Pre-Exam 2019: our answers to the claims analysis part - washing compositions and composite structures
The cases
After this highly chemical-type first invention, the claims analysis part continued with a mechanical-type invention. A one-and-a-half page application described a composite structure having holes with reinforcing inserts for the holes in the composite structure, so as to strengthen the holes. Preferably, a support layer is joined to each reinforcing insert. The support layer is formed from a different material to the plies of the composite material. The composite fibres are preferably carbon fibres, while the support layer is made of metal such as aluminium. The single figure showed a composite structure with 10 to 100 plies of fibre-reinforced composite material and a support layer such as a support grid. The support grid has a mesh size in between 0,5 and 1500, preferably between 100 and 150 (considerably improving the fastening strength), measured according to standard XYZ.
For questions 19 and 20, a new set of 1 independent and 1 dependent claim was presented which had been filed by the applicant during the examination proceedings, i.e., as amendments.
Allowability of the new claims, two-part form, closest prior art arguments, and arguments in favour of inventive step were tested.
11.1 F, features of individual claims are linked, dependency
introduces no clarity problems
The claims analysis part started with an
invention relating to a washing composition in the form of a tablet, described in a 1-page description. The washing composition comprises one or more detergents (surface active agents), one or more builders (help to keep the water soft), one or more bleaches (to destroy coloured dirt components), and, optionally a colourant. Ranges of amounts of the various components were given. The components are contained in separate layers: a first layer (all detergents), a second layer (all bleaches), and preferably a third layer in between those (preferably comprising only a builder). The application had no drawings.
A first claim set of 1 independent claim and 8 dependent claims (some of them multiple-dependent) was to be considered for questions 11 to 14. Two very brief documents D1 and D2 were given and expected to be used as prior art documents.
D1 described two embodiments of washing tablets including, as usual, a detergent, a builder and a bleach; in the first embodiment, all ingredients are mixed together and compressed to form a tablet; in a second embodiment, the mixture is divided into two separate parts, forming two layers of the tablet. D2 proposes a washing tablets comprising three layers: a first layer with a builder and a bleach, a second comprising a builder and a detergent, and a third comprising a builder and a colourant.
Questions 11-14 were directed to clarity, scope, novelty, and extension of subject-matter.
For question 15, a different independent claim was presented, and several inventive step-related statements were tested.
After this highly chemical-type first invention, the claims analysis part continued with a mechanical-type invention. A one-and-a-half page application described a composite structure having holes with reinforcing inserts for the holes in the composite structure, so as to strengthen the holes. Preferably, a support layer is joined to each reinforcing insert. The support layer is formed from a different material to the plies of the composite material. The composite fibres are preferably carbon fibres, while the support layer is made of metal such as aluminium. The single figure showed a composite structure with 10 to 100 plies of fibre-reinforced composite material and a support layer such as a support grid. The support grid has a mesh size in between 0,5 and 1500, preferably between 100 and 150 (considerably improving the fastening strength), measured according to standard XYZ.
Question 16 was directed to essential features.
After question 16, and before questions 17 to 20, a claim set was presented with 1 independent claim and 7 dependent claims (most being multiple-dependent claims in the form is "any one of claims X-Y"). D11 and D12 were cited as prior art documents, each one page and each including one figure. D11 relates to composite structures for aircraft components such as aircraft wing covers; D12 relates to a composite structure for bicycle components.
Question 17-18 were directed to clarity, scope, basis for amendment, novelty (of dependent claims).
Although the opening paragraph of the application describes that "The present patent application relates to a composite structure such as an aircraft wing cover", none of the claims is directed to such an aircraft wing cover - all claims are directed to a composite structure.
The claims analysis part seems well-balanced between chemical as well as mechanical inventions, with two separate cases for both technical domains. Both cases were concise, the applications as well as the prior art documents, and should not have led to timing problems. Optional features, preferred embodiments, ranges, and correct understanding of dependent claims were tested.
Our answers to the claims analysis part are given below:
11.2 F, not when depending on claims 1 or 2
11.3 F, the third layer is defined to comprise one or more
builders but not "all" builder.
11.4 F, claim 9 limits the layers being three in total due
to the term "consists"
12.1 F, 1st embodiment of D1 does not have two layers
12.2 T, claim I.2 does not require partitioning of
ingredients, thus 2nd 'mixed' embodiment of D2 is novelty destroying
12.3 F, see answer to 12.1
12.4 F, D1 does not disclose the tablet being partitioned
into three layers
13.1 F, D2 has builder in all layers, so also in a middle
'third' layer
13.2 F, D2's suggested embodiment has three layers
13.3 F, D2 has a layer with detergent. The term 'first' in
the context of claim I.3 has no technical implication.
13.4 F, D2 has a layer with bleach. The term 'second' in the
context of claim I.4 has no technical implication.
14.1 T, although not preferred, this embodiment is supported
by bullet b)
14.2 T, same reason as 14.1, but with this being the
preferred type of builder
14.3 T, supported by a)-d). The 5% is the explicitly
disclosed end-point of the described range.
14.4 F, builder is omitted from the claim, for which there
seems no support (and its removal would likely also fail the essentiality
test).
15.1 F, this problem is arguably solved by the claim as the
third layer (of undisclosed contents) at least does not contain detergent nor
bleach and thereby provides a separation of the detergent and the bleach.
However, the problem of preserving bleach may be a newly discovered problem (D1
and D2 indeed do not recognize this problem). In light of GL G VII 5.1, which
states that the closest prior art "must be directed to a similar purpose
or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related
technical field as the claimed invention", the CPA may in such a case be a
CPA from the same/similar field but not yet tackling the problem of preserving
bleach.
15.2 F, D2 does teach this, albeit as part of a mixture
15.3 T, not taught, also not implicitly as the bleach layer
and the detergent layer seem adjacent in D2.
15.4 T, not taught, the third layer is not described as a
separation layer.
16.1 F, there is no disclosure of mesh sizes being outside
of this range, but at the same time, it is not stated (explicitly or
implicitly) that this range defines the only possible mesh sizes, i.e., the
reason for the mesh size being in the range is not given (it may be due to
commercial availability, etc.).
16.2 T, the problem to be solved relates to holes [02], and
as such, the presence of at least one hole seems essential (implicitly).
16.3 F, carbon fibres are only described as a preference
[05].
16.4 T, reinforcing inserts are described as the solution
[03], and as such, the presence of at least one reinforcing insert seems
essential (implicitly).
17.1 F, the relation between inserts and holes is not
defined, and there is no support layer.
17.2 T, it is not excluded for the structure of claim III.1
to have a support grid of copper.
17.3 T, the broadest scope of claim III.8 is given by the
combination of claim III.1 + III.8, which covers the stated embodiment (50
falls within the claimed range of 10-100 and is therefore not excluded/is
covered).
Update: Note that the English version of claim III.8 reads "wherein the stack has [=comprises] 10 to 100 plies of fibre-reinforced composite material", while the German version reads "wobei der Stapel aus 10 bis100 faserverstärkten Verbundstofflagen besteht [=consists]".
17.4 F, even though 50 falls within the range, it is not
disclosed per se nor can it be directly and unambiguously be derived from the application as filed. Note that the changed dependency (from III.7 to III.6) does
not seem problematic.
18.1 F, D12 seems novelty destroying
18.2 F, at least when depending on claim III.1, '0.7' falls
within claimed range
18.3 T, the claimed range appears to qualify as a selection
invention
18.4 F, at least when depending on claim III.1, '90' falls
within claimed range
19.1 T(or arguably F, see *), claim A.1 is supported in part by a combination of originally filed claims III.1-III.4, with the feature of claim A.1 of
19.2 T(or arguably F, see *), claim A.2 is
19.3 T, D12 indeed does not describe a support grid but
appears to describe the features in the pre-amble.
19.4 T, D11 is also related to 'strengthening' but only of
the structure itself, not of the holes (as D12 is).
20.1 F, this is exactly the teaching of D11, see [02] of
D11.
20.2 T, D11 only teaches a continuous support grid, and D12
only teaches reinforcing inserts without a support grid.
20.3 F, falling within range is actually 'pro novelty' as it
indicates that the claimed range is a species (and in fact, seems to represent
a selection invention, see 18.3)
20.4 F, all features seem to be essential in obtaining the
strengthening of holes and are therefore synergistic.
* 19.1, 19.2 Arguably, both statements may be considered 'F' as the feature of 'extending through the reinforcing inserts' is (only) supported by description ([004]+[006]) but the description requires the support layer to be made of different material than composite material (second sentence of [004]). Arguably, the claims represent an (non-allowed) intermediate generalization with respect to the embodiment described by the description.
UPDATE: we changed the answers to 19.1 and 19.2 from 'F' to 'T' as we expect the intended answers to be 'T', but 'F' being certainly defendable as well (see above *).
UPDATE: we changed the answers to 19.1 and 19.2 from 'F' to 'T' as we expect the intended answers to be 'T', but 'F' being certainly defendable as well (see above *).
We welcome your comments and feedback!
Preferably use your name, or a nickname, when you post a comment - that makes is easier and more convenient to discuss than just addressing Mr/Mrs Anonymous all the time...
(c) DeltaPatents, 26/02/2019
SHARE:
18.3 - I hesitated on this for a long time and ultimately went false because the combination of claims 1, 5 and 6 would not see the purposive effect as there is no fastening means. Therefore this alternative is not novel and claim 6 is not novel.
ReplyDeleteInterested on your take.
To elaborate...cl III.6 dependent on III.5 and III.1 would read: "a composite structure comprising a stack of plies of fibre-reinforced composite material comprising a support grid with a mesh size between 100 and 150, measured according to standard XYZ." [007] states "a mesh size between 100 and 150 improves the FASTENING STRENGTH considerably." How can this passage fulfill the third purposive selection criterion of T279/89 for the aforementioned claim, which does not comprise a hole or an insert?
DeleteInteresting point. Need to have a closer look, but it seems that tyou are right that III.6 does not require the presence of holes and reinforcing inserts, whoich are needed to be able to fasten the structure, which is needed if one wants to rely on improved fastening strength as suggested by [007].
Delete19.1 and 19.2 - I think both are T. "extending" is a non-limiting term. What do you think.
ReplyDeleteI think T. If you check the French language version, I believe they have used the same word where we have used the different words "passing through" and "extending through" in the description and the claim amendments. Therefore I think they mean the same thing.
DeleteThe claims and last sentence of paragraph 3 should provide basis in 19.1?
RP
Yes, we agree that 19.1 and 19.2 are both likely to be intended to be 'True'. Nevertheless, 'extending through' does seem to represent a technical limitation which does not follow from the claims as filed, so one would have to rely on the description for support, which introduces the above-mentioned (risk of) intermediate generalization.
DeleteI agree with RP regarding 19.1. In my opinion, paragraph [003] does provide a basis for this claim.
DeleteHowever, paragraph [003] does not support 19.2, so this claim could represent an unallowable intermediate generalisation of paragraphs [004] and [006].
So I would say 19.1: T and 19.2: F.
Oh, and another argument as to why A.2 would not be allowable is that the additional feature of A.2 is not exactly disclosed as such in the original claims. Indeed, claim III.5 refers to *a* support grid with a mesh size, without defining that this support grid is the same as the one of claim III.4. Thus, the reference to "the support grid" in claim III.6 can be ambiguous, and I don't think it could form a sufficient basis for claim A.2.
DeleteAs a consequence, I think the combination of claims A.1 and A.2 can only be found in the embodiment, but with a different materials for the composite fibres and the support layer, hence the intermediate generaliation.
Yes, at least in the German version, the term "hindurch erstrecken", meaning "extending through" is the same in the claim and in the description.
Deletehi, I would like to trow in my 2 cents regarding questions 19.1-19.2.
DeleteI believe that the "extending through" is not an issue. on the other hand, the "support grid" is a specific embodiment of the general teaching of "support layer" (I don't have the paper in front of me right now, but in the description section relating to fig. 1 it was stated something like "a support layer such as a support grid). hence, claiming a support grid without the other limitations of the embodiment of fig. 1 (i.e. number of plies, size of meshes) makes it an intermediate generalization, not allowable under Art 123(2). I am not sure about the materials, because if I remember correctly, they were specified in relation to a support layer, not yet to a support grid, but I could be mistaken.
claim A2, being dependent on A1, still does not cure this since the number of plies is still missing from the combination of A1+A2.
what do you think?
I agree with you Ilaria. Except that the support grid is a specific embodiment of the support layer. So any limitations to the support layer also apply to the support grid - it this needs to have the different material requirement in claim A.1 as well as A.2.
DeleteDM
THANK YOU, now I can feel like a hero for the rest of the day :-)
ReplyDeleteNevertheless I think the correct answer for 19.1 will rather be "true", as the claims III.1 to III.8 are to be considered for questions 17-20. Therefore 19.1 is allowable und er 123(2), as claim III.4 discloses the support grid in combination with the features of claims III.1-3 without being from a different material.
I also had 19.1 and 19.2 as T. My reasoning was that it is disclosed in the drawing...?
ReplyDeleteOh, I was referring to the holes extending through the reinforcing inserts and also find it in [003]..
DeleteYou are right: this is supported per se by the description/drawings. In our answer, we were being perhaps a bit pedantic in that we considered the intermediate generalization requirement ("Extracting a specific feature in isolation from an originally disclosed combination of features and using it to delimit claimed subject-matter may be allowed only if there is no structural and functional relationship between the features."). The support material being of a different material than the composite material seems related to its support-strengthening function, and the holes extending through the reinforcing inserts as well. As such, there seem to be at least some kind of functional relationship between both features. Having said that, we expect that it is likely that the answer is /intended/ to be 'T'.
DeleteI went with "F", the general support LAYER is indeed joined to each reinforcing insert. However, [006] only discloses that a support GRID can be used in combination with 10 to 100 plies. There is no indication that a support grid is a reasonable choice for a support layer when there are more than 100 or less than 10 plies.
DeleteTo sum up, in my opinion A.1 were allowable with a support layer instead of a support grid. A.2 doesn't heal this, hence I believe that 19.1 and 19.2 are both "F".
Although one could most likely answer 19.1 and 19.2 with both T and F on the basis of 3 or more different arguments.
I agree with L completely (I wrote my comment above before reading yours!). I don't think these two questions were intended to be True, I think that the intermediate generalization is pretty straight forward, also given how things like this have been dealt with in past papers. the support layer is not equal to support grid, but rather the support grid is a specific type of support layer which is only described in the part of the description relating to fig. 1, hence in combination with number of plies and mesh size!
DeleteI'm very surprised by 18.2 and 18.4. I thought these answers were T.
ReplyDeleteJJ
What would be your reasoning?
Delete13.1 - I went for T, because of the feature of claim I.6 is not directly and unambigously disclosed in D2 (the relative spacial relationship between 3 layers are not disclosed in D2).
ReplyDeleteMe too, same reason.
DeleteClaim I.8 defines the intermediate layer to contain builder(s). D2 has three layers and thereby (implicitly) an intermediate layer. All of D2's layers comprise a builder. Thereby, the intermediate layer also comprises a builder.
DeleteMy reasoning is that three lays do not necessarily overlapping each other in D2, so not always one lay in the middle :(
Deletee.g. looks like this =|
Ah, good point, but without wanting to venture too much into an discussion on what the skilled person would interpret or not, a tablet comprised of several layers probably suggests that they are on top of each other.
DeleteAs the dictionary also states: "Layer: a relatively thin sheetlike expanse or region lying over or under another".
I.8 depends on I.6, which reads that the first and the second layer are separated by the third layer. I can imagine situations where there is a third layer, which does not **separate** the first and the second layer. D2 discloses no spatial relationship. So it's novel in my opinion. So I agree with Anonymous' comment at 11:28.
Delete13.1 I went with F. Claim I.8 defines the intermediate layer to contain builder(s). I think the PSA would see this as an implicit disclosure so it should be novelty destroying.
DeleteHi Roel,
DeleteDo you think a "T" answer for this question is justifiable? As D2 does not disclose the spacial relationship between the lays and I can think of several possibilities where the third layer does not separate the first and second layer in D2.
What do you think?
XS
First - many thanks to the DeltaPatents team!
DeleteI went for T because I.6 requires the layers to be separated. I wondered whether 3 layers necessarily implied that one separates the other two and concluded not for two reasons: i) otherwise I.6 and I.7 have the same scope, and ii) you could imagine one substrate layer with two other layers on top placed side-by-side.
Does D2 teach that a first and a second layer are 'separated' by a third layer (claim I.6)? I could imagine a third layer comprising a colourant covering a first layer comprising a bleach and a second layer comprising a detergent (third layer as kind of a coloured coating layer). (In such a tablet there could even be another layer separating a layer comprising bleach(es) and a layer comprising detergent(s).) Therefore, I think, the subject matter of I.8 is novel over D2.
DeleteI'm interested to hear more about this question.
Hello,
DeleteI also answered True for this question. My reasoning was a bit different. In D2, they do not describe much the layers. So there is a possibility for a middle layer not covering entirely the under layer and the top layer. This means that the top and under layers would not be "separated" as is required from claim I.6.
I have to say I also agree with the argumentation given by the others above. Could this answer also be true then ?
Best regards,
Thanks for providing the answers and explanation Roel (and others).
ReplyDeleteRegarding 12.1: how about interpreting the first embodiment of D1 as including two identical and indistinguishable layers? Claim I.2 doesn't require them to be distinguishable. Or is this implicit and am I overdoing it?
DvD
I think that interpreting an un-layered tablet as containing different layers is probably undue and not the intention of the question/paper.
DeleteThanks once again Roel. I reasoned True for both 19.1 and 19.2 but as you said, based on your reasoning, I realise it could go either way. It would be interesting to see EPO's take on it.
ReplyDeleteHow sure are you Delta for 19.1 and 19.2. I got it down as T for both. The difference is 5 marks on this question or 1 mark for me. So it can make a big difference for me.
DeleteWe more or less expect the intended answer to be 'T', but there to be good reasons for answering 'F'. But whether 'F' will attract points is the question.
DeleteThanks Nico. 19.1 and 19.2 sounds like it needs to be neutralised. Both T/F a answers here sounds quite convincing BUT I really do think T is the correct answers for 19.1 and 19.2.
DeleteDear Nico,
DeleteIn your post yesterday at 12:12, for the questions 19.1 and 19.2, you said : "We more or less expect the intended answer to be 'T', ". Why don't you put then T instead of F near the start in your provided answers please?
Kind regards,
Sandra
wow. I didn't expect those answers. Claim analysis much harder than I thought.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for posting these answers so quickly! For all feature exam takers, it is a good idea to keep a copy of your answers to bring home after the test to check against the Delta answers (I just marked my answers in the test paper and brought that paper home; of course, I turned in my answer sheet with the bubbled answers). It gives you peace of mind and it is a learning experience. I agree with these answers except for 19.2. As Delta patents noted in their solution, if you assume the answers to 19.1 and 19.2 are both false, then 19.1 and 19.2 test the same thing (why would the EQE do that?). I think 19.2 is true because it includes a range for the support grid, which takes away the intermediate generalization as compared to claim A.1. Also, regarding the "extending through", this feature is disclosed in every embodiment of the application, so it is not an intermediate generalization to add it in. 19.2 should be T? I could see the EQE giving points for both. These 123(2) are so fluffy for a T/F test.
ReplyDeleteIf 19.1 is false, 19.2 could actually test a different thing:
DeleteThe feature of 19.2 clearly is disclosed in the application as filed.
If you consider 19.1 to extend beyond the application as filed, 19.1 should be F, as 19.2 should -as a dependent claim- also be F (due to 19.1 extending), unless 19.2 recovers the original subject-matter.
If you would, if you consider 19.1 to extend beyond the application as filed, so answered F for 19.1, but consider that the feature of 19.2 clearly is disclosed in the application as filed, and for that last fact answer T, ignoring that the subject-matter of A.2 also includes that of A.1, you go wrong - and the second statement would celarly test whether you know how to do extension of sibject-matter of dependent claims.
(Example of recovery: application as filed only describes and claims cars. Claim 1 was originally filed as a claim to a car. An amended claim set was field with claim 1 directed to vehicle and claim 2 to a car ("..the vehicle being a car") - then claim 1 extends, whereas claim 2 recovers it
Also, the answer for 19.4 could go both ways? D12 should not be the closest prior art because it refers to bicycles parts and airplanes are very different (size, strength required, etc.). So, from a purpose perspective (just like the airplane door versus a door for a house example), D12 should not be closest prior art.
ReplyDeletebut the claim is directed to composited structure so claim is not limited to airplanes or bicycles. I think 19.4 is T. I agree with Delta.
DeleteI too got this wrong, looking again I think it was a trap to fall into - looking at the fields but not realising the claims are not limited. Although I do wonder if that's the correct application of the law.
DeleteI would vote T for both 19.1 and 19.2 - the german version has the same wording for extending through and pass through (para 003)
ReplyDeleteSame here: 19.1 and 19.2 True. Curious for the EPO's anwers, but completely reassured that I passed thanks to your answers - thanks!
ReplyDeleteThanks Delta for releasing those answers. How confident are you that the rest of the answers are to your knowledge correct. I understand 19.1 and 19.2 have * next to them but the others do not,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answers. The only differences are 19.2 and 19.4. I think 19.1 is F because the stack is not limited to 10-100 plies as stated in the description. 19.2 is T as the range is disclosed unambiguously in the description. 19.4 is F because when we consider the closest prior art, shouldn't we consider the field and technical features disclosed first instead of the problems to be solved?
ReplyDeletesimilar purpose and also PSA is expected to look at neighbouring technical field when there is a similar purpose disclosed in D12. So I think 19.4 is T.
Delete19.1 and 19.2 in my opinion should be T.
Based on your answers, I got 72. But depending on 19.1 and 19.2 - I could get 76.
ReplyDeleteI think 19.1 and 19.2 are T for the reasons above (and I hope so to make it feel more comfortable for me). Its a bit tight on the answers. How confident are you that the rest of the questions are correct (assuming no neutralisation that may happen)
I also answered True for both 19.1 and 19.2, so I am interested to see what exactly the EPO was looking for with this question. My answers were broadly the same otherwise, except for a silly error in questions 13.3 & 13.4 with the ‘first’ and ‘second’ layers.
ReplyDeleteBased on the rest of your answers I should have done enough to pass, so thank you for getting the answers up quickly to put my mind at ease. Thank you Roel & the Delta patents team for your efforts!
Dear Nico, I was thinking about question 17.4; I answered "true", as I applied the disclosure test (see A123(2) in Visser, page 319).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, in the current case, a stack of 50 plies is implicitly disclosed by the stack of 10-100 plies (see claim III.8). Visser comments on page 319 state that also an implicit diclosure can be clear and unambiguous. Any other opinions on that?
but the question says state "direct and unambiguous" so I would say the answer is still F.
DeleteHi - I agree. I had a long debate with myself about this one but in the end I found comments in Hoekstra that said that an implicit disclosure would be clear and unambiguous. (I don't have the book with me now to check the reference.) Until I found that reference I didn't have confidence either way!
DeleteAn implicit disclosure can indeed be clear and unambiguous, but arguably the disclosure of 10-100 does not disclose 50, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
DeleteAn analogy is that of genus-species: a genus (the range) does not provide support for the undisclosed specifies (a point in the range), even if it is known per se that the genus includes the species (that the range encompasses the point).
...also "direct and unambiguous" I think. But as a I say, I don't have Hoekstra with me to check right now!
DeleteNico - yes, that's a fair point. Also, reading in the cold light of day, given that 17.3 asks about 50 for an alternative reason, it does suggest that the two questions are designed to mislead you into superficially thinking that 17.3 and 17.4 should give you the same answer!
DeleteIndeed, 'direct' and unambiguous
DeleteMy understanding is that the GL specify that, among other things, a selection of a sub-range (add therefore, arguably a specific value) from a known range does not meet the requirement of novelty if the selection is "arbitrary" - no purposive selection. The analysis for basis under 123 follows the same principle of "direct and ambiguous" as novelty and based on this reasoning, I thought the answer should be true. What is the flaw in this reasoning?
Delete@Anonymous 26 February 2019 at 12:57
Deleteif the prior art shows a range of 10-100, then a selection invention claiming 50 would be new (or, if yoyu wis, 50-55, with a new & great effect). So, that provers that 50 is not directly and unambiguosly derivable from 10-100.
So, indeed the golden standard for 123(2)is basically the same as for novelty: if "novelty test" passed (of amendement vs original), then violating 123(2).
(But if not novel, some more work to do - best to use the goldon standard).
I got this question wrong - I said there was basis.
DeleteAs it is a layered structure, it is implicit that you have to have an integer number of layers - you couldn't have 20.2 layers for example.
If the applicant wants to be able to limit to a specific embodiment during prosecution, they have to disclose each and every single possible integer value as a separate embodiment in order to have direct and unambiguous basis for said embodiment?
To me, a range where implicitly integer values are disclosed should provide basis for all those implicitly disclosed values.
I understand that reasoning for the answer, and don't fault that, but don't like the reasoning for this being the rule in the first place.
Hi Matt,
DeleteI have two kids in the age of 12 to 26. They differ by 2 years. Can you tell the ages of both of them? If they are -as you suggest above- implicitly disclosed from what I wrote, you should not have any difficulties to tell me right away!
In your case, you have a defined set of possible options that are covered - 12 & 14, 13 & 15, etc. Combinations such as 12 & 20 are clearly not disclosed, but other combinations are. So in your case I would argue that a defined series of different "embodiments" are implicitly disclosed, and it is also clear what is not disclosed.
DeleteI have a keyboard with keys comprising the letters A to Z. Does this mean I don't have basis for a keyboard with keys comprising the letter T?
Not saying I disagree with the answer provided, as I understand it fits with the guidelines. I just don't like the guidelines as I feel they are too restrictive to what is disclosed. If I am drafting an application, and want to cover a range of values for a parameter but leave myself open to selecting one of those values later in prosecution, I have to explicitly disclose each and every parameter value? I don't think that should be the case.
Either way, I should have passed, so it's more a point for debate in principle rather than something for contesting in this exam!
Hi Matt,
DeleteYou didnot get the ages of the kids of "Anomymous 26 February 2019 at 18:49": you gave a plurality of options. An implicit disclosure would have led you to the one and only correct answer. NONE of the possible options that you mentioned, 12 & 14, 13 & 15, ... are implicitly disclosed.
A composition comprising A in a range of 10-50% of the total weight of the composition ONLY discloses 10% and 50%, not any one of the in-between values, also not implicitly.
That is also a reason why a selection from a single list is not novel (all are explicitly disclosed), whereas a selection from a non-disclosed combination of two elements from two lists is NOT implicitly disclosed (i.e., any combination that you can think of is new).
About statements 19.1 and 19.2: I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the wording "extending through".
ReplyDeleteI thought that "extending through" does not necessarily imply that the holes extend from part to part of the reinforcing insert. Thus, according to my interpretation, "extending through" could be e.g. a blind hole into the reinforcing insert, or even a void extending through the reinforcing insert (thereby providing a hollow reinforcing insert).
As the holes are always disclosed as "passing through" (i.e. from part to part of) the reinforcing insert, I answered False to both statements.
Is my interpretation incorrect?
if it is "through", then it is "through", not "into". that is how I understand it.
DeleteWe did not intend to distinguish between 'extending through' and 'passing through', but simply considered that the claims as originally filed did not disclose any relation between the holes and the reinforcing inserts - the claims covered embodiments in which the reinforcing inserts are used for other reinforcements and not for specifically reinforcing the holes.
DeleteOf course, the holes extending through the reinforcing inserts is well-supported by the description and drawings, but if one relies on on the description for support, one may be forced to also include all 'essential' features which are related to the reinforcement of the holes (and thereby arguably the support layer being made of a different, non-composite material) as one otherwise runs the risk of creating an 'intermediate generalization'.
thanks Nico but the holes extending through insert are disclosed in the drawings so there should support for this and therefore - no risk of intermediate generalisation?
DeleteThe drawings represent an "originally disclosed combination of features", and thus the following still applies:
Delete"Extracting a specific feature in isolation from an originally disclosed combination of features and using it to delimit claimed subject-matter may be allowed only if there is no structural and functional relationship between the features".
As such, it does not seem to matter whether one would rely on the description (text) or the figures in terms of the allowability under Art. 123(2) EPC.
for 13.3 and 13.4 - do you think that these can be seen as selection invention. If so then 13.3 and 13.4 are T.
ReplyDeleteJordan
DeleteOn 13.3 abs 13.4, claims I3 and I4 both state “the” first and second layer.
Isn’t the presence of “the” ensures that claim I2 cannot be neglected. ( I3 and I4 have dependency problems).
In such a case where I2 is considered, only 2 layers are present making it novel over D2( 3 layers).
What do you think?
same goes for 18.2 and 18.3. Can these be seen as purposive invention and if so, then the range should confer novelty.
DeleteHi JJ,
DeleteIn 18.2, the caimed range in III.5 (1+5) of 0.5-1500 is not novel wrt D11 0.7-2000: the prior art end point 0.7 is in the claimed range, so not novel. A range can never be novel is the prior art already shows a point within that range - also not with a new effect as a purposive selection (althoigh one could then consider a use claim)
18.3: claim III.6 (1+5+6) is indeed novel wrt D11, as 100-150 narrow wrt 0,7-2000, far removed and purposive (conserably strengthened)
Hi Roel,
DeleteCan you consider my comment (first comment) in relation to 18.3 above? That 1,5 and 6 combined has no fastening means and therefore the purposive selection could fall down.
Hi, I donot think it is needed: [007] describes that the mesh with these sizes imoroves the fastening strength considerably - it does so without as well as with the reinforcing inserts, see the last sentence of [007].
DeleteNote that D11 also does not have the reinforcin inserts.
But without a hole, it's just a plain board with no fastenings, so there is no fastening strength to improve. However, I suspect you are correct.
DeleteThanks for the response (and to the team for all the answers) I think I'll have to let this one go :-)
I hope the official answers don't deviate from Delta Patents. The only thing I'm expecting a change on is 19.1 and 19.2. I think the rest of the claim analysis answer by Delta are sound. Thanks Delta patents.
ReplyDeleteHi Delta patents - How confident are you (except 19.1 and 19.2) that these answers are correct (obviously not 100%) but if there are questions where you feel it can go either way or that there are differences within your team then we would be interested to know.
DeleteDear PAM,
DeleteI totally agree with you.
BR
Jack
While we had some internal discussion on some of the questions, we are reasonably confident on the current set of answers as posted above (with the only exception being 19.1/19.2). Of course, no guarantees (sorry...).
DeleteDear PAM and Jack,
Deletewe have already indicated where we are not confident. But even if confident, we may have a different answer than what is expected... our "results" from the previous years shows only few errors. However, in the discussion on the blog, new points of view may come up that may change our opinion. Also, some good (and bad) arguments may hold for the opposite answer; but where candidates come with -in our view- farfetched answers, it is more difficult to accept an opposite answer based on those.
This exam did not lead to a lot of discussion in our tutor group (whereas it sometimes did in previous years). We all have the same answers for the legal questions, and we have almost all the same ansswers for the claims analysis part - that prrobably means that we can be quite confident about all our answers, except for 19.1 and 19.2.
But as said, even if confident, we may have overlooked things in the questions, in the statements, or in alternative interpretations, so please feel free to continue to contribute!
Dear Roel and Nico - Thank you very much for your answer. We understand that you can only be confident as you put but to hear that almost all of you agree on other answers apart from 19.1 and 19.2 - that is more reassuring for me. I know that past years, you've been accurate. 2018 seems to be a bogus year where everything seemed dubious but it seems you are quite sure about this year. Thanks again.
DeletePAM
Dear Nico,
ReplyDeleteRegarding question 20.1, the answer for me looked so obvious that I changed it because D11 does not teach the strengthening of "plies" of fibre-reinforced composite material using a support grid but strengthening "a composite structure comprising a stack of plies" of fibre-reinforced composite material using a support grid. Therefore, I answered true. Don't you think this is a valid argument?
David
I agree
DeleteWe did not consider this to represent a technical difference, but rather to refer to the same thing.
DeleteHi David and Nico,
DeleteI overlooked your post and asked the same question later on (27 Feb) . In my opinion, David should be right.
As I stated further below, D11 teaches, that the support grid strengthens the whole composite structure.
However, the question of 20.1 was "D11 does NOT teach the strengthening of PLIES"
In my understanding, the plies are not strengthend by the support grid. They can be weak or strong or anything. The support grid only strengthens the whole composite structure, which is a connection of many plies.
So 20.1 should be T.
What do you think, Nico?
Best regards!
Hi all,
DeleteI also agree David and SN. In D11 P2 says "This composites structure 10 is stronger than a structure without a support grid." There is no indication about strengthening of support grid. Accorting the description, it is not directly understandable that using a support grid makes stronger the composite material.. That's why i thought is is True.
Best Regards,
T
Based on these results, i‘m at 68/100. I would need 19.1 and 19.2 to be true to pass the Pre-EQE. Assuming that the EPO is also of the opinion that 19.1 and 19.2 should indeed be false, thus leaving me at 68/100, I would consider filing an appeal.
ReplyDeleteWhen and how could I file an appeal? Do I have to wait until I receive the final result by mail or are the results which soon will be posted on epo.org also count as an „appealable decision“.
Thanks in advanve
I believe you will need to be notified of the decision in order to appeal it. Same as decisions made at oral proceedings - you need to wait for notification of the decision to appeal it.
DeleteI would definitely appeal 19.1 and 19.2. We still need to wait for final results to be issued before you can file an appeal. However, I think the answer to 19.1 and 19.2 are T. So if it is F, you will need to file an appeal + state your reasons.
DeleteIt is worth doing because there are some dubious questions. For some legal questions, 1.1, 5.4 and the renewal fee payable in Jan 2020 question seems to be arguable.
G
Hi G,
DeleteWhy do you consider 1.1 (filing date), 3.2 (renewal 31/1/20), and 5.4 (record change at IB) dubious? Please check out the comments from other candidaters and us on the legal blog - I donot see that they are aguable (sorry...)
Rgrds, Roel
For 1.1 I understand the reasoning but also some people have thought that the question referred to reference to priority. Can be misread.
Delete3.2 - when I read the question, I assume it meant fees related only to R71(3) that is payable so renewal fees are a separate fee from R71(3).
5.4 - I accept your answer that IB is for recordal. But the AG-IP seems a bit confusing on this point.
G
Hi stat80
DeleteBased on these results i have obtained 67/100 which also leaves my situation that the answers of 19.1 and 19.2 to be true, in order to pass the examination. After the official results are being published, i am also considering for appealing these two questions. I am interested to know the procedure as well,
19.4 asks for the closest prior art, but it does not specify for which claim: A.1 or A.2. Would it make a difference?
ReplyDeleteNo, probably not. Sorry
DeleteHi, thnx for the quick results!! Except for question 19 I have the same answers. Very nice blog discussions here too. I can relax now. Cheers!
ReplyDeleteThank you for quickly answering my question. I will anxiously wait for the final results.
ReplyDeleteOn 13.3 abs 13.4, claims I3 and I4 both state “the” first and second layer.
ReplyDeleteIsn’t the presence of “the” ensures that claim I2 cannot be neglected. ( I3 and I4 have dependency problems).
In such a case where I2 is considered, only 2 layers are present making it novel over D2( 3 layers).
What do you think?
I.2 says the tables "comprises" a first and a second layer, so there can be more - it did not say "consists of"
DeleteThanks for your team's speedy answers Roel.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 19.1 and 19.2 I suspect the intention of the EQE was to have both be T, and indeed based on the specification and the claims (note it specifies that these claims are considered as filed with the application for questions *17-20*) I could not read it any other way in the exam.
With this in mind, I suspect that 19.1 and 19.2 as F, whilst arguable, is incorrect: The features of A1 are clearly disclosed in the claims as filed (and arguably the description), and A2 is clearly disclosed in both the claims and the description.
Your intepretation would rely on a very narrow reading of the specification and ignoring the claims as filed.
Of course, I look forward to the EPO making me eat my hat.
Hi 'A Weaver',
DeleteIn claim A.1, the feature 'extending through the reinforcement inserts' is not mentioned in any of the originally filed claims III.1-III.8, neither explicitly nor implicitly, but only in the description/drawings. Hence the discussion on a possible non-allowed intermediate generalization.
Thanks for the reply, interesting thoughts. I guess we will have to wait and see what the Examiner's report says.
DeleteIf indeed this is an unallowable intermediate generalisation it appears to be very subtle.
It is a True/False exam, so the difference is often in subtleties. If it is more subtle than was intended, but correct, it should be accepted. Subtle correct reasonings a cannot be marked as incorrect! I guess that means that the statement must be neutralized.
DeleteHi A Weaver,
DeleteI don't completely agree with A.2 being clearly disclosed in the claims: A2 defines a support grid joined to the reinforcing inserts AND having a mesh size between 100 and 150.
In my interpretation of the claims, since claim III.5 refers to *a* support grid (which can thus be different from the one of the preceding claims) with a mesh size, the combination of claims III.1 to III.6 does not directly and unambiguously defines that the same support grid has both features (joined to the inserts and having a proper mesh size).
Does that look like a valid reasoning or is it too far fetched?
Hi djo,
DeleteI think you have a point, there is a clarity issue with the dependency/antecedence of claims 3, 4, 5, AND 7:
-how can claim 3 be dependent on claim 1 when claim 1 does not have reinforcing inserts?
-how can claim 4 be dependent on claim 1 or 2 when 1 and 2 don't have a support layer?
-your point regarding claim 5, is this the support grid of claim 4?
-How can claim 7 be dependent on claims 1, 2, or 3 when they do not have a support grid?
I wouldn't dare to guess what the actual answer is. Statement 19.2 should really be neutralised, it is too ambiguous and if this was a real correspondance with an Examiner you could argue both sides all day long.
hi, thank you for the answers! Just one remark about question 11.4: in the French version, claim 9 don't mention "consists", but "is composed of". Therefore, I answered "T". No idea if this item will be neutralized...
ReplyDeleteGood question! I assume it depends on the specifics of the interpretation of the word in French.
DeleteA quick dictionary search on 'composed of' does suggest it is synonymous with 'consisting of': Made up of (something); consisting of (something)
Dear Nico,
DeleteReagarding the meaning of "composed of" in french, a quick dictionary search on composed of in french does suggest also "comprised of".
I am native french speaking and during the exam, I spent sometime to figure out if "composed of" was meaning "comprised of" or "consist of". The guidelines do not mention this while it well explains "include" etc.
In this case, what to consider though?
Kind regards,
Sandra
That's certainly a dilemma, and it is unfortunate that the French version did not use the usual 'standard' terms (consisting/is/made of vs comprising) as they are used in the Guidelines.
DeleteThe German version does refer to the usual term for 'consisting', namely 'bestehen aus'.
Hi Nico,
DeleteThank you for your prompt answer.
Is it mandatory by the EQE requirements that the candidate looks into the other versions to clarify a term that doesn't exist into the guidelines?
During the exam I went to the guidelines to clarify this point F-IV-4.21. Also the case explain all these terms, but never it is mentioned "composed of" https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_e_1_13.htm
I thought that the paper should be clear enough.
In this case, what to do then? Is it probable that the EPO will consider the question not clear enough and allows T & F answers.
Kind regards,
Sandra
There is certainly no legal requirement for you to have to consult the other language versions: each version should be clear on its own (although it can be a pragmatic approach to a linguistic dilemma).
DeleteI would be inclined to consider 'composed of' in English(!) to be synonymous with 'consisting of'. Same case law indeed discusses this:
T 239/92, R. 2.1: "According to the general encyclopedic definition the expression "consist of" is replaceable by: "to be made up" or "to be composed of" or "to have as its constituent substance or elements". All these expressions stand for an exhaustive enumeration of constituents. In particular in the patent practice, the expression "consist of" has been used to exhaustively define the composition of a substance."
T 1827/12, R 3.4: "feature (e) to be composed of 2 to 4 mass% Ag and Sn, i.e. an alloy consisting of two components only".
Of course, this is not very helpful to you now. Do any of your French-speaking colleagues also consider the term in French to be ambiguous with respect to meaning 'comprising' (open-ended) or 'consisting' (limited)?
Hi Sandra,
DeleteThe term "comprised of" may be ill-defined or not very clear, but the term "composed of" and the term "comprising" are very well defined. As is the French term "comprend".
I donot think I ever saw the term "comprised of" in an exam. So this looks like a very academic discussion to me.
I am afraid you were mislead by a wrongly translating a well-defined French term into English:
11.4 says "comprises" in the English version
11.4 says "comprend" in the French version, which seems to me to clearly mean comprises as well. See also Guidelines F-IV, 4.21:
"Sens des termes "comprendre" et "constituer de"
Une revendication portant sur un dispositif/procédé/produit qui "comprend" certaines caractéristiques est interprétée comme signifiant qu'elle inclut ces caractéristiques, mais qu'elle n'exclut pas la présence d'autres caractéristiques, tant qu'elles ne rendent pas la revendication inopérante. Par contre, si l'expression "constituer de" est employée, aucune autre caractéristique ne figure dans le dispositif/procédé/produit en dehors de celles qui suivent cette expression"
Sorry, I referred to the wrong claim.
DeleteI.8 says "comprises" in the English version
1.8 says "comprend" in the French version
I.9 says "consists of" in the English version
1.9 says "se compose de" in the French version, which to me seems to mean the same as "se constitue de", i.e. consists of.
Guidelines F-IV, 4.21 provide:
" Par contre, si l'expression "constituer de" est employée, aucune autre caractéristique ne figure dans le dispositif/procédé/produit en dehors de celles qui suivent cette expression. "
In reaction to Nico Cordes of 27 February 2019 at 13:45:
DeleteYou said that it is unfortunate that the French version of I.9 did not use the usual 'standard' terms as they are used in (the English, the German and French version) of the Guidelines, by using "se comporse of" rather than "constituer de" in I.9.
However, it is more than unfortunate: it puts the French candidates in a worse position than the English and German candidates, and I donot see any justified reason why the French version deviates from the standard terminology whereas the English and Germen version comply with it.
MV
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Roel and Nico,
DeleteThank you for your inputs.
I do understand the difference between "consisting of" and "comprising" where "consisting of" is more limitative than "comprising". That is why during the exam when I saw "se compose de" in french, I wanted to check first if "se compose de" falls into the limiting "consisting of " or the non limitative "comprising". I checked the guidelines and I could not find anywhere into the guidelines that "se compose de" falls into the category of "consisting of". The guidelines always use "constitué de" not "se compose de". Furthemore, the guidelines well explains that "include" etc falls within the non-limitative "comprising".
Based on this, the exam could use "constitué de" as used into the guidlines and always previous pre-exam instead of "se compose de" that raise confusion to the candidate.
The guidelines always use "constitué de".
I spent a lot of time to figure out if "se compose de" was falling into "consitué de" limitative category or "comprend" non-limitative category. Finally, since I could'nt see the answer into the guidelines I took the wrong meaning "comprend" which lead me to the opposite answers (i.e. wrong answers for the related question).
Kind regards,
Sandra
Dear Sandra,
DeleteI agree that the French version not using the usual 'standard' term of the Guidelines puts you at a slight disadvantage compared to DE/EN candidates (but of course unfortunately otherwise cannot change this fact).
Dear Nico,
DeleteThank you for your answer.
You said that you: agree that the French version not using the usual 'standard' term of the Guidelines puts you at a slight disadvantage compared to DE/EN candidates (but of course unfortunately otherwise cannot change this fact).
Does'it mean that it is normal that at the EQE exam some candidates may have advantages compared to others? nothing can be done to remedy that by the exam committee as the fault can have negative impact on the results of those affected candidates ?
Kind regards,
Sandra
I agree with all of Delta's claim analysis answers apart from 19.1 and 19.2. I think its hard to deviate from these answers as they are well reasoned.
ReplyDeleteIn the Guidelines specifics that “ consist of” is only limited in composition in a chemical product with percentages, but not in other situation. So, do you consider layers as percentages?
ReplyDeleteThank you
That is not what the Guidelines say. “Consists of” always excludes the présence of something more.
DeleteSee Guidelines F-IV, 4.21:
Delete"[On the other hand,] if the wording "consist of" is used, then no further features are present in the apparatus/method/product apart from the ones following said wording."
Question 15.2
ReplyDeleteDoes D2 teach to provide a tablet which contains one 'or more' bleaches in one layer and one 'ore more' detergents in a different layer? It seems to me, that D2 rather teaches to use only one bleach and only one detergent at a time.
Therefore in my opinion the correct answer may be 'T' because D2 suggests to produce a tablet comprising a layer comprising a bleach and a layer comprising a detergent (and not more than one bleach and/or detergent). It seems to me, that D2 does not teach the full scope of statement 15.2.
I'm interested about other opininons on this topic.
"One or more" is an alternative - it means 1 or 2 or 3 etc.
DeleteWith claims that use "or", it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives to destroy novelty.
Therefore any prior art that discloses one bleach falls within the scope of 1 or 2 or 3 etc.
If the claim had said "Two or more bleaches" or "a plurality of bleaches", then the claim would be novel over prior art that disclosed *only* one bleach.
That was also our consideration, and it indeed depends on whether you should interpret the statement as:
DeleteA) D2 teaches one bleach, or D2 teaches more bleaches
The answer should then be true as the former is true (a logical 'OR').
B) D2 teaches "one or more" bleaches
The answer should then be false, as D2 teaches only "a" bleach, not "more" bleaches.
We have followed the interpretation according to A), but B) also has some merits.
@Anonymous 26 February 2019 at 22:07
DeleteYou may be biased by the US-style of looking at one or more / at least one / comprising at least one of A, B and C and alike.
Before the EPO, an OR-claim is novelty destroyed if one of its alternatives is known.
So, "one or more detergents" is anticipated by one detergent, by a detergent, by a pluraliry of detergents, by two or more detergents, by a detergent of a first type and a detergent of a second type, by at least one detergent, ...
Thank you for your answers, Roel, Nico and Unknown
DeleteI like the two considerations described by Nico and think both can be followed.
As I understand question 15.2, it seems rather directed towards what D2 teaches than towards if D2 is novelty destroying for claim II.1.
And while D2 seems to teach that various bleaches and detergents are produced by different manufacturers it does not seem to give any hint, that it could be an option to use more than one bleach and/or more than one detergent in a tablet, it rather suggests to produce a tablet comprising one of each.
So if there was a basis in the application it might be possible to restrict a claim to a tablet comprising a plurality of bleaches and/or detergents. Therefore the question could be aimed at if D2 also covers this possible fallback position or not.
What do you think about it?
I agree with Roel and Nico on the OR novelty destroying approach. This is what is disclosed in the guidelines and in all materials taught by EPO.
DeleteRegarding 14.3, would it not be possible to argue that this amendment consists in a first choice (ie a composition comprising a dye) among the two alternatives: compositions with or without dye; and a second choice (ie 5% dye) among the possible dye content (ie 1 to 5% by weight). And therefore, this amendment does not meet the requirements of Art. 123(2), pursuant to T12/81?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Aurélien
I imagine that would be a tough argument since T12/81 concern the selection from two lists 'of some length'. I was of the understanding that a selection from a list of two choices (here, with or without dye) wouldn't fulfil the 'some length' requirement.
DeleteThe combination with a colourant having a content between 1-5% by weight seems suggested (e.g., by the enumeration as a)-d)). The only selection is then the weight percentage of colourant, a 'single list' selection if you will.
DeleteRegarding question 20.1: D11 teaches a [001] "composite structure, comprising a stack of plies..." and [002] "composite structure comprising a stack of plies of [...] composite material and a support grid. The COMPOSITE STRUCTURE is stronger than without the support grid." However, question 20.1 reads: "D11 does NOT teach the strengthening of PLIES of [...] composite material using a support grid." Hence 20.1 should be T. It teaches strengthening of the composite material, not of the plies. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I mean, it teaches strengthening of the COMPOSITE STRUCTURE, not of the plies... :)
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point SN.
DeleteHi SN,
DeleteThat is why we said: "20.1 F, this is exactly the teaching of D11, see [02] of D11."
Are we overlooking something?
But doesn't D11 also teaches away from using support grid.
DeleteKarl
Dear Roel,
Deletethanks for your response!
D11 teaches, that the support grid strengthens the whole composite structure.
However, the question of 20.1 was "D11 does NOT teach the strengthening of PLIES"
In my understanding, the plies are not strengthend by the support grid. They can be weak or strong or anything. The support grid only strengthens the whole composite structure, which is a connection of many plies.
So 20.1 should be T.
Do you know, what I mean?
Best regards!
Do you mean it should have said “..strengthening A STACK OF plies of fibre-reinforced composite material”?
DeleteThen, yes, I understand your point if you take the statement very strictly, but doesnot the skilled person understand from 20.1 that “strengthening of plies of fibre-reinforced composite material” refer to the strengthening of the stack of plies?
@karl:
DeleteWhy do you consider that "D11 also teaches away from using support grid."? Please clarify.
Dear Roel,
Deleteno it should not say "...strengthening a STACK of plies" but "...strengthening the composite structure."
Because the second senctence of [002] says " This composite STRUCTURE is stronger than a STRUCTURE without a support grid"
So D11 does neither teach the strengthening of the plies nor strengthening of the stack of plies. It teaches the strengthening of the composite STRUCTURE (...which "comprises" a stack of plies ([002], first sentence), but does not CONSIST of it - it should also comprise some kind of adhesive between the single plies...)
Is that reasonable?
Best regards!
Ah, I now see what you mean. You may have a point, but I doubt whether that subtlety was meant to recognized... It seems to me that the statement tries to test whether you have an incentive to read D11, either as CPA or as second document, and what you are looking for is "strengthening the holes in a composite structure" [002] and [001] of the application, where the structure comprises a stack of plies of fibre-reinforced material.
DeleteDear Nico,
ReplyDeleteYou said : "We more or less expect the intended answer to be 'T', ". Why don't you put then T instead of F near the start in your provided answers please?
Kind regards,
Sandra
Well, we expect the intended answers to be 'T' considering the context of question, but we'd tend towards 'F' as being the fundamentally correct answer. Having said that, we'll clarify the original post.
DeleteThank you for your prompt answer Nico.
DeleteKind regards,
Stella
In your post yesterday at 12:12.
ReplyDeleteKind regards,
Sandra
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear all,
ReplyDeleteis somewhere already stated when the results from the EPO are coming?
kind regards,
Claudia
Not yet known. You can expect it to be several weeks, but it has not been the same every year.
DeleteAssuming it will be the same as the last years:
The results will first be posted as one file on the EQE website with achieved marks for each EQEregnr. That will also indicate when the official results letters will be send to you by surface mail. Examiner's report may be at the same date at the results, or a bit later.
several weeks :( well...according to your results i passed, so i will try to relax until then :D
DeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteDo you know when we should file an appeal for the question 19.1 and 19.2 ?
The amswer of these two questions will affect not only my points but also most of the candidates.
Sincerly
we have to wait for the notification
DeleteWe have to wait but I strongly believe that it should be T for 19.1 and 19.2. It's likely that the questions will be neturalised.
Deletei also opted for T
DeleteStatement 13.3 asks whether claim I.3 is novel over D2.
ReplyDeleteClaim I.3 depending on I.1 reads: A tablet comprising one or more detergents, one or more builders, and one or more bleaches, wherein the first layer comprises a detergent.
But this claim is unclear: it does not introduce a first layer.
So how to understand it?
D2 shows layers, and one of them has a detergent, so the feature of I.3 is shown. But I.3 is not correctly dependent.
Anna
Hi Anna,
DeleteA claim comprising multiple alternatives lacks novelty if one of the alternatives is not novel.
I agree that I.3 depending only on I.1 is unclear due to an incorrect dependency / lack of anticipation.
But I.3 depending on I.2 depending on I.1 is clear: it introduces the first layer in I.2, and also a second layer.
D2 shows a (three layer) tablet with a layer having a detergent - it is called a second layer in D2, so the feature of I.3 is anticipated
D2 also shows two or more layers, so a first and a second layer. so the feature of I.2
D2 further shows (a three-layer) tablet having a builder (3x), a bleach and a detergent, so anticipates om claim I.1
Thus, all features of I.1 + I.II + I.3 are anticipated by the single (three-layer) tablet of D2.
Dear DP Team,
ReplyDeletethanks for the option for discussion.
Regarding 14.4:
I considered 14.4 to be T.
As stated in D1 " tablets include ...AS USUAL... ... a builder..."
Hence, it is known to any person skilled of the art that builders will be included. Hence it should be no problem to omit the builder from claim 1.
What do you think?
Thanks a lot!
Kind Regards!
Hi Lisa,
DeleteCommon general knowledge cannot be used as basis for a claim amendment by adding technical substance from common general knowledge.
The subject-matter of the amended claim must be directly and unambiguously be derivable from the application as filed; herein, common general knowledge is only used to understand the technical meaning, not to add technical matter - e.g., to understand what is implicitly disclosed (trivial example: "2+2" implicitly discloses "4" and one uses common general knowledge arithmics for that understanding).
So, you cannot use technical information from your "as usual" common technocal knowledge in amendments.
It may be easiest to remember from technical equivalents: if a specific technical feature is described (e.g, a nail), but no technical equivalents (such as screws, glue, ... or other fasteningmeans), those technical equivalents are not disclosed in the application as filed, neither explicitly nor implicitly, and cannot be used as an amendment.
DeleteE.g., a claim specifiying a nail to fasten one wooden part to a second wooden part cannot be amended to a claim specifiying a screw to fasten one wooden part to a second wooden part if the application only mentions "a nail", and also not if the application mentions "a nail or any other known fastening means" - it needs to also mention "a screw" if you want to amend the claim to specify "a screw" in it.
Ah! I got it! Thank you, Roel!
DeleteAll the Best,
Lisa
Dear Roel and Nico,
ReplyDeleteMy question is regarding the statement 17.1. In my perspective it is T. Because:
The first sentence of P3 clearly says employing the holes with reinforcing inserts is the solution of above mentioned problem. Also in P4 4 the layer is stated as optional for improving the fastening strength.
As my thinking P2 L1 clearly solves the promlem.
Best Regards,
T
I think you overlook that the first sentence of [003] is not to be read in isolation. In particular, the last sentence of [003] is crucial to achoeve the effect: the holes must pass through the reinforcing inserts. This relation is not part of claim III.2: that allows the reinforcing inserts to be at other locations than the holes.
DeleteTo state it differently: It would be different if the claim would say, as [003] ".., the reinforcing inserts being inserted in the holes".
That's why F.
I received the following comment in my email from a candidate:
ReplyDeleteMy solution to the quite 'dubious' question 19.1 and 19.2 was similar to your first assessment.
19.1: in my opinion the text of claim 1 comprised intermediate generalisation. I did not like the word 'joined' in the context of claim 1.
The _generally described support_ layer was, according to the description, to be _joined_ to the inserts. (par. 0004)
However, in the _specific embodiment with the support grid_, although quite short, the (cylindrical) inserts are _bonded_ to the the support grid. (par. 0006)
I feel that the term joined has a broader meaning than bonded.
So, unallowable intermediate generalisation ... Thus, F
19.2: as you suggested in your comment, I don't think that the same thing is asked twice, so I did not want to answer F for the same reasons as 19.1.
I analysed the feature of claim 2 _alone_, which was disclosed, thereby fine under Art. 123(2). So, T
And another candidate send me something similar. He or she wrote:
Delete19.1 F – not fully supported by proginal claims as filed, need to derive from description, looks like [004]/[006] embod, but [004] requires the support layer to be formed of different material than the plies; and [006] needs 10-100 plies; and the mesh needs inserted to be “bonded” [006], not just “joined” (more generic) [004]]. Many reasons for F, but in view of 19.2, T will be expected…
19.2 F , but [007] suggests T
The results are out!
ReplyDeleteSee https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2019/03/pre-exam-2019-results-are-out.html for pass rate and links to to results file as well as examiner's report
(Only) Statements 19.1 and 19.2 were neutralized.
ReplyDeleteFor 19.1 and 19.2, the arguments given in the Examiner's Report is:
Claim A.1 results from the combination of claims 1 to 4 as originally filed, and the feature of paragraph [003] last sentence. Claim A.2 is based on the combination of claims 5 and as originally filed. Therefore, the statements 19.1 and 19.2 are True.
However, there is a potential difference in scope between the wording in the description(e.g. paragraph [003] last sentence) and the wording of claim A.1 (“pass through” vs.“extending through”) in the English version. Also there may be valid counter-arguments inview of an un-allowed intermediate generalization. For this reason it was exceptionally decided to award marks for both answers, True and False, for the statements 19.1 and 19.2.