T 1885/08 – The Broad Way

The opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the opposition.

Claim 1 before the Board (identical to Claim 1 as granted) read:

A bearing (1) , especially a wedge-shaped bearing (2);

1.1 with at least two partial elements, an inner part (3) for receiving a bearing pin and an outer part (4) enclosing the inner part (3) at least partly;

1.2 the inner part (3) and the outer part (4) being detachably connected with each other;

1.3 the bearing (1) being free from a housing;

1.4 the outer part (4) comprising at least two partial regions, a first partial region (7.1) forming the stop and contact surfaces (13.1, 13.2) when joining the bearing (1) with a connecting module and a second partial region (7.2) which encloses with the first partial region (7.1) the inner part (3) in the circumferential direction at least partly relative to the axis of the bearing pin;

1.5 the bearing and contact surfaces (8) for joining with a connecting module being arranged on the outer part (4);

1.6 wherein at least one elastic element (14.1, 14.2) is arranged between inner part (3) and outer part (4) with a stiffness in a region of including 500 N/mm up to and including 10 000 N/mm;

1.7 the connection of the inner part (3) with the outer part (4) occurring via a conically tapering bent element, especially a sheet metal (17) which is arranged between inner part (3) and outer part (4).

The opponent argued that this claim was lacking inventive step, and the Board came to the conclusion that this objection was well founded. In order to come to this conclusion, the Board had to interpret one of the claim features.

*** Translation of the German original ***

Inventive step

[2.1] The Board is of the opinion that document D6 is the closest prior art.

In its figures 9A to 9D,

this document shows a bearing

1.1 with at least two partial elements, an inner part (inner member 926) for receiving a bearing pin (cf. paragraph [0035]: hole 927) and an outer part (outer member 924) enclosing the inner part at least partly;

1.2 the inner part and the outer part are detachably connected with each other (cf. assembly instructions in paragraph [0030]);

1.3 the bearing is free from a housing;

1.4 the outer part 924 comprises at least two partial regions, a first partial region (flange) forming the stop and contact surfaces 925a when joining the bearing with a connecting module and a second partial region which encloses with the first partial region the inner part in the circumferential direction at least partly relative to the axis (P1) of the bearing pin;

1.5 the bearing and contact surfaces 925a for joining with a connecting module are arranged on the outer part 924;

1.6 at least one elastic element 934a, 934b is arranged between inner part and outer part;

1.7 the connection of the inner part with the outer part occurring via a conically tapering bent metal sheet 936 which is arranged between inner part and outer part.

[2.2] The Board does not share the opinion of the [patent proprietor] that D6 did not constitute the closest prior art because it concerned a different type of bearing. Claim 1 is directed at a general bearing and the engine mount disclosed in D6 clearly is such a bearing. The variant according to which the bearing can be a wedge-shaped bearing is only optional in the claim. Moreover, the X-configuration mount according to D6 corresponds to a double wedge-shaped bearing.

[2.3] Contrary to the opinion of the [patent proprietor] it follows from figure 9A of D6 that the outer member 924 encloses the inner member 926 in the circumferential direction at least partly relative to the axis P1 of the bearing pin. The construction and the assembly of the bearing according to figure 9A corresponds to the construction and assembly of the bearing of figure 8A of D6. It can be clearly seen from this perspective view that the outer member 824 encloses the inner member 826 from three sides in the circumferential direction at least partly relative to the axis P1 of the bearing pin.

[2.4] The opinion of the [patent proprietor] according to which feature 1.7 was not disclosed in D6 cannot be accepted. When assessing whether a feature is known from the prior art or not, its wording should be given the broadest meaning that is technically meaningful (cf. T 79/96). In figure 9A of D6 the connection of the inner member 926 with the outer member 924 is established via a conically tapering bent metal sheet 936 that is arranged between the inner member and the outer member. The Board is of the opinion that the effects mentioned for the claimed metal sheet element in the patent ([…] simplification of assembly and disassembly by avoiding a fixed integral (stoffschlüssig) connection, shaping of the metal sheet such that it is adapted to the inner contour of the outer part) are also obtained with the conically tapering bent metal sheet 936 of D6. That the connection is detachable and that [the sheet 936] is adapted to the contour follows in particular from paragraphs [0029]-[0030] of D6, where it is stated that the elastic elements comprising the bent metal sheet elements are to be assembled by clamping them between the outer and inner parts by means of a jig and a funnel. The conical shape of the metal sheet element is obtained by bending each single metal sheet element 936, the tip of the cone being arranged along axis P2 in figure 9A.

[2.5] Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 only differs from this prior art in that the at least one elastic element has a stiffness in a region of including 500 N/mm up to and including 10 000 N/mm (feature 1.6). Even though this domain of elasticity values is very broad, it is a distinguishing feature with respect to the prior art that confers novelty within the meaning of A 54(2).

[2.6] Based on the bearing disclosed in figures 9A to 9C of D6 as prior art the skilled person is faced with the objective technical problem of defining a bearing stiffness for the elastic element that is suitable for the load that is exerted in the specific case.

[2.7] It is part of the common general knowledge of the skilled person to adapt the spring characteristic (Federkennlinie) of the elastic elements of such bearings by choosing the appropriate materials and dimensions such as to adapt the bearing to the particular requirements of the intended use. The claimed domain of stiffnesses is very broad and a stiffness value between 500 and 10000 N/mm clearly corresponds to what is usual for such bearings in railway vehicle construction (see D11 […] from about 1050 to 4905 N/mm). Thus the claimed domain of stiffnesses encompasses conventional values and its selection cannot be considered to be inventive. […]

The patent is revoked.

Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.

The file wrapper can be found here.