T 0350/12 - Computer translation

EPO T 350/12

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• The Opponent relied on a computer translation of a Japanese patent as prior art.
• The Board unsurprisingly finds: 
"The Board agrees that the computer translation is of such poor quality that it cannot be relied upon, other than to aid interpretation of the figures contained in the original Japanese document and the Abstract."

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the opposition division rejecting the oppositions against the European Patent EP-B-1 607 149.

II. Opponent II (hereinafter: the "appellant") filed notice and grounds of appeal against this decision in due form and time.

In its grounds of appeal the appellant based its case on the following documents which had been cited in the opposition proceedings:

OII-D9: DE-A-197 18 529;

OII-D5: EP-A-0 763 391;

OI-D6: JP 06 339 717 with computer translation into English, and Patent Abstracts of Japan;

[...]

Reasons for the Decision

1. Documents OII-D12 to OII-D16

In accordance with Article 12(2) Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA), the statement of grounds of appeal shall contain the appellant's complete case. Since no supporting facts and arguments with respect to OII-D12 to OII-D16 have been provided in the grounds, these documents were not considered (Article 12(4) RPBA).

2. Sufficiency of disclosure and extension of subject-matter, Articles 100(b), 100(c) EPC and unspecified further objections.

On page 18 of the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant referred to its submissions before the opposition division concerning the grounds of opposition under Articles 100(b) and 100(c) EPC. Reference was also made to further objections which were not specified (section e on page 18).

A general, unspecified reference to basically all submissions before the opposition division does not meet the requirement of Article 12(2) RPBA, which stipulates that the statement of grounds itself shall contain the complete case. Moreover, from a logical point of view, submissions pre-dating the decision under appeal cannot, as such, constitute explanations as to why the decision should be reversed (cf. Article 12(2), second sentence RPBA). Hence, the objections under Articles 100(b) and 100(c) EPC and the further unspecified objections were not considered by the Board in the present appeal proceedings.

3. Claims 1 and 3 as granted, Novelty

3.1 With respect to OII-D9

3.1.1 The passage at column 1, lines 49 to 52 of OII-D9, discussing the prior art, states that horizontal forces which, depending upon their direction, can lead to considerable force differences in the setting system, had not been previously taken into account ("Horizontalkräfte, die je nach ihrer Richtung zu erheblichen Differenzkräften in den Anstellsystemen führen können"). However, it does not state exactly which horizontal forces, i.e. those in the axial direction of the rolls or in the rolling direction, are meant.

3.1.2 When specifying the technical problem that the method of OII-D9 aims to overcome, a general reference is made to the effect of horizontal forces which occur during rolling operations (see col. 1 lines 55 to 56). However, OII-D9 goes on to state at col. 1, lines 59 to 62 that the invention aims to ensure that changes in the magnitude and direction of the axial forces do not affect the differential roll force between the operating and driving sides.

3.1.3 The passage at col. 2, lines 8 to 13 refers firstly to the measurement of forces in the individual rolls ("Kräfte in einzelnen Arbeitswalzen") using load detectors placed in the roll chocks, but the direction is not specified; secondly the passage refers to the measurement of axial forces on the basis of the hydraulic pressure. The description at col. 2, lines 14 to 23 only discusses how the axial force measurements are used to set the rolls.

3.1.4 In view of this, the board agrees with the conclusion drawn by the opposition division at point 5.3 of its decision, that the only horizontal forces of interest in OII-D9 are the axial forces. Accordingly, it fails directly and unambiguously to disclose the measurement of the rolling direction forces acting on the roll chocks at the operator and driving sides of the work rolls.

3.1.5 Thus, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 3 is new with respect to OII-D9.

3.2 With respect to OI-D6

3.2.1 The respondent has noted that the appellant failed to provide a certified translation of OI-D6, as requested by the opposition division, but instead referred to an unreliable computer translation. The Board agrees that the computer translation is of such poor quality that it cannot be relied upon, other than to aid interpretation of the figures contained in the original Japanese document and the Abstract.

3.2.2 In this regard, figure 3 of OI-D6, illustrating a plan view of the roll mill, is of particular relevance since it shows various distances Ur, Um and Uh in the plane of the rolling direction P. By using the equations (6) to (7) specified in paragraph [0014] Ur, Um and Uh can be calculated on the basis of measurements given by displacement sensors 9, which correspond to positions S1 to S4, as shown in figure 3. Therefore, it must be seen whether these measurements are a direct and unambiguous disclosure of measuring the rolling direction forces acting on roll chocks on the operator and driving sides of the work rolls, and whether the difference between these values is used in controlling a left-right swivelling component of the roll gap.

3.2.3 The appellant has drawn specific attention to the final sentence of paragraph [0013] on page 3 of the machine translation of OI-D6, which reads:

"The amount of displacement of roll pass direction P in a sensor installed position (it is hereafter called the amount of roll crosses) is shown, and Um shows the amount of approach of roll pass direction P to the roll chock 3 by the elastic deformation of the housing 6 resulting from rolling load."

It argues that since the distance Um is directly proportional to the force acting on roll chocks in the rolling direction, this is the same as measuring the horizontal force itself directly at the roll chock.

3.2.4 Although little weight can be attached to the computer translation itself, in the Board's opinion, the "rolling load" referred to in OI-D6 is the vertical force applied to the sheet being rolled by the work-rolls, which deforms the housing and leads to a change in the gap Um between the roll chock 3 and the housing 6 (see figure 3).

3.2.5 It is accepted that in an elastic system a displacement is directly proportional to the force producing it. However, in this case it is not possible to determine the relevant contributions to the changes in the distance Um made respectively by the vertical rolling load force and the rolling direction force.

3.2.6 Furthermore, it is impossible to determine from the confused language of paragraphs [0015] to [0017] of the translation which value or combination of values of Uh, Ur and Um is actually fed into the calculating means 11 to control the "board wedge". The Abstract of OI-D6 also fails to provide further information on these values. Thus, leaving aside the question of whether any of the distances Uh, Ur, Um or combination thereof correspond directly to the force measured on the roll chock in the rolling direction, OI-D6 fails to disclose how these values are used.

Consequently there is no clear disclosure of the use of the difference in rolling direction forces between the operator and driving sides to control the left-right swivelling component of the roll gap.

3.2.7 Thus, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 3 is new with respect to OI-D6.