Monday, 29 March 2010

EQE 2010: claim 1, 54(2)

With the new DeltaPatents website online we can start working at the content again. As promised, I will say something about the 54(2) attack on claim 1 of last month's EQE exam.

A 54(2) attack may either use novelty or inventive step. Before selecting a closest prior art or novelty destroying embodiment we first determine the claimed object, i.e. a liquid dispenser with a gaseous propellant. Then we try to find this object in the available 54(2) documents (A2, A3, A5). A2 is about a gas dispenser (first line of [0001]), A3 uses an aluminium bottle (first line of [0001]) and in A5 the trapping material is not coated on the wall ([0005] in combination with item 56 in the figure). It is clear that we cannot do a novelty attack and have to select a closest prior art.

Monday, 22 March 2010

EQE C 2010: claim 1, 54(3)

Claim 1 claims a liquid dispenser with a gaseous propellant. For finding all required attacks on this claim we first have to find out what documents we are allowed to use. After determining the effective date of claim 1 (filing date LU1) and looking at the relevant dates of the Annexes, we know that there are two 54(3) documents, A4 and A6, and three 54(2) documents.

First we try to find all 54(3) attacks by looking for claim features not disclosed in A4 or A6. For A6 the situation is pretty clear. A6 only discloses a valve and not a dispenser. We can (for now) disregard this document.

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

EQE 2010 - First impressions

The work is done. Now we only have to wait a few months for the results. Of course, also the DeltaPatents tutors have tried to come up with a complete and correct solution to this year's C paper. Starting from today we will, on a regular basis (twice a week) give some of our thoughts and opinions about some important aspects of this exam.

You are free to discuss our opinions in the comments or to contact us with specific viewpoints or questions via e-mail.

Today my first impressions of the C paper of 2010:
  • Claims 1 to 3 can be attacked in a relatively straightforward manner. The 54(3) attack on claim 1 may be easy to miss, but the inventive step attacks follow normal problem-solution patterns. It is however important that you know how to deal with partial problem situations
  • Claims 4 to 6 are more tricky. The exam committee played a lot with effective dates and prior rights. However, when you use a structured approach for determining effective dates and the usability of annexes, finding the right attacks is certainly possible.
  • Another important issue for claims 4 and 5 is the use of ranges. Different prior art documents describe different ranges. Many prior art ranges are, at least partially, overlapping the claimed ranges. It may be difficult to decide how to attack the ranges in the claims. Novelty? Inventive step?