Key points
- A decision with a certain Paper C vibe.
- Claim 1 is directed to an oven for baking food products with a feeding unit for feeding steam into the baking chamber, wherein the feeding unit comprises an air trap and wherein a tank is used with two shells that are permanently joined to each other.
- The opposition was based on lack of inventive step, including obviousness over D3. The opponent in appeal argues that D3 is novelty-destroying.
- "Following G 7/95, headnote, second sentence, the Board thus decided to consider the allegation that the claims lacked novelty over D3 in the context of deciding upon the ground of lack of inventive step [over D3]." (This could be a question for EQE Paper D).
- D3 does not disclose the air trap and does not disclose the feature of two shells that are permanently joined.
- "the distinguishing features have to be grouped and relate to the following different (partial) technical problems"
- "The Board agrees with the conclusion in the appealed decision that the skilled person starting from a steam oven in D3 would - in view of technical problems 1 and 2 - consider the teaching of D5, despite the steam feeding unit disclosed herein stemming from a different household appliance than the patent (laundry machine). The fact that D5 concerns a different household appliance does not, in the present case, prevent the skilled person from considering this teaching. Water tanks for steam generators for the appliances of D3 (oven) and D5 (laundry machine) are comparable in terms of their design constraints. In addition, the manufacturing method of the tank does not seem to be related to the type of household appliance requiring steam."
- "The patent proprietor argued that the skilled person would not consider the teaching of D5 [about an air trap] since a solution to the problem was already provided in D3. The oven disclosed in D3 already had means suitable for preventing steam from leaving the oven. "
- "... the skilled person would not consider the valve and the pump in D3 as a means of solving the objective technical problem but would consult further prior art such as D5."
- "To conclude, [the air trap feature] is obvious in view of the disclosure of D5."
- Turning to the second feature: "D3 does not disclose any method for manufacturing the integral tank. Therefore, in looking for a suitable method, the skilled person would consider this teaching of D5 as being part of the common general knowledge of the skilled person and would apply it even without a particular pointer to do so."
- "To conclude, the solution to partial problems 1 and 2 according to claim 1 of the main request is obvious in light of the disclosure of D5 and common general knowledge."
- Auxiliary request 8 is allowable, however.
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the decision text.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2024/01/t-118620-steam-ovens-and-laundry.html
