- This opposition appeal deals with the interpretation of the term "cart" in the claims. The opponent had supported their proposed - broad - interpretation by submitting "photo's retrieved by Google for "transportation cart" as search term".
- The Board: " Without insight into the reputedly complex search algorithms employed by Google, their search results can hardly be considered authoritative for establishing the true meaning of terminology."
- The opponent had also submitted a USPTO examination report in support of their claim interpretation. The Board: "the Board is also not privy to examination practice in the USPTO or the considerations that may have motivated the US examiner to go so far as to cite as novelty destroying any wheeled structure including e.g. a shipyard crane - which in the Board's view no skilled person would reasonably consider subsumed under the term "cart". The Board is therefore unable to draw any convincing argument from this evidence that would change its opinion in respect of the scope of the term "transportation cart" in the sense of the contested claim."
- According to the Board, a cart is "a small wheeled vehicle", citing Merriam-Webster.
EPO T 1844/15 - link
3.3 [...] Therefore, in the Board's view the skilled person when reading the feature "transportation cart" would give the term "cart" its usual meaning of "a small wheeled vehicle" (Merriam-Webster), thus excluding larger devices as boat trailers, trucks and portable building works elevators. This is also supported by the patent specification that is generally directed to a transportation cart primarily designed for use in an animal barn, see paragraphs [0001] and [0002], and thus of limited dimensions.
3.4 The Respondent-Opponent submits in this respect that the term "cart" also has meanings other than merely a "small wheeled vehicle", and that interpreted thus, the claim wording would also encompass the devices of D1-D5. In support they referred to photo's retrieved by Google for "transportation cart" as search term (enclosure I) and a USPTO examination report (enclosures II and III ) citing a wide variety of movable apparatus against novelty. Without insight into the reputedly complex search algorithms employed by Google, their search results can hardly be considered authoritative for establishing the true meaning of terminology. The Board is also not privy to examination practice in the USPTO or the considerations that may have motivated the US examiner to go so far as to cite as novelty destroying any wheeled structure including e.g. a shipyard crane - which in the Board's view no skilled person would reasonably consider subsumed under the term "cart". The Board is therefore unable to draw any convincing argument from this evidence that would change its opinion in respect of the scope of the term "transportation cart" in the sense of the contested claim.
So is the EPO now using American English rather than British English, to construe an old-English word like "cart". When one goes to hell in a hand-cart I guess one's body is on board a wheeled vehicle that is quite "small". But what about a horse-drawn hay cart which has been used since time immemorial to bring the harvest back home. Small? I don't think so. You wouldn't either, if ever you had been stuck behind one on a long and windy country road. The thing that is special about the vehicle we call a "cart" is not that it has wheels or is small but rather that it is not self-propelled and that its intended purpose is to carry goods as opposed to living people. You know, like an Amazon shopping "cart".
ReplyDelete