T 1329/06 (Scale inhibition in oil extraction/COÖPERATIE COSUN) of 19.1.2010
European Ca Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T132906.20100119 |
Date of decision: | 19 January 2010 |
Ca number: | T 1329/06 |
Application number: | 99955517.0 |
IPC class: | 蜘蛛咬人伤口图片 E21B 37/00 |
爱与痛的边缘歌词Language of proceedings: | EN |
垂涎已久Distribution: | C |
Download and more information: | Decision text in EN (PDF, 28.946K) | Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in theRegister | Bibliographic information is available in: | EN | Versions: | Unpublished | | |
|
Title of application: | 解放碑店Method for preventing deposits in oil extraction |
Applicant name: | Coöperatie Cosun U.A. |
Opponent name: | Tien Suikerraffinaderij n.v. |
Board: | 3.3.10 |
Headnote -陈官庄 |
Relevant legal provisions: | European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 123(2) | |
|
Keywords:友情作文400字 | Inventive step (yes) - non-obvious alternative |
Catchwords: | - |
胡歌是哪里人Cited decisions: | |
Citing decisions: | |
| |
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The Appellant (Opponent) lodged an appeal on 28 August 2006 against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division posted on 3 July 2006 which found that European patent No. 1 093 541 in amended form met the requirements of the EPC.
II. Notice of Opposition had been filed by the Appellant requesting revocation of the patent as granted in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and insufficient disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC). Inter alia the following documents were submitted in opposition proceedings:
(1) WO 95 159 84 and
(4) US-A-3 596 766.
III. The Opposition Division held that the subject-matter of all the then pending requests was sufficiently disclod, was novel and that the amendments made to the then pending first, cond and third auxiliary requests fulfilled the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. T
he subject-matter of the main, first and cond auxiliary requests was held to be not inventive, document (1) being considered to reprent the clost prior art, whereas the subject-matter of the third auxiliary request was found to involve an inventive step over said clost prior art. Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request read as follows:
" A method for preventing deposition of scale in oil extraction using a polycarboxy compound, the oil extraction using awater as process water, wherein the scale compris barium salts, characterid in that a carboxyl-containing fructan that contains 0.3 - 3 carboxyl groups per monosaccharide unit is incorporated in the process water, in the process equipment or in the oil-containing formation."
IV. In a communication of the Board dated 24 March 2009, the question was raid whether document (26):
爱美之心人皆有之(26) GB-A-2 248 830
cited in paragraph [0004] of the patent in suit, and which disclod a method of inhibiting
the formation of scale in water having a high barium content using polyaminomethylene phosphonates as inhibitor, should be considered to reprent the clost prior art.
V. The Appellant argued that the claims as maintained by the Opposition Division did not fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, more particularly that the feature that the oil extraction ud awater as process water, was not disclod in the application as filed. Original claim 11, in combination with original claim 1, disclod merely that the fructan was incorporated into the process water which was awater, not that the oil extraction as such was carried out with awater as process water regardless of whether or not the fructan was incorporated therein. The passage at page 4, lines 4 to 13 merely disclod that the scale inhibitor could be added to awater and pumped into the oil-bearing formation, not that awater was the process water, the term "process water" being ud in the description of the application as filed only once, namely on page 3, lines 32 to 33, wherein merely the concentration of the fructan therein was indicated.
The Appellant argued that the subject-matter of the invention was not inventive, starting fr
om document (26) as clost prior art. It argued that the person skilled in the art, eking to provide an alternative method for inhibiting the formation of barium-comprising scale in oil extraction, would consult other documents relating to scale-inhibiting substances, in particular, when such a document mentioned oil winning. Document (1) qualified as such a document, since it explicitly taught that carboxymethylated polysaccharides could be ud in oil winning and were attractive replacements for organic phosphonates. It further provided the skilled person with the incentive to u carboxymethyl inulin (CMI) having a degree of substitution of 0.15 to 2.5 as a scale inhibitor in oil extraction, since CMI was shown to inhibit the crystallisation of calcium carbonate, calcium carbonate being a significant component of scale formed during oil recovery with awater. Furthermore, in view of its known calcium carbonate inhibiting properties, the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation that CMI would also inhibit the formation of barium-comprising scale.
VI. The Respondent (Proprietor of the patent) submitted that claim 1 of the claims as maintained by the Opposition Division did fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, ref
erring in this respect to original claim 11 and the paragraph on page 4, lines 4 to 13 of the application as filed, it being apparent from the last ntence of this paragraph that all previous embodiments related to oil extraction at a. The skilled reader knew that the "process water" in such a method was that water which was injected into the oil-bearing formation to displace the oil, offshore oil extraction using awater therefor, as described on page 1, lines 5 to 11 of the application as filed. With letter dated 19 October 2009, it filed an auxiliary request.
With regard to inventive step, the Respondent also started from document (26) and submitted that the skilled person, faced with the problem of providing an alternative method for inhibiting the formation of barium-comprising scale in oil extraction, would not even have consulted document (1), since it was not in the field of scale inhibition in oil extraction. Furthermore, even if he had consulted said document, and even if document (1) taught the u of carboxymethylated polysaccharides in general in oil winning in its introductory ction, the invention disclod in said document was restricted to the u of CMI for inhibiting calcium carbonate crystallisation. The skilled person would thus not hav
e combined its teaching with that of document (26), since it merely taught that this calcium carbonate crystallisation inhibiting activity meant that CMI could be ud to overcome drawbacks associated with the u of carboxymethyl cellulo and carboxymethyl sucro in detergent compositions. Barium salt deposition was, however, not a problem in laundry washing. Document (1) was accordingly silent with respect to awater and barium salts. The claimed subject-matter was thus inventive.
