EP 3 166 825 B1 relates to an adaptive trailer oscillation detection and stability control.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board held that claim 1 as granted lacked N over D4, a document classified “Y” in the ISR established by the EPO.
The proprietor filed AR A in which claims 1-14 as granted were deleted.
The board decided maintenance according AR A, and remitted to the OD for the adaptation of the description.
The case is interesting as it has applied G 1/24 when construing the claim and decided that since the description allowed a broader meaning than the possible strict literal reading of the claim, claim 1 as granted lacked N.
The OD’s decision
The OD took the view that the yaw rate sensor disclosed in D4 did not measure the rate of trailer deflection around the hitch pivot point (18), and that the device of D4 did not discriminate between oscillatory and a non-oscillatory events.
The OD also noted that the yaw angle and the angle about the hitch pivot point, i.e. the trailer or hitch angle, “are referred to different axis of the trailer“.
Consequently, their corresponding angular rates may differ. For example, in a curve of constant radius, the hitch angle remains constant, with a rate of zero, while the yaw rate of both the tractor and the trailer is the same and non-zero.
The proprietor’s point of view
The proprietor agreed with the OD’s view, and also argued that the absolute yaw rate and the rate of angular trailer deflection about the hitch pivot point (18) were distinct physical quantities, even if their values coincided during straight-line vehicle operation.
These two physical quantities did not become the same physical quantity simply because their values coincided in one specific condition. The claim clearly defined the angular rate sensor as being configured to measure the rate of angular trailer deflection about a hitch pivot point (18).
The opponent was undoubtedly broadening the subject-matter of claim 1 too much. In particular, the wording of claim 1 excluded a single yaw rate sensor as the angular rate sensor. Figure 3 depicted a “gyro” for the angular rate sensor but such a sensor was not mentioned in the description. Furthermore, gyroscopic sensors were not excluded by the wording of claim 1, but at least two gyroscopic sensors embodying the features F and F1 of the angular rate sensor would be needed.
The board’s decision
In the present case, the doard judged that the opponent’s interpretation of features F and F.1 of claim 1 is justified.
The board agreed with the proprietor that, when the claim is read in isolation, features F.1 and F.2 can be read literally such that the angular rate measured by the sensor is the rate of the angle made by an axis passing through the hitch pivot point with respect to a reference axis.
However, in accordance with G 1/24, the description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims.
This implies that claim interpretation requires taking into consideration the wording of the claim and the content of the description.
As was correctly pointed out by the opponent at the OP, the patent discloses a gyroscope sensor, i.e. a sensor for measuring the yaw rate, as the only specific implementation of the claimed angular rate sensor.
This is not only denoted in figures 3 and 4 as a “gyro”, but the description of the preferred embodiments of the invention also describes the sensor as a raw angular rate sensor, i.e. a sensor measuring absolute yaw rate.
A measure of the yaw rate of the trailer coincides with the rate of the angle made by an axis passing through the hitch pivot point (18) with respect to a reference axis, when the yaw rate of the towing vehicle is null or negligible, e.g. when the towing vehicle is moving along a straight line.
Consequently, contrary to the proprietor’s submissions, when consulting the description the claim cannot be strictly construed as requiring the measurement of the rate of the angle made by an axis passing through the hitch pivot point (18) with respect to a reference axis under any conditions or movements of the towing vehicle.
The claim must be construed in a broader manner, i.e. as only requiring that the rate of the angle made by an axis passing through the hitch pivot point (18) with respect to a reference axis can be made under certain conditions.
One such condition is the most common condition in which the yaw rate of the towing vehicle is null or negligible. Accordingly, since D4 discloses a yaw rate sensor on the trailer, which measures the rate of the angular deflection about a hitch pivot point when the towing vehicle is driving in a straight line, it follows that features F to F.2 are known from D4.
With regard to feature G, D4 detects trailer oscillation using signals from both the yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors. The proprietor also confirmed this. Once the device of D4 determines an oscillation event, it distinguishes between trailer oscillation and non-oscillation events. Otherwise, the device would not be able to detect oscillation events.
The proprietor’s argument on non-disclosure of features K and L does no longer hold either, since features F.1 and F.2 are disclosed in D4.
Comments
Up to now most decisions of boards related to the fact that the description limited the meaning of a claimed feature, clear on its own for the skilled person. See e.g. T 1846/23, commented in the present blog, or T 2027/23, also commented in the present blog.
We now have a decision in which a broader meaning can be given to a feature which, upon reading of the claim would be limiting.
In other words, G 1/24 goes in both directions.
In a first situation, a limiting feature in the description will not be taken into account when interpreting a broad claim, whereby the patentability of a claim will be assessed on its broad meaning.
In a second situation, a limited meaning of a claimed feature can be ignored when the description allows a broader meaning, whereby the patentability of the claim will be assessed on the broader meaning found in the description.
This is exactly what I have suggested in my blog entry of 15.09.2025.
In the latter, I insisted upon avoiding discrepancy between claims and description, but this the same as in the two above situations.
Comments
Leave a comment