragraph 6.1: "The author of D1 [Jarek] provided in January 2014 in an on-line discussion forum information that would allow a skilled person to reach the invention without having to apply any inventive skills."
Paragraph 6.2: "In particular, it has been proposed in the on-line discussion forum to use ANS in video compression "like VP9" (D5)..."
The patent court is saying that Google's patent on ANS in video compression is invalid in light of Jarek's prior art, exactly as Jarek claims. The report cites Jarek's emails (documents D5 and D6) as prior art over and over.
(sorry, i can't edit my original response on mobile fast enough to correct a few errors. I think you took the wrong thing away from the "unrelated to the prior art" sentence).
1. This is not a court :)
In fact, the rejection is specifically not binding.
"(1) The objective of the international preliminary examination is to formulate a preliminary and non-binding opinion on the questions whether the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious), and to be industrially applicable."
2. As i said, they are saying claim 1 is not inventive, regardless of those references anyway. See 6.13.4
D1 is Jarek's original paper, a reference Google gave, not Jarek.
You are right that they have a long discussion of these emails, but then decide they don't matter anyway to claim 1 in 6.13.4. Perhaps you missed that. They even explicitly say that D5/D6 do not matter in practice. The rest is just random examiner prognostication.
You'll also see they are not cited in reference to any other claims.
Jarek (and the author's) claim was the emails are important and that he told them what they patented. As you can see, the preliminary ruling was in fact, that they are not really relevant or important to the patentability of the claim. In this case, they so far have explicitly decided it would be unpatentable regardless of whether he had ever sent the emails at all!
(The claim they are patenting ANS, i have no opinion on. I highlighted a fairly small portion of the article i believe is shoddy reporting, and i still believe that)
> I highlighted a fairly small portion of the article i believe is shoddy reporting
> Jarek (and the author's) claim was the emails are important
The claim is: "Duda says he suggested the exact technique Google is trying to patent in a 2014 email exchange with Google engineers".
Which is true. Neither Jarek nor the reporter claim that these emails were the first instance of prior art. They emphasize the emails to show that Jarek was working with Google engineers before they stole his work.
> The present application does not meet the criteria of Article 33(1) PCT, because the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step in the sense of Article 33(3) PCT.