EP 2 963 762 B1 relates to suppressing floating voltages at the input of photovoltaic multi-input multi-stage inverters.
Brief outline of the case
The OD revoked the patent, for lack of N over E1=DE 10 2011 121197, not mentioned in the ESR, AR1 infringed Art 123(2)and AR2 lacked IS over E1.
The proprietor appealed.
The board confirmed the revocation.
The proprietor’s point of view on novelty of the claim as granted
The proprietor argued that the expression “sending continuously a driving signal […] to operate on or off continuously” had to be interpreted as limiting the driving pattern to a pulsed pattern, i.e. excluding a continuously “on” or “off” signal.
This was because, in the description, it was stated that an overly long duty cycle of the signal would interfere with the normal operation of the inverter, cf. § [0039].
Moreover, the signal as described throughout the application had a duty cycle. Therefore, the skilled person would have concluded that a pulsed pattern was used to turn the switch on or off periodically.
In contrast, the input connection of E1 was short-circuited and, therefore, the switching device could not be considered to “operate on and off continuously” in the sense specified above.
The proprietor further observed that the claimed features should be interpreted as a whole, rather than in isolation, and that the interpretation should be technically reasonable and take into account the overall disclosure of the patent.
The board’s decision on novelty of the claim as granted
The wording of the claims should typically be given its broadest technically sensible meaning. In the current case, the broadest, technically sensible interpretation of the wording “sending continuously a driving signal for a switching device […] to operate on or off continuously” includes the case of a continuous driving signal keeping the switching device in an “on” or “off” state.
In the board’s view, the fact that this is presented in the description as interfering with – but not necessarily precluding – the operation of the inverter does not render this interpretation technically unreasonable.
Elements of the description which are not reflected in the claims – here, the feature of the signal having a duty cycle or pulsed pattern – cannot, as a rule, limit the claimed subject-matter.
A the remaining features of claim 1 were disclosed in E1, claim 1 lacked N.
The proprietor’s point of view on the AR
The proprietor disputed the interpretation by the OD of a specific feature added to claim 1 as granted and argued that said feature had a technical effect. The specific feature implied that the remaining steps of the method where only executed if the outcome of the determination was positive, in analogy with the expression “before driving, determining that tyre pressure = as specified by manufacturer”.
The board’s decision on the AR
The board took the view that a single technical feature not disclosed in the prior art is sufficient to confer novelty to a claim, independent of its technical effect, cf. the concept of “photographic novelty”, the technical effect only being relevant for the assessment of IS.
As it is common ground that the additional feature of claim 1 of the AR, irrespective of its interpretation, is not disclosed in E1, the board concluded that the claim was novel.
While the board agreed with the OD that the added feature does not credibly increase safety, the board acknowledged the presence of a technical effect, namely avoiding the execution of unnecessary steps.
However, the board found that the additional features of claim 1 cannot support an IS, as the skilled person knows that input floating voltages may only exist if the inverter is in a stand-alone input mode.
Therefore, verifying the input mode of the inverter before executing steps aimed at pulling down any floating voltages is, in the board’s view, an obvious design choice within common general knowledge.
Comments
Without referring to G 1/24, the present board made clear that elements of the description which are not reflected in the claims cannot, as a rule, limit the claimed subject-matter.
When it comes N, the present board reminded that a single technical feature not disclosed in the prior art is sufficient to confer N to a claim, independently of its technical effect. Any technical effect is only relevant for the assessment of IS.
Comments
Leave a comment