BESCHWERDEKAMMERN DES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMTS BOARDS OF APPEAL OF
THE EUROPEAN PATENT
OFFICE
七夕节是什么时候CHAMBRES DE RECOURS
DE L’OFFICE EUROPEEN
DES BREVETS
Internal distribution code:
(A) [ ] Publication in OJ
(B) [ ] To Chairmen and Members
(C) [X] To Chairmen
(D) [ ] No distribution
Datasheet for the decision
of 2 February 2012
Ca Number: T 0398/09 - 3.3.10
Application Number: 00107932.6石斛兰花怎么养殖
Publication Number: 1044957
IPC: C07C 67/54, C07C 69/54,
C07C 57/07, B01D 3/14 Language of the proceedings: EN
Title of invention:
Process for inhibiting the polymerization of easily-polymerizable compounds
Proprietor:
NIPPON SHOKUBAI CO., LTD.
Opponents:
BASF SE
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Headword:
Distillation of (meth)acrylic acid (esters)/NIPPON SHOKUBAI Relevant legal provisions:
EPC Art. 56, 100(c)
Keyword:
"All requests: inventive step (no)"
Decisions cited:
T 0020/81, T 0355/97
Catchword:
-
Europäisches Patentamt European
Patent Office
Office européen
des brevets
b Beschwerdekammern Boards of Appeal Chambres de recours
Ca Number: T 0398/09 - 3.3.10
D E C I S I O N
of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.10
of 2 February 2012
Appellant:
(Patent Proprietor) NIPPON SHOKUBAI CO., LTD.
1-1, Koraibashi 4-chome
Chuo-ku
Osaka-shi, Osaka-fu 541 (JP)
Reprentative: Müller-Boré & Partner
Patentanwälte
Grafinger Straße 2
D-81671 München (DE)
Respondent I: (Opponent 1) BASF SE
D-67056 Ludwigshafen (DE)
Reprentative: Inbruck, Günter
Inbruck Bösl Hörschler LLP
Eastside One
Seckenheimer Landstraße 4
D-68163 Mannheim (DE)
Respondent II: (Opponent 2) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48674 (US)
Reprentative: Hayes, Adrian Chetwynd
Boult Wade Tennant
Verulam Gardens
70 Gray's Inn Road
London WC1X 8BT (GB)
Decision under appeal:Decision of the Opposition Division of the
European Patent Office posted 22 December 2008
revoking European patent No. 1044957.
Composition of the Board:
Chairman: P. Gryczka
Members: J. Mercey
F.
Blumer
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I.The Appellant (Proprietor of the Patent) lodged an
appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division
revoking European patent No. 1 044 957.
II.Notice of Opposition had been filed by the Respondent (Opponent II) requesting revocation of the patent in
its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and
inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and extending the
subject-matter of the patent in suit beyond the content
of the application as filed (Article 100(c) EPC). Inter
alia the following documents were submitted in
opposition proceedings:
(2) US-A-3 717 553 and
(3) EP-A-46 980.
III.The decision under appeal was bad on the patent as granted and on the patent as amended according to the
then pending first auxiliary request.
Claim 1 of the patent as granted read as follows:
"A process for inhibiting polymerization of
(meth)acrylic acid and/or (meth)acrylic ester contained
in a liquid which is being distilled in a distillation
赵孟坚unit, wherein the liquid is supplied to a constitutive
member by a spraying and supplying means, said
constitutive member being placed in the distillation
大小周休息unit, the liquid is sprayed all over the surface of the
constitutive member, said liquid having substantially
the same composition with that of a liquid surrounding
said constitutive member and said constitutive member
being one lected from the group consisting of a tray
supporting member, a packing supporting member, a
flange, a nozzle, an end plate, a column wall, a
chimney, a downcomer, a baffle, and a shaft of an
agitator."
IV.The Opposition Division held that the subject-matter of the claims according to the then pending main and
auxiliary request did not extend the subject-matter of
the patent in suit beyond the content of the
application as filed, was novel, but did not, however,
involve an inventive step in view of inter alia
document (2) in combination with document (3).
V.Together with its Statement of Grounds of Appeal dated
27 April 2009, the Appellant filed auxiliary requests 1
to 3, and with letter dated 19 November 2009, it filed
an auxiliary request 4. At the oral proceedings, held
on 2 February 2012, the Appellant withdrew auxiliary
request 2, and renumbered auxiliary requests 3 and 4 as
auxiliary requests 2 and 3, respectively.
Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 differed from claim 1 of
the main request in that the feature "distillation
unit" was replaced by "distillation column" and "a
baffle" and "a shaft of an agitator" were deleted from
长隆国际大马戏
the list of constitutive members.
Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 differed from claim 1 of
the main request by virtue of the deletion of "a column
wall" from the list of constitutive members.
Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 differed from claim 1 of
auxiliary request 1 in that it was specified that the
temperature of the sprayed liquid was 1 to 30°C lower
破五什么意思
than the surface of the constitutive member.
VI.The Appellant argued that the claims of all requests did not extend beyond the content of the application as
filed. More particularly, it argued that basis for a
process for inhibiting polymerization of (meth)acrylic
esters was to be found a basis on inter alia page 1,
lines 1 to 4 of the application as filed. The subject-
matter of all requests was inventive over the teaching
of document (2) taken alone, since document (2)
described merely a passive system, wherein specific
modifications of the distillation equipment itlf,
namely perforated trays, led to the wetting of the back
surfaces and the tower wall with liquid flowing through
holes in the trays, whereas the patent in suit actively
假鸭血wetted the constitutive members by spraying in order to
avoid polymerization. The skilled person would not have
combined the teaching of document (3) with that of
document (2), becau document (3) was concerned with
the wetting of the dry surfaces of a condenr and not
of constitutive members of a distillation column which
were already covered in a liquid film. In addition, the
vapour was maintained in a superheated state and
constitutive members were heated in order to avoid
condensation. The specific constitutive members defined
in claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 were not described in
either of documents (2) or (3), let alone that their
entire surfaces should be sprayed. With regard to做梦梦到坐牢
auxiliary request 3, a comparison of Examples 1 and 3
of the patent in suit showed that when the temperature
of the sprayed liquid was 1 to 30°C lower than the
surrounding or surface of the constitutive member,
