EP 2 963 504 A1 relates to a barrel for timepiece.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused and the applicant appealed.
At the end of a first OP before the board, the latter concluded that claim 1 of the MR and of AR1-7 lacked IS over D1= EP 2 570 862.
The drum of D1 has lateral sidewalls of constant thickness, whereas the lateral sidewalls of the claimed drum are thinning towards the outside.
A second OP followed at the end of which the application was refused.
At stake is mainly feature C16
“at least a portion of at least one of said walls (31, 41) having a variable thickness that increases continuously moving away from the peripheral end of the barrel over a distance of at least two-thirds of the radius (r) of the drum (30), complemented by a portion of constant thickness over the remainder, if any, of the radius (r)”.
The applicant’s point of view
The applicant argued that the power reserve could be increased compared to a prior-art barrel identical to the claimed barrel.
The applicant argued that feature C16, which defines an outer surface inclined over at least two-thirds of the drum radius, would make it possible to achieve an improved power reserve while maintaining sufficient axial clearance between the peripheral end of the drum or cover and the blanks, and preserving sufficient rigidity in the walls of the drum or cover to prevent their deformation.
Any barrel would be intended for mounting within a limited internal space. To maximize the power reserve within the limited available space, it was necessary to maximize the barrel’s internal volume. However, it was not possible simply to reduce the wall thickness of the cover and the drum. According to the applicant, flatness defects following machining and assembly clearances arose at thicknesses of less than 0.2 mm. Likewise, assembly inaccuracies had to be taken into account. It was therefore necessary to maintain a minimum peripheral clearance between the barrel and the movement blanks.
According to the applicant, the power reserve could thus be increased compared to a prior-art barrel identical to the claimed barrel, except for the distinguishing features.
The alleged technical effect would therefore not be achieved only in a restricted context, but across the entire scope of claim 1. Any barrel according to the invention would allow for an increased power reserve compared to a prior-art barrel fitted into the same space.
Furthermore, even with very thin walls, the inclined shape of the wall would provide superior rigidity, thereby reducing deformation. It would also allow for better distribution of mechanical stresses.
The applicant also argued that there exists an entire CPC class relating to barrels, comprising numerous granted patents. The board’s position that barrels are not patentable as such would therefore be erroneous. This argument was presented in the context of AR8 but applies equally to the main request and is therefore addressed here.
The board’s decision
In its communication under Art 15(1) RPBA and during the second OP, the board informed the applicant that it considered features C3, C13 and C15 to C21 to be the distinguishing features of claim 1 of AR8.
Claim 1 relates to the barrel as such, without limitation as to the volume in which the barrel is intended to be housed and without limitation regarding the presence or properties of a mainspring defining the power reserve.
A technical effect can only be taken into account in the assessment of inventive step if it is achieved across substantially the entire claimed scope.
This condition is not met when the effect is obtained only by comparing the claimed subject-matter with an element of the prior art based on an additional assumption—not founded on the wording of the claim—that other features or parameters not defined in the claim are identical.
The applicant’s argument, according to which the power reserve could be increased compared to a prior-art barrel identical to the claimed barrel, except for the distinguishing features, thus amounts to disregarding the requirement that the claim must contain the features to which the technical effect is causally linked.
It follows that an increase in the power reserve is not achieved across the entire scope of the claim.
As regards the assertion concerning a better distribution of stresses, the application is entirely silent on this point. The applicant did not provide additional evidence to support this assertion during the second OP, although it had been informed that the board still considered the problem to be solved to lie solely in the provision of an alternative solution.
As for the assertion of superior rigidity, the applicant’s written and oral submissions mention such rigidity but do not contain sufficient explanations to establish that superior rigidity is actually achieved. At most, they allow for the conclusion that sufficient rigidity is achieved.
It follows that, even taking into account, in the applicant’s favour, its other allegations regarding technical effects, these technical effects are already achieved in D1 and are therefore not causally linked to the shape claimed in feature C16.
Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Board has not adopted the position that barrels are unpatentable as such. However, it considers that, in the present case, the technical effect invoked by the appellant is not produced by the barrel as such but relies on other, unclaimed elements.
Comments
The decision is interesting in that the applicant alleged a technical effect, increasing the power reserve merely due to the shape of the barrel defined in feature C16, compared to a barrel without feature C16, i.e. compared to a barrel with an identical internal volume.
The board is to be followed when it considers that other features, not present in the claim, could as well contribute to increasing the power reserve not merely the casing of the drum.
On the other hand, it is well known that a cantilever beam thinning towards the outside has a better flexion resistance than a straight beam of constant thickness. This form has been devised as it allows for a better distribution of mechanical stresses.
Comments
Leave a comment