T 0763/20 - Baking ovens and steam ovens

Key points

• A decision on novelty and inventive step in opposition with a certain EQE Paper C vibe:  "E1 and E4 both disclose a steam cooking oven. A steam cooking oven is not the same as a baking oven as defined in claim 1 of the patent. Steam cooking is limited to 100°C (normal pressure) and does not result in browning of the food but leaves the surface of the cooked food with a moist, soft surface. In contrast to this, baking achieves browning and results in the formation of a crust on the surface of the baked food. Hence, a baking oven has to be suitable for achieving a Maillard reaction on the surface of the food, which typically proceeds from around 140 to 165°C. This is not the case for a steam cooking oven. E1 and E4 do not disclose that the steam cooking oven can be heated to such an extent that the oven is suitable as a baking oven, i.e. is suitable for achieving a temperature required for a baking process."
• "It is true that E4 discloses, in column 4, lines 7 to 11, that the side walls and the bottom wall of the steam cooking oven can be heated to minimise condensation: ... However, heating elements which are adapted to avoid condensation are neither foreseen nor suitable for heating the oven to the temperatures required for baking. This is also confirmed by the low power (120 W, 50 W) disclosed in E4 in this context, which is far lower than the power usually consumed by a baking oven (more than 1 kW). Hence, E4 also does not contain any additional disclosure which could imply that the steam cooking oven could be used at temperatures higher than 100°C, contrary to the conventional understanding that the skilled person has of a steam cooking oven."
• The claim is novel over E4.
• Inventive step, starting from E2: "E2 discloses a baking oven with a water evaporation system."
• "the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the disclosure in E2 in that the baking oven comprises

  - an outlet section of the tubular conduit that is external to the volume generated by a translation of the opening of the reservoir along the physical vertical; - means for conveying the water from said outlet section of the tubular conduit to the reservoir; - a portion of the delimiting walls that comprises the means for conveying the water; - said conveying means being exterior to said volume."

• "the objective technical problem could be formulated as that of providing a baking oven which is easier to clean after use."
• "El and E4 are documents which would not be considered by the skilled person because they do not relate to the same type of device as that in E2, i.e. a baking oven. Even if the skilled person considered the disclosure in relation to a steam cooking oven according to E1 or E4 for modifying the baking oven in E2, neither E1 nor E4 would prompt them to make the necessary structural changes in order to solve the underlying problem."
• Inventive step starting from E4: "E1 and E4 relate to steam cooking devices, and therefore, do not have the same purpose as the patent, which can be considered to be providing a baking oven. Hence, E1 and E4 do not represent an appropriate starting point for the assessment of inventive step, since the skilled person would not consider them when seeking to provide a baking oven.

  Even if the skilled person started from either E1 or E4, they would not completely change the nature of the cooking device and redesign it to be suitable as a baking oven, as the cited prior art gives them no motivation or incentive to do so.

  Therefore, in line with the finding in point II.3.2.3 of the contested decision, the Board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 is not obvious when starting from E1 or E4."

• 
  
• EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump. 

https://new.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t200763eu1