State of the art was a filtering device as disclosed in D5 comprising a carrier belt consisting of canvas reinforced rubber. Such a belt had several disadvantages such as low flexibility, requiring rollers with a large diameter, high friction, requiring lubrication and high driving power, and low chemical and wear resistance. The applicant had found that these problems could be overcome by using a carrier belt of plastic. The use of a plastic carrier belt was not disclosed or suggested in the prior art. The only document disclosing a carrier belt which may comprise plastic material was D1. In this document plastics material was mentioned as a possible material in a layered structure of dissimilar materials having different mechanical properties. There was no hint that the problems caused by a belt of reinforced rubber could be overcome by a belt consisting essentially of plastic.
statics and strength of materials 7th edition pdf 4
Download Zip: https://gohhs.com/2vIRFl
On the basis of the declarations in the annexes 1 to 3 it is credible that the above-mentioned problem is actually solved by a belt of a composite structure of at least two different plastics, comprising a fabric inlay of a high tensile strength plastic yarn. The board has, however, doubts that the said problem can be solved by a belt of any plastic or any combination of plastics as covered by claim 1. This issue need not be decided since assuming for the sake of argument in the appellant's favour that the claimed filtering device actually solves the above-mentioned problem on the whole ambit of claim 1, the solution as claimed is considered to be obvious to a person skilled in the art for the reasons given below.
3.7. According to D1 these problems can be solved by a carrier belt having an inner section providing tensile strength and an outer section of relatively flexible material and of relatively low strength. The belt may comprise inner and outer sections of rubber or plastic material bonded together and may include reinforcing members between the inner and outer sections (page 1, lines 48 to 62). According to the description of the belt as shown in Figure 2 the inner section of material providing substantial tensile strength may consist of terylene, carbon fibre, devlar, rayon, steel, nylon or fibreglass etc., while the outer section is formed from a more flexible material having low tensile strength, e.g., natural rubber, synthetic rubber, polyurethane, polyamide, synthetic elastomers (page 1, lines 121 to 130). The reinforcing member between the two sections may consist of a woven sheet of a high tensile strength material such as nylon (page 2, lines 19 to 24). Terylene, rayon, nylon, polyurethane, polyamide and synthetic elastomers are plastics. Thus, although D1 does not exclude other material compositions for the carrier belt, it clearly suggests the use of a carrier belt consisting of two plastic layers bonded together with a plastic reinforcing member between these layers, just as described in the Annexes 1. and 2 and shown during oral proceedings.
3.8. The board does not dispute that according to D1 the bottom layer of the belt should be different from the top layer, whereas in the carrier belt according to the annexes 1 to 3 and in the sample shown during oral proceedings the bottom layer under the fabric structure seemed to be of the same kind of plastic. Claim 1, however, does not exclude a carrier belt made of different plastic materials but also encompasses a belt comprising two layers of plastics having different mechanical properties as suggested by D1. The appellant's argument that D1 teaches away from the invention because it required a belt having an outer layer which is different from the inner layer is not relevant in this case where the main claim does not exclude the presence of plastic layers having different properties. For these reasons the board holds that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.
According to claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request a carrier belt, a substantive part of which is made of a non-plastic material, is excluded. In the board's understanding this new feature, which has no basis in the original disclosure, expresses in a confusing way that a substantive part of the carrier belt is made of plastic materials. The scope of claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request therefore seems to be identical to that of claim 1 according to the second auxiliary request and is thus open to the same objections.
Aim of study: Relationships between moisture content and thermal conductivity and mechanical properties of wood species were examined. Material and methods: Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa L.) and Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) specimens were used. Thermal conductivity, modulus of rupture, compression strength and impact bending strength values were determined and analyzed. All specimens were examined at 3 different moisture levels which are oven-dry, fiber saturation point (FSP) and completely wet.Main results: The lowest thermal conductivity value was found in the perpendicular to the grain direction of oven dried Black Alder samples as 0.119 W/mK. The highest thermal conductivity value was found in the parallel direction of Scots pine samples with FSP humidity content as 0.340 W/mK. In addition, the thermal conductivity value parallel to the grain is significantly higher than perpendicular one at all three moisture levels.Highlights: While there is a positive linear relationship between the moisture content of the wood and its dynamic bending resistance and thermal conductivity; It was found that there is a negative linear relationship between bending strength and compressive strength value. 2ff7e9595c
Comments