T 0045/18 - Implicit disclosure

Key points

•  " The appellant [patentee] submitted that in document D1 it is not disclosed that the wire U1 is connected in the same orientation to converter 10 as wire U2 is connected to converter 12.' 
• " Whilst D1 does not state explicitly that sides of the phase windings U1 and U2 located in the upper layer of slots 1 and 2 "go in the same direction", [] the Board considers that this would be implicit to the skilled person." 
• " The appellant submitted that there were two ways in which the adjacent windings U1, U2 could be connected to their respective converter - in the same orientation or in the opposite orientation. " 
• " The Board did not find these arguments persuasive. The disclosure in page 4, lines 9 to 11 makes clear that the converter control is not to be altered in the manner proposed by the appellant. Furthermore, it would be immediately apparent to the person skilled in the art of electrical machines that if the windings U1 and U2 were connected in the opposite orientation to frequency converters whose output frequencies and output voltages are essentially the same, the electro-magnetic effects of the windings U1, U2 would cancel each other out." 
• " Thus, it is implicit to the skilled person that the wire U1 in one slot (for example slot 1) has to be connected in the same orientation to converter 10 as wire U2 in the adjacent slot (for example slot 2) is connected to converter 12. " 
• " With there being no other distinguishing feature, the Board came to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request lacks novelty over document D1." 
• As a comment, this seems to be a good example of implicit disclosure (for novelty, but as can also be the case for Art. 123(2)), also in the sense that it is not a lack of novelty based on inherent properties of what is expressly described in the prior art.
• In other words, the feature at issue ("  that the wire U1 is connected in the same orientation to converter 10 as wire U2 is connected to converter 12") could probably have been added to D1 in compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (if D1 were a pending European patent application).

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t180045eu1.html

1.2 Novelty with respect to document D1

The appellant submitted that in document D1 it is not disclosed that the wire U1 is connected in the same orientation to converter 10 as wire U2 is connected to converter 12.

The respondent disagreed, arguing with reference to figure 2 and page 4, second paragraph that D1 discloses full pitch windings in which the upper level 24 goes in one direction and the lower level 26 recycles the windings, i.e. the sides of the phase windings U1 and U2 that are located in the upper layer of slots 1 and 2 go in the same direction.

Whilst D1 does not state explicitly that sides of the phase windings U1 and U2 located in the upper layer of slots 1 and 2 "go in the same direction", or are connected to the terminals U of the converters 10, 12 "in a same orientation", the Board considers that this would be implicit to the skilled person. As pointed out by the respondent, the phase windings U1, U2 are wound full pitch around the pole (page 4, lines 18 to 24). The phase windings are connected to frequency converters 10, 12, 14 that "are controlled in a synchronized way, so their output frequencies and output voltages are essentially the same" (page 4, lines 9 to 11). In order for the windings to act as redundant windings (page 2, lines 11 to 13) they would have to be connected to the frequency converters in the same physical orientation, so that their currents flow in the same directions.

The appellant submitted that there were two ways in which the adjacent windings U1, U2 could be connected to their respective converter - in the same orientation or in the opposite orientation. They argued that if they were connected in the opposite orientation it was merely necessary to alter the controlling of the converters compared to the scenario in which the windings were connected in the same orientation to their converters.

The Board did not find these arguments persuasive. The disclosure in page 4, lines 9 to 11 makes clear that the converter control is not to be altered in the manner proposed by the appellant. Furthermore, it would be immediately apparent to the person skilled in the art of electrical machines that if the windings U1 and U2 were connected in the opposite orientation to frequency converters whose output frequencies and output voltages are essentially the same, the electro-magnetic effects of the windings U1, U2 would cancel each other out.

Thus, it is implicit to the skilled person that the wire U1 in one slot (for example slot 1) has to be connected in the same orientation to converter 10 as wire U2 in the adjacent slot (for example slot 2) is connected to converter 12. With there being no other distinguishing feature, the Board came to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request lacks novelty over document D1.