T 2496/18 (Low Density Paper and Paperboard/WestRock) 30-11-2021

Main request - Inventive step

1. The patent relates (paragraph [0001]) to low density paper and paperboard having a smooth coated surface on both sides and according to paragraph [0006], the patent addresses the need for a low density paper and paperboard that provides the desired smoothness on both sides for high quality printing, while reducing raw material cost.

1.1 According to paragraph [0008], this need is fulfilled by a low density paper or paperboard as defined in claim 1 at issue, including a fiber substrate having the defined minimum basis weight, and a coating with inorganic pigments applied to each side of the fiber substrate to form a coated structure having a Parker Print Surf (PPS 10, soft platen) smoothness on each side of at most about 2 mym, a caliper thickness and a structure basis weight functionally related by the particular relation as defined in claim 1 at issue.

2. At the oral proceedings before the board, it was common ground that D6/D6b represented the closest prior art.

2.1 D6/D6b indisputably pertains to the technical field of the patent in suit, namely "low density paper having a smooth, coated surface on both sides" [0001], and addresses the same technical problem as the patent in suit, as apparent from paragraphs [0001], last sentence; [0002], last sentence; [0003] and particularly [0007]. As apparent from the disclosure of paragraphs [0004] and [0005], D6 teaches away, respectively, from using hollow microspheres or calendering, and instead inter alia discloses the use of fine kaolin (an inorganic pigment according to D20) for coating the paper.

2.2 Thus, in line with the decision under appeal, D6/D6b is the most promising starting point for assessing (non)obviousness of the claimed paper/board.

2.3 It is not in dispute that Example 7 is the closest embodiment of D6b, as it discloses a base paper C (paragraph [0033], LBKP (paragraph [0031]), having a basis weight of 80 g/m**(2) (paragraph [0031]); inorganic pigments coating compositions on both sides (see paragraphs [0039] and [0046]; Oken type smoothness (rather than PPS smoothness); physical properties as depicted in table 1, inter alia mentioning structure basis weight (107.9 g/m**(2)) and density (1.03 g/cm**(3)) of the coated paper, from which a caliper thickness of 104.8 micrometers and a Y1 value of 125,6 m/g**(2) (i.e. higher than the lower value of 107.9 g/m**(2) defined in claim 1) have been calculated.

2.4 The process of claim 1 at issue thus distinguishes itself therefrom by the specified PPS smoothness on both sides and the basis weight of the substrate.

3. At the oral proceedings before the board, the respondent accepted that the patent solves the same problem as D6b but in an alternative way, and so provides an alternative board/paper having good enough properties. However, in the board's view, since the substrate of claim 1 at issue should have a greater basis weight than that of Example 7 of D6b, the problem formulation of opponent 2 (statement, page 10), namely the provision of a board/paper with improved mechanical properties, still appears to be the most appropriate over Example 7 of D6b, disclosing a lower weight of the basis substrate used.

4. The patent in suit in its upheld form proposes as a solution to the above formulated technical problem the paper or paperboard as defined in claim 1 at issue, which is characterised by the following distinctive features over the closest embodiment of D6b/Example 7, namely "a Parker Print Surf smoothness, said Parker Print Surf smoothness on each side being at most about 2mym, and a substrate having a substrate basis weight of at least 105.8 g/m**(2) (65 pounds per 3000 ft**(2))".

5. Success of the solution

5.1 The board shares in this respect several of the objections of the opponents, namely that:

- no technical effect is disclosed (or proven) for the difference, if any, in smoothness of the claimed paper(board), let alone over D6b [0006] which aims at good printability, thus also requires good smoothness;

- claim 1 neither specifies the coating material nor does it require a top coating, used in the examples of the patent to "further improve the surface smoothness", so that no improved smoothness can be taken into account in the formulation of the technical problem;

- also the minimum value of the open range of claim 1 for the substrate basis weight (at least 105.8 g/m**(2)) is not critical, as no particular effect whatsoever is disclosed or invoked for it. In fact the basis weight used in the examples is much higher than that of claim 1. Further, the claimed open range for the basis weight of the substrate plainly falls within the upper half part of the range for the basis substrate of D6b (from about 105 to 160 g/m**(2)), so that they overlap each other starting from 105.8 g/m**(2)(i.e. from the middle part of the range of D6b) to 160 g/m**(2);

- however, as argued by opponent 2, an increase of the basis weight by using more fibres implies higher mechanical strength and lower density (the density of fibres being lower than that of the coating material).

Since the paper of Example 7 of D6b (0003) is formed from a substrate basis weight of only 80 g/m2, it follows that the technical problem of providing a board with improved mechanical properties is nevertheless effectively solved by claim 1.

6. Obviousness

6.1 It remains to be decided whether the skilled person starting from Example 7 of D6b and faced with the technical problem posed would have found any motivation within the teaching of D6b or based on common general knowledge to use a substrate with a basis weight as claimed whilst achieving/maintaining the further conditions required by claim 1 such as PPS smoothness and structure basis weight less than Y1.

6.2 For the board, the arguments of the opponents are more convincing than those of the respondent, for the following reasons:

6.2.1 [0003] of D6b acknowledges the prior art (starting with [0002]) as follows: "from an economic point of view, it is desirable to reduce the weight of paper in order to reduce the manufacturing cost of paper and the logistic cost thereof. If the amount of the coat layer is reduced in view of a lightweight solution, it may be difficult to maintain the surface property of paper such as a glossiness. On the other hand, if the weight of a base paper, that is, the basis weight is reduced, the thickness of the paper is also reduced to cause the weakening of the body of the paper which is important as the printing workability. Therefore, both cases have the problems."

Irrespective of whether it belongs to the invention, the underlined sentences clearly run against the interpretation given by the respondent. Already from the second and third sentences, it is apparent that D6b does not hint at providing the mentioned problems, i.e. at reducing the coating amount or the basis weight of the substrate. Instead, it hints at avoiding the mentioned problems, namely at trading off to maintain both a surface property such as glossiness and printing workability.

6.2.2 This is clearly apparent from the needs acknowledged by D6b in [0007], namely "a double sided coated paper which has both trade-off qualities, ... superiority in printability (an effect of coating glossiness) and printing workability (an effect of a higher basis weight of the substrate), and in addition, ...a high smoothness (another effect of the coating) as well as a high bulkiness (an effect of having less density)". D6b thus clearly departs from the difficulties to manufacture such double-sided coated paper in view of economics.

6.2.3 According to D6b ([0008]) this technical problem is solved by providing "a method ... without necessity of large modification of the facilities, and without using expensive raw materials and chemicals, that is, a method of obtaining a double-sided coated paper exhibiting both the bulkiness and the surface properties of a glossiness and a smoothness, by applying a coating composition mainly formed from fine kaolin having a specific particle size as a finish coat layer and then carrying out a light calendering treatment thereto". Paragraph [0009] makes it even more apparent that the object of D6b is a "double-sided, coated paper which is bulky and is excellent in printing suitability (i.e. its body should not be weak, but resistant to the conditions of the printing) with a high glossiness and a high smoothness".

6.2.4 Since bulkiness, printing suitability and smoothness are the guiding criteria of D6b, the disclosure therein for coating amounts and weight of the basis substrate (50-160 g/m**(2)) must be appropriate for the purposes of D6b, and would thus be used by the skilled person also for making further embodiments within the teaching of D6b. In particular, the guiding criteria "bulky" would not lead the skilled person to use a calendering which could densify the paper.

6.2.5 More particularly, to achieve its objective, D6b teaches to apply the following materials/measures:

- kaolin, average particle size 0.3-0.8 mym, to develop smoothness on the coated film ([0011]), whereby the lower the size the better the smoothness,

- a coating amount of 6 to 12 g/m**(2) ([0017]), whereby the higher the amount the better the smoothness,

- a base paper ([0018], last sentence), such as bleached kraft pulp, having a basis weight ranging from 50 to 160 g/m**(2),

- a nip pressure in the light calendering (paragraphs [0024] and [0025]) of 40 to 60 kg/m, to ensure that the density of the coated paper is 1.05 g/cm**(3) or less, preferably in the range of from 0.95 to 1.05 g/cm**(3) (i.e. the bulkier the better); and that

- the smoothness is 300 seconds or more, preferably 320 to 1000 seconds (i.e. the higher the better).

6.2.6 Thus, the skilled person starting from Example 7 of D6b with the objective to comply with the printing suitability requirement would obviously increase the basis weight of the substrate, and thereby improve its mechanical properties, as D6b discloses, in relation to printing workability, that a reduction of the weight of the basis paper should be avoided. He would thus apply all values falling within the given range up to 160 g/m**(2), a fortiori those in the middle part of the range (namely about 105 g/m**(2)), as this is expressly suggested or implied as preferable by the range defined in D6b. Thereby, the skilled person would inevitably expect that providing more fibres improves the mechanical strength and also the bulkiness, seen that the density of the fibres is less than that of the coating material. Thus, any substrate basis weight > 80 g/m**(2) within the range of D6b was an option at hand for the skilled person within the disclosure of D6b alone.

6.2.7 It follows from the foregoing that the rationale of the invoked decision T 1014/07 is not applicable in the present case as it deals with a different situation (see reasons, 26), where the teachings of different documents (D4, D5, D9 on the one hand and documents D1, D2, D6 or D7 on the other hand) should have been combined by the skilled person to arrive at the claimed subject-matter, i.e. part of the disclosure of one of these documents should have been replaced. Such is not the case here, where D6b discloses all the alternative features sought-for as preferred embodiments.

6.2.8 A fortiori the skilled person would also follow the further suggestions of D6b, such as to use coatings in order to keep smoothness as high as possible within the disclosed range (the values in Example 7 are already high, not yet the highest), and to use a light calendering in order to maintain the sought-for good bulkiness of D6b, and so he would avoid densification.

6.2.9 As regards smoothness, it is to be noted that the claimed PP smoothness of "at most about 2mym" is not unusual in the technical field of the patent, seen that both D1 (table on page 2) and D16 (table on page 1) (idem in D24, if admissible) disclose a number of paper boards having a smoothness as claimed. Moreover, concerning the PPS smoothness requirement, at least the Oken smoothness value of 890 seconds (log890 = 2,95) of one side of the paper of Example 7, irrespective of whether D2a (equation 13; 4. Conclusions, fourth sentence "Thus the two .... followed this relationship well") or D22 (Figure 11; 2.1(4), 3.1.(4), last sentence; 4.1(2)) is considered, appears to fulfil the condition of claim 1 at issue. Instead, the other value (720 s) (log720 = 2.8573) appears to correspond to a different value for the PPS smoothness depending on which of D2a or D22 is considered. If D22 (Fig.11) is considered, also for this Oken value its calculated corresponding PPS value will be < 2 micrometers (log2 = 0.3010). Thus, for the board, it is highly probable that at least one of the Oken smoothness values of D6b complies with the PPS smoothness requirement of claim 1 (see Figure 11 of D22). The fact that it is not possible to precisely determine whether there is actually a difference is however not decisive in the present case because, with respect to smoothness, D6b has a complete teaching for improving smoothness, as it suggests several preferred means therefor, namely:

- the adjustment of the smoothness of the base paper from 15 to 80 seconds, preferably from 20 to 70 seconds [0019],

- an appropriate coating amount for the primer coating in the range of 3 to 8 g/m2 per each side [0020],

- [0017] an appropriate amount of kaolin above 6 g/m**(2) and up to 12 g/m**(2) for the finish coat layer, and

- the use of a blade coater for making smoother surfaces.

6.2.10 Example 7 of D6b inter alia uses a paper with a basis weight of 80 g/m2 [0031] and a smoothness of the base paper of F/W = 62/52 sec [0033] (i.e. less than 80 and even less than 70 seconds disclosed as preferred upper limits); the primer coating composition of [0034], made of only kaolin for the finish coating [0041], applied with dwell-coaters, 5g/m**(2) of primer coating and 8g/m**(2) of finish coating per side (i.e 10 + 16 g/m**(2)) [0046]; and surface finishing (light calendering) at a nip pressure of 51 kg/cm [0047].

6.2.11 The board is of the opinion that, since the values for basis weight and smoothness of the substrate used in Example 7 of D6b are far from the preferred upper limits, and the effect of these upper limits is predictable, the skilled person facing the problem of providing alternative papers to that of Example 7 with improved mechanical properties and good smoothness would inevitably use other preferred values thereof as suggested by D6b, such as those which are plainly suitable for achieving still higher mechanical resistance for printing workability, bulkiness and good smoothness for better printability.

6.2.12 Furthermore, in view of the suggestion of D6b to have as high as possible smoothness for printability, a better smoothness than that of Example 7/Table 1 was thus desirable. In fact the paper of Example 7 has not the same smoothness on both sides. Whilst the value of 890 seconds appears to fulfil the smoothness required by claim 1, irrespective of whether D2a or D22 is considered, the other (720 seconds) might be below it. Hence, in the board's view, the skilled person wishing to simply obtain the same smoothness on both sides of the paper, would want to increase the lower value disclosed (720 seconds) within the suggested values (up to 1000 seconds), thereby expecting to achieve good smoothness on both surfaces, and so it would arrive at a value as claimed. Then, the alleged grey area created by the uncertainty of the relations between PPS and Oken smoothness (D2a and D22), if still any, vanishes.

6.3 It follows from the above considerations that, for the skilled person, the paper according to claim 1 at issue was an obvious modification within the whole teaching for bulkiness and smoothness of D6b.

6.4 The main (and sole) request on file is thus not allowable.