This decision deals with the refusal of an application by the Examining Division (ED).
Claim 1 as filed read (my translation from the German) :
Separation device for cleaning a gas flow, in particular for cleaning crank case gases, comprising a mother cyclone (10) and a daughter cyclone (13),
- wherein the mother cyclone (10) has an inlet for the gas to be cleaned, a segregation chamber (12) and an outlet (23),
- wherein the daughter cyclone (13) is provided in the segregation chamber (12) of the mother cyclone (10),
- wherein the daughter cyclone has an inlet opening (15) which communicates with the segregation chamber (12) of the mother cyclone (10), and
- wherein the daughter cyclone (13) has a separating chamber (14), an outlet opening (16) for the cleaned gas and a discharge opening (17),characterised in that
- at least three daughter cyclones (13) are provided in the segregation chamber (12) of the mother cyclone (10), wherein the daughter cyclones (13) are connected in parallel and all daughter cyclones can be streamed at the same time, and wherein the outlet openings (16) run into a common outlet (26).
Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read :
Crank-case gas cleaning segregation device for cleaning a gas flow, comprising a mother cyclone (10) and a daughter cyclone (13),
- wherein the mother cyclone (10) has an inlet for the gas to be cleaned, a segregation chamber (12) and an outlet (23),
- wherein the daughter cyclone (13) is provided in the segregation chamber (12) of the mother cyclone (10),
- wherein the daughter cyclone has an inlet opening (15) which communicates with the segregation chamber (12) of the mother cyclone (10), and
- wherein the daughter cyclone (13) has a separating chamber (14), an outlet opening (16) for the cleaned gas and a discharge opening (17), characterised in that
- at least three daughter cyclones (13) are provided in the segregation chamber (12) of the mother cyclone (10), wherein the daughter cyclones (13) are connected in parallel and all daughter cyclones can be streamed at the same time, and wherein the outlet openings (16) run into a common outlet (26).
The applicant pointed out that claim 1 differed from the segregation device known from document D1 by
(a) the mother cyclone with its features according to claim 1, and(b) the designation of the claimed device as a “crank-case cleaning segregation device”.
The Board does not agree:
*** Translated from the German ***
[1.1] As the [applicant] has not contested that the remaining features of the subject-matter of claim 1 are known from D1, the assessment of novelty depends on whether the skilled person can find the features (a) and (b), which the [applicant] considers to be distinguishing, in D1.
The Board then shows that D1 discloses a mother cyclone as claimed and continues:
[1.3] As far as feature (b) is concerned:
[1.3.1] As has been shown in paragraphs [1.1] and [1.2], all remaining structural and functional features of claim 1 are known from D1. It remains to be decided whether the sole designation of the subject-matter of claim 1 as “crank-case gas cleaning segregation device for cleaning a gas flow” […] defines subject-matter that is different from the segregation device known from D1.
[1.3.2] The [applicant] argued that as the segregation device claimed in claim 1 was directed to the cleaning of gases […] generated in a crank case, claim 1 concerned a device which was exclusively suitable for segregating liquids from gases and, therefore, could not be anticipated by the device from D1 which concerned the segregation of solid particles.
The Board cannot endorse this argument, for the following reasons:
[1.3.3] The application itself […] indicates that the device according to the invention can be used for cleaning any fluid comprising components of different specific weight. For instance, it is possible to segregate liquids of particles from gases, such as mixtures of air and water, mixtures of air and dust in the intake air of combustion engines or mixtures of air and oil from crank cases of a combustion engine.
This means that the device defined in the claims as filed was structurally suitable for use in both fields of application. Claim 1 under consideration does not add any further structural features which would make the device suitable for segregating liquids from gases only.
The [applicant] has not provided evidence for its assertion that the purpose of use given in claim 1 implicitly meant that the device was of small dimension or made from plastic. As far as the dimensions are concerned, the claim can cover not only crank cases for automotive engines but also relatively big combustion engines such as ship engines (it being noted that the application under consideration does not contain any indications of dimension for the device). The material from which the segregation device is made is not relevant because it is not even mentioned in claim 1.
Therefore, the indication of the field of application does not include any further technical features which could distinguish [the claimed device] from the device according to D1.
[1.3.4] The question that remains to be answered is whether the device according to D1 is not suitable for the purpose given in claim 1, or if it would have to be modified in order to fulfil this purpose, respectively (see “Case Law of the Boards of appeal, 6th edition, 2010, chapter I.C.5.3.3).
D1 discloses a segregation device made of steel that is suitable for segregating solid particles from hot gases having temperatures of between 600° and 800°C […]. As the segregation device known from D1 has all the structural and functional features of the device of claim 1 […], it also has to be suitable of segregating liquids such as oil particles from crank case gases, in accordance with the indications given in the application […]. D1 does not contain any hint that the device disclosed therein would not be suitable for segregating liquids from gases (e.g. at lower temperatures).
Also the dimension of the device according to D1 is not decisive for a possible use for crank case gases because, as mentioned above, claim 1 does not contain any indication concerning the dimensions.
[1.3.5] The [applicant] has also submitted that the fact that oil removal from a hot gas flow in crank cases was mentioned as indication of purpose in the IPC classification of class F01M 13/04, i.e. as “having means for purifying air before leaving crankcase, e.g. removing oil” was additional proof for the fact that the new definition of the subject-matter of claim 1 as “crank-case gas cleaning segregation device for cleaning a gas flow” […] defined subject-matter different from the device known from D1, which was suitable for the segregation of solid particles from a hot flow of air in Fluid Catalytic Cracking processes.
However, this argument could only be successful if this class was the sole class applicable. As a matter of fact, both the present application and D1, when they were classified according to the IPC by the EPO, have been classified in groups B04 5/26 (multiple arrangement of cyclones for series flow) and B04C 5/28 (multiple arrangement of cyclones for parallel flow). Thus both concern devices that are similar from a technical point of view, i.e. segregation devices for cleaning gases, irrespective of what (solid or liquid particles) is segregated from which gas.
This is also corroborated by the second paragraph on page 2 of the application […] according to which the device according to the invention is suitable for segregating both liquids and solid particles from gases generated in any type of device.
Incidentally, it is noted that the German application (DE 102004006834 A1) the priority of which is claimed by the present application has been classified also in the higher-ranking class B04C 5/24 by the DPMA.
Board of appeal decision T 542/00, which the [applicant] has cited in this context, concerns the consideration of the purpose given in the claim when the closest prior art is to be determined in the assessment of inventive step and, therefore, does not find application when the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 under consideration is to be assessed.
Decision T 312/94, also cited by [the applicant], is not relevant either because in the present case the Board has indeed construed document D1 in the context of the contents of the document as a whole, as required by this decision.
[1.4] It follows from all this that the subject-matter of claim is anticipated by the segregation device known from D1. Therefore, the requirements of A 54 are not fulfilled.
0 comments:
Post a Comment