Friday, 9 March 2012

My solution

Claim 1: Nov A3, Nov A5
Claim 2: A2 (wound healing, storage layer) + A6 (textile) = alternative, flexible and mechanically stable
Claim 3: A4 (analgesic) + A2 (adhesive) = attach to the skin
Claim 4: A3 (anti-wrinkle) + A4 (hydrogel) = enhanced wrinkle reduction (improve transport, hydrophilic bridge)
Claim 5: Nov A3 (masks unpleasant odours, thus suitable), Nov A5 (implicit disclosure of textile with perfume)
Claim 6: Inv A4 (suitable, see claim 4, gelatine is an alternative to starch)
Claim 7: A6 (manufacturing process, all layers) + A5 (curing) = avoid separation of layers

Of course, the inventive step attacks on claims 2 and 3 also take away the inventive step of claim 1. I would make a remark about that, but would not provide them as separate attacks.

Ok. Let the discussion start.

I had some doubts about the A5 novelty attack on claim 1, but decided to do it because A1 discloses more or less the same embodiment in [005].
I also had a problem with A5 and claim 5. A5 does not explicitly disclose a textile layer with a perfume, but it discloses that the outermost polymeric layer prevents the liquid perfume from leaking. In order to leak, the perfume must first traverse the textile layer. That could be interpreted as an implicit disclosure of a textile comprising perfume, which leads to an additional novelty attack.

Claim 3 was very interesting. Also all other documents (A3, A5 and A6) have the missing feature. A6 even discloses the missing feature twice (internally and externally). However, the internal adhesive of A5 and A6 solve a problem (layer separation) that does not seem to exist in the closest prior art. A3 and A6 solve the same problem as A2 (sticking to skin), but do not disclose combining an adhesive with a hydrogel (compatibility).

78 comments:

  1. Thank you!

    Here are my comments and solution:

    Claim 1: Nov A3

    claim 2: IS A2 + A4 (took textile from A4; in my opinion there was more incentive to read A4 than A6)

    Claim 3: IS A2 + A4. Stupid seen in retrospective, but i was of the opinion that A4 seemed so directed towards increasing the speed at which the analgesic was transferred to the skin, which is a teach-away from applying an adhesive layer. Probably stupid.

    Claim 4: IS A3 + common general knowledge as defined by A4 (hydrogel)

    Claim 5: Novelty A3

    Claim 6: IS A4 embodiment + common general knowledge defined in A4.

    Claim 7: Novelty A5. I read claim 7 as a process suitable for manufacturing a patch including some layers, wherein the process was defined by the steps of pressing the layers together and then cure the layers. There is nothing that excludes the process of A5 to be suitable for manufacturing the patch according to claim 7; actually, it is defined that the processs may be used for any type of layers with good result. Probably, this reasoning is wrong.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concerning claim 2: A2+A4: Although the therapeutic aspects of the patch are not relevant for the objective technical problem to be solved with the second document, the solution should assure that the missing item is compatible with a patch for therapeutical applications. So I would first look into A4 instead of A6 because A6 does not focus to the usability for therapeutics. A6 focusses to irregularities of skin.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I hope, more will follow. Without knowing the ultimate and correct solution, I have the following remarks about your suggestions

    claim 2: A4 only mentions the flexibility of the textile and not the mechanical stability. According to A1, the aim is to have both. A6 has better incentives to combine, because it mentions both desired effects.
    In view of the incentive to read, A4 and A6 are equally suitable. The problem is related to the field of patches. The therapeutic aspects of the patch are not relevant for the objective technical problem.

    claim 3: For selecting closest prior art, the main function of the claimed object, i.e. pain alleviation, is a very important aspect that should not be ignored.

    claim 7: The 'suitable for'-trick does not work for method claims, but only for device claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, how many marks have I lost? I know that is the million-dollar question, but an educated guess from your side would certainly be interesting.

      /Martin

      Delete
    2. In the EQE you don't get marks for correct answers, but only for correct argumentation.
      With proper argumentation, you will still have more than enough marks to pass the exam. But I cannot judge a paper based on information about the performed attacks only. Certainly not when I don't know for sure what the correct attacks actually are.

      Delete
  3. Here is my solution

    Claim 1: Nov A3, Nov A5
    Claim 2: A2 + A3 (Is A3, used for Claim 1, equally likely to A6 if one looks only for 'textile'?)
    Claim 3: A4 + A3
    Claim 4: A3 + A4
    Claim 5: Nov A3, Nov A5 (implicit disclosure of a textile comprising perfume)
    Claim 6: Nov A4 (now I see gelatine is an alternative to starch, I had a bad dictionary with me)
    Claim 7: A5 + A6 (I thought A5 was CPA because of manufacturing steps applied to any patch to increase strength, A5 also comprised internal motivation to apply further layers to the patch of A5) + A6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. claim 2: I do not see any of the desired effects (flexibility, mechanically stable) in A3.
      claim 5: I am going to add that A5 attack to my list. Even when you're not completely sure about it, it's better to write it down.
      claim 6: A6+A5 works too well. A6 is too close and the missing feature and effect are described in A5 very clearly.

      Delete
  4. Hi Joeri, glad to see the attacks I used match your solution, with 2 exceptions.

    1) I didn't see (and still don't see) the novelty attack on claim 5 with A5.

    Seeing your argument, I agree with you that the patch of A5 in use will have some perfume end up in the textile layer. But as the things are manufactured, I'd guess that the perfume is only comprised in the storage layer. Hence I still don't think it's an expected attack.

    In fact, it looks to me like the Exam commitee put it there to tempt people into setting up a weak inventive step argument (A5 + move from storage layer to textile layer for some reason).

    2) I also have a different claim 3 attack. The fun part there was of course that you could pick whether you wanted to look for an internal adhesive layer (effect: layers stay together) or an external adhesive layer (effect: conveniently sticks to the skin).

    I used A4 + A6, with objectiv technical problem: how to overcome the inconvenience that the user has to hold the patch while active ingredient is being administered. Then A6 teaches that among all known "sticky" solutions, the adhesive layer is the most convenient. Tada.

    In any case: thanks to all Delta C tutors for the excellent preparation. I'm confident I did very very well in this exam, and that's largely because of your great training.

    Regards,

    Harm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have exactly the same as you. Model solution above, but:

      - no novelty claim 1 based on A5 (seemed a very weak if not impossible attack to me)

      - A4 + A6 on claim 3 with the exact same reasons

      Delete
  5. Claim 3 was tricky - the adhesive not being clear if it's internal or external, surely must be attacked under both possible effects - inventive step must be lacking in both, per the guidelines. My two cents... :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting point.

      I wrote in my answer that there are two different OTP's to be formulated, depending on which effect you pick, and that if *either one* of those OTP's leads the skilled person to the claimed subject matter using prior art documents, that is sufficient to destroy inventive step.

      I still think that is true. I don't recall the guidelines covering this peculiar situation in which the claim is so vague that multiple, completely different OTP's can be formulated.

      However, I regret not having made an auxilliary attack based on an "internal adhesion layer" just in case it's expected.

      Wonder what the Delta tutors think of this?

      /harm

      Delete
    2. In order to kill a claim you only need to find one obvious way of arriving at something falling within the claim scope. If the patent proprietor wants you to attack both options, he should have claimed both.

      Because of all the discussion about claim 3, I'm going to write a separate posting about this claim.

      Delete
  6. I think there is a reasonable argument to make that a2 takes away the novelty of claim 1 as well(and consequently claim 2). The discussion would be whether the term "thin elastic sheet" would fall under the claim term "textile layer". I believe the argument can be made that it does. A5 (par001)stipulates that the term "sheet" is within the term layer. This is I think not put there accidently. The only thing that is a given is that the textile layer acts as a support. So (inherently) does the elastic sheet (it does not easily tear, hence provides support). The fact that the textile layer can be made of fibres is entirely an optional (exemplary) feature, given the word "can" in par005 of A1, which indicates it to be optional. Hence there is no limiting effect here. In other words the term "thin elastic sheet" would be within the scope of a textile (fabric) layer, in my opinion. There are no other discussion points with regard to the other terms. Tell me what I missed here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The feature 'thin elastic sheet' does not take away the novelty of 'textile layer'. It could of course be implemented as a textile layer, but also as a rubber or other type of elastic material.

      A2 does not disclose the use of textile and cannot take away the novelty of a claim comprising textile. A genus is not novelty destroying for a species. You can never use obvious but undisclosed implementations of the prior art in a novelty attack.

      Furthermore, a claimed feature is only optional if the claim explicitly tells you so.

      Delete
    2. Joeri,

      I have to disagree with you on this one. A sheet = a layer. This is clearly stated so in A5. Hence we have found the term layer already in A2. Textile is not defined well in A1. It can be any fabric. Fabric is a broad term (look it up in the dictionary). A sheet is a fabric. Hence you should properly look at what the term textile can be according to the specification, not what you with your own knowledge think it to be. At least that is my opinion. (have you heard of latex costums :-)), that is a textile too (because it is a fabric, although made of rubber).

      Delete
    3. A1 [005] defines a textile as a material made of fibers. A thin elastic sheet does not have to be made of fibers. A latex suit is generally not made of fibers.

      It might be possible to argue whether all elastic sheets are fabrics (I don't think so and A2 does not say so), but it is clear that not all elastic sheets are textile.

      Delete
    4. Joeri. And this is where the word "can" comes into play. A1(005) does not state that a textile 'is' made of fibres,but it states that it 'can' be made of fibres,which is different. 'can' is optional/exemplary wording , and hence in my opinion not limitative.

      Delete
    5. Another additional comment: if we accept the novelty anticipation of claim 5 by A3 (which I would not disagree with), then we inherently accept that the term "fabric carrier" anticipates (equivalent to/are falling within the scope of) the term "textile layer". Knowing from A5 that a layer may be a (bottom) carrier sheet, I find it still hard to believe that then the term "elastic thin" sheet would not anticipate the generic term of a "fabric carrier". Anyway we have to see what the intention of the examcommitee was, and if they have not accidently made some wording so ambiguous that I would include my novelty reading.

      Delete
    6. I completely agree with the novelty attacks suggested by anonymous against claims 1 and 2 using A2. However, in my opinion the "polymeric layer" of paragraph 0007 of A2 is to be construed as textile layer according to the definition of paragraph 0005 of A1 (where it is clearly stated that the textil layer is a layer which can be formed of polymeric fibers, and a polymeric layer indeed can be formed of polymeric fibers, which is an implicit feature).

      Delete
    7. "a polymeric layer indeed can be formed of polymeric fibers"
      'Can be' but not 'is'. A plastic (or an elastic sheet) is not a textile and if it would be, the documents would have been very clear about that.

      Textile requires fibers and can only be attacked with prior art materials that also comprise fibers.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile

      Delete
    8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonwoven_fabric

      Also non-woven fabrics comprise fibers. Without a clear disclosure of fibers, no attack is possible.

      Delete
    9. Dear Joeri, I am sorry to insist on my point of view: According to paragraph 0005 of D1, a textil layer can be formed of a substance which CAN BE FORMED OF POLIMERIC FIBERS. That means, each layer which, at least theoretically, CAN (and not is) be formed of polymeric fibers has to be construed as textil layer in the sense of A1 (as you mentioned above, it is not necessary that it actually IS formed of polymeric fibers, but only that it pricipally CAN be formed of it (according to the wording of paragraph 0005 of A1). A polymeric layer definately CAN be formed of polymeric fibers. Thus, in my opinion there are enough arguments to that the polymeric layer of A2 is to be construed as textil layer in the sense of A1. But we'll see in summer what really was expected...

      Delete
    10. P.S.: Please check the German version for this point of view. I just compared all three languages and I admit that my point of view is not as clear from the english or french version as it appears from the german version (wherein it is clearly written that the textile layer may be formed of a material "das aus
      verschiedenen Kunstfasern (z. B. Polymerfasern) oder aus Naturfasern (z. B.
      Baumwollfasern) hergestellt werden kann". Since the material of A2 (the polymeric layer) can be, theoretically, formed of polymeric fibers, according to the german wording of paragraph 5 of D1 it has to be construed as textil layer according to A1. Is there an language impact not foreseen by the examining division??

      Delete
  7. Another additional remark: if we accept the novelty anticipation of claim 5 by A3 (which I would not contest), then inherently we accept that the term "fabric carrier" (of A3) anticipates the term "textile layer" (of A1). Seen in that perspective, I find it hard to believe that the term "thin elastic sheet" would not anticipate the broad term "fabric carrier" [whereas we know from A5 that a layer may be a (bottom)carrier sheet]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A fabric is a textile because A1 [005] says so. If a thin elastic sheet would have been a textile or a fabric, the documents would have told us so. All arguments you need are in the paper itself.

      Delete
  8. Following are my attacks (adapted to your wordings):
    Claim 1: Nov A3, Nov A5
    Claim 2: A2 (wound healing, storage layer) + A6 (textile) = alternative, flexible and mechanically stable
    Claim 3: A4 (analgesic) + A2 (adhesive) = attach to the skin, A4 (analgesic) + A6 (adhesive) = attach to the skin,
    Claim 4: A3 (anti-wrinkle) + A4 (hydrogel) = enhanced wrinkle reduction (improve transport, hydrophilic bridge)
    Claim 5: Nov A3 (suitable), Nov A5 (perforated layer prevent perfume from leaking so implicit that textile would be with perfume)
    Claim 6: Nov A4 (siutable for, selecting commonly used ingrediants from a single list), Inv A4 (gelatine is an alternative to starch)
    Claim 7: A6 (manufacturing process, all layers) + A5 (curing) = avoid separation of layers

    What do you think about my attacks? I used the Deltapatents methodology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks fine to me. I don't think that the novelty attack on claim 6 is correct, but that doesn't really hurt you when you also did the inventive step attack.
      But as I also pointed out above, the number of marks you will get depends on the quality of your arguments and not on the selected attacks only.

      Delete
    2. I (Anonymous of March 12, 2012 5:51 PM and also EQE-C1) got 78 points in Paper C with the attacks I specified.

      Delete
  9. Hi Joeri, Thanks for your comments on my solution (i.e for Anonymous of Mar 12, 2012 09:51 AM).

    Do you think claim 1 should also be attacked under Inventive step based on A2+A6 given that claim 2 is being attacked using A2+A6?

    In the exam, I did not think it was necessary because claim 1 could have had many choices of closest prior art and also, less persuasively, it was only hindsight (i.e based on claim 2's attack) that one could have chosen A2+A6 for claim 1.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also the inventive step attack on claims 3 could be used for attacking claim 1. However, in previous exams it has never been required to provide additional inventive step attacks when you already have novelty attacks.
      If I realized all this during the exam, I would just make a short remark and a referral to the inventive step attacks on claims 2 and 3. I don't think it will result in additional marks, but it never hurts to give the examiner a good impression.

      Delete
  10. I thought long and hard (and even started writing about) the A5 novelty attack on claim 1, including the issue of the perfume having to pass through the textile layer. Eventually though, I concluded that there was no clear disclosure of the composition being delivered to the skin as required, and hence A5 did not destroy the novelty of claim 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that this is not so clear and I could be wrong. However, in doubt it's better not to think too much and to just write down the attack.

      And when you compare the embodiment of A5 to the embodiment in [0005] of A1, with the active ingredient having a pleasant smell, can you then tell me the difference between those embodiments? If those embodiments are not different, I would argue that A5 is novelty destroying for claim 1.

      And a further exam-related argument: If you cannot use A5 for claim 1, you can also not use it for claim 5. It would still miss the active ingredient.

      Delete
    2. perfume can be smelled by nose and nose has skin so one could argue that perfume is delivered to the skin in A5 and thus novelty destroying?

      Delete
    3. Joerim, thanks for your comments.

      The last sentence of the paragraph says that "any compound can be used... which has a pleasant smell OR [my emphasis] has a cosmetic or therapeutic effect on the skin". I would argue that the phrase "to be delivered to skin" in claim 1 means that it does not cover the "pleasant smell" aspect of the phrase in para [0005].

      I wrote a note the the Examiner explaining my decision.

      I agree you can't attack claim 5 on the basis of A5 once you make this argument. I originally noted just such an attack, but crossed it out once I changed my mind about the novelty of claim 1.

      Delete
  11. perfumed can be smelled by nose and nose has skin so perfume delivered to the skin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, but certainly not the argument that is expected (and awarded marks). Creative argumentation is a guarantee for failure in the exam.

      Delete
  12. One further comment: Is it paranoid or could the kit of parts diclosure in A3 against claim 5 indicate that inventive step A3 plus expert could be required / possible? Or is this too cautious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a novelty attack. For your attack, you can just use the patch at a moment that it is already applied to the skin. Then it does comprise the perfume. The use of the patch is already disclosed. There is no need to perform an inventive step attack.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, you are right. Still get some points for the attack though?

      Delete
    3. I don't know how the exam committee awards wrong attacks with good ingredients. I have my own opinions about how to do that, but I don't know whether those are compatible with the official marking method.

      Delete
  13. My attacks:
    claim 1: A2 novelty, A3 Novelty (after having read the discussion in this forum it looks like A3 novelty is clear, I made the A2 novelty attack because of the really broad definition of a textile layer in A1 which only requires a material that can be (but are not necessarily)made from synthetic or natural fibers (A2, [0005]

    claim 2: A2 novelty (consequently to the attack above since A2 also discloses the additional feature of claim 2 in para [0008]
    claim 3: A3 novelty (since A3 also comprises hydrogel layer and since "for alleviating pain" has to be construed as "suitable for" (since all other features are the same, the patch of A3 is as suited as the patch of claim 1 for alleviating pain)

    claim 4: novelty A3 (same reason as above)

    claim 5: novelty A3 (comprises also textile layer with parfume)

    claim 6: IS A4 (as already stated in this discussion, for use in = "suited for use in" and general knowledge from the same document)

    claim 7: A6 and A5 as already stated in this discussion

    Any comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ERROR above (I just ealized that I wrote with respect to claims 3 and 4 that I used A3, but indeed I recall having used A2 because of the hydrogel used in there (which is not present in A3), however the explanation is explained above...

      Delete
    2. I will only comment on the attacks not yet discussed above.
      claim 3: 'suitable for' still means that it has to be suitable for the claimed purpose. You can not completely ignore the function. Now we can start an interesting discussion about whether a wound healing patch is suitable for alleviating pain (in the long run, probably yes). However, since I think (I am actually pretty sure) that also the textile is missing, the suitability discussion is not so relevant for claim 3
      claim 4: Still no textile. Furthermore, there is no indication at all that the patch of A2 is suitable for treating wrinkles.

      It is of course not very likely that the exam would only require two inventive step attacks, one of them using only one document. I have never seen a document being novelty destroying for four different claims.

      Delete
    3. Good morning, interesting discussion, I would just like to add that polymeric "fibers" are an intrinsic characteristic of each polymeric layer. Even a hard plastic consists of small polymeric fibers (which are just less flexible than the polymeric "fibers" of e.g. nylon because they are linked together differently. Therefore, for me it was no doubt that a polymeric layer intrinsically discloses polymeric fibers (like a car discloses wheels).

      Delete
    4. 1. Where do you get such knowledge from?
      2. Is that knowledge actually correct? According to Wikipedia, it was an invention to make fibers out of plastics. Most plastics are not fibers.
      3. Would you really expect all candidates to have this knowledge readily available, such that the exam committee can expect all well prepared candidates to find the correct attacks? They do expect you to know that cars have wheels, but that's about the most complex kind of technical knowledge you are supposed to bring to the exam.

      Delete
    5. You are probably right, may be it was disadvantageous for me that as a chemist a polymer for me immediately represents polymeric chains, and I considered these chains as fibers since there was no clear definition of a fiber in paper A1, so I just thought polymeric chains would have to be constued as fibers in the sense of A1 which did not give a better definition for "fiber". These thoughts came so immediately to my mind that I did not even think that it could be based on too much personal knowledge...bad thing to be chemist, so , at least with respect to this case...

      Delete
  14. For Claim 6, Nov based on A4 as it was explicitly disclosed that gelatine and starch were known equivalents. Therefore the teaching of A4 for novelty destroying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well-known equivalents should not be considered to destroy novelty, see C-IV, 9.2. Equivalents are matter of inventive step.

      Delete
    2. Exactly like the second anonymous poster says. I was posting that simultaneously.

      C-IV 9.2: Thus, when considering novelty, it is not correct to interpret the teaching of a document as embracing well-known equivalents which are not disclosed in the documents; this is a matter of obviousness.

      By the way, it would be practical if all the anonymous posters would use some kind of nickname. I think that this blogger-service allows you to choose a name without giving away your real identity.

      Delete
    3. I agree that you cannot use equivalent when considering novelty when they are NOT disclosed in the document (C-IV.9.2). However, in A4,the equivalents WERE diclosed as such in the A4.

      Anonymous from Mar 14, 2012 07:28 AM

      Delete
    4. Yes, but they were not disclosed in the same embodiments and you are not allowed to combine two embodiments for novelty purpose unless such a combination is suggested (C-IV,9.1). I liked the idea of Anonymous from Mar 12, 2012 09:51 AM arguing that selection from single list destroys novelty, but I still think that the single list is a different embodiment to the one disclosing specific composition of hydrogel in A4.


      Anonymous from Mar 14, 2012 07:28 AM
      (now EQE-C1)

      Delete
  15. In my opinion, a (strong) attack on claim 2, based A2 + A6 can only be made since A6 is used to prove common general knowledge in the field of "patches".

    Otherwise i would find it inventive to combine a features from a medical device with features from a "makeup" device, since their technical fields are fare removed.

    The same argument applies to the combination of A3(cosmetic) + A4(medical), against claim 4(cosmetic). However here it is possibly a little less critical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that the patch of A6 is not a medical patch is not a problem. The problem to be solved (improving mechanical stability and flexibility) is related to patches in general.

      For finding an incentive to read a second document, you have to look at the field of the problem, not at the overall field of the claim. Do you remember the aircraft in 2003 that had to be combined with elements from a hotel building? There you were also allowed to broaden/switch technical fields.

      Of course, if you have proof of common general knowledge (and you show it), you can also use common general knowledge. That may, however, be difficult for the flexibility argument.

      Delete
    2. Hmmm, but A6 is not related to patches in general, but to this special "makeup" patch, thus i believe it can be argued that the skilled person would not look for a solution to the objective problem in A6.

      The comment in par. [7] in A6 is in my view prove of common general knowledge in the general field of "patches". However a mere comment about a general field in a document does not make the document itself a part of that general field.

      From my work i have experienced that EPO is very strict when it comes to combination of features from different documents against "medical devices".

      Delete
  16. Hallo, actually I have a question: I belong to the - according to a personal survey in my environment maybe 20-30% of - candidates who performed a novetly attack on claim 1 based on A2 because of the - apparently incorrect because based on personal knowledge ? - consideration that the polymeric layer of A2 fits with the definition for a textile layer in A1.
    May I anyway get some points on attacks which I performed against claims 2 - 4 which are only the consequence of this one maybe incorrect consideration? I think I performed consequently a novelty attack on claim 2 based on A2 and I used A2 as closest prior art for inventive step attacks on claims 3 and 4. In my opinion, I have tried to explain sufficiently clear why the polymeric layer of A2 can be construed as textile layer in light of the definition of A1. I am not even a chemist, so I did not argue with technicel terms like polymer chains but I only stated that the term "fiber" is vague and unclear, such that each form which is maybe a bit longer than wide is to be construed as fiber and that consequently each polymeric form in a polymeric layer, which according to the mere wording consists of two or more "meros (greek)" = parts anticipates the undefined term "polymeric fiber".
    According to your experience, will I be punished for this even with respect to my attacks on claims 2 - 4 or can I expect at least some points?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only tell you how the exam committee usually responds to such questions. "If the candidate argues his case in a convincing way, they will be awarded marks". However, they are always very reluctant to tell us how how many candidates actually were able to convince them.

      Also a question for you. How did you argue that the patch of A2 is suitable for treating wrinkles?

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your prompt answer, so at least there is some hope :-);
      According to claim 4 I performed an IS attack with A2 as CPA (argumentation: all (technical) features in common with claim 4, for suitability for treating winkles only the active ingrediant has to be a specific one, but the same is true for the subject matter of claim 4 wherein the same amendment has to be done in order to be really suitable for treating wrinkles, namely not using an undefined active ingrediant as according to the wording of claim 4 but using a specific ingrediant. Thus: Technical problem is : Being better suitable for treating wrinkles: A3 discloses a patch with an active ingrediant for treating wrinkles, so the man skilled in the art would simply use the active gradient of A3 instead of the active gradient of A2 to solve the problem (since there is nothing speaking against this).

      Delete
  17. I had great problem with the "suitability for" with regard to claims 3 & 4. I good hooked up on that the "active ingredient" is part of the patch according to claim 1.

    Then, I attacked claims 1&2 on A2+common general knowledge as evidenced by A6.

    To make the patch suitable for (and this in my opinion applies for both the thepeutic and non-therapeutic uses) I interpreted the suitability as a partial problem (you need to switch to a different active ingredient, but no real synergy was evident) and combined (A2+A6)+A4 for claim 3 and (A2+A6)+A3 for claim 4. I gather that this was probably not the intended solution, any opinions if it was completely idiotic (=no marks)?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I had some time problems at the end, a little bit distracted by the chips-eating guy next to me, so on the last two claims, I was really on a hurry. And made mistakes :-( I did a novelty attack based on A4 for claim 6 and for the last claim a novelty attack based on claim A5 as I somehow associated melt adhesive-heating-curing and as I had already used A5, started an IS attack stupidly based on A6. So these are large mistakes. Although, I hope, I did quite a good job with the first claims. No chance too pass, still, or is there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is very difficult to say; it is not yet known how marks are distributed over the claims. Experience shows that quite a few candidates master argumentation reasonably well and thus can score a reasonable number of marks on the correctly attacked claims. If that would also hold for you, you have a reasonable chance of ending up above 45 or even up to 55.

      Delete
  19. Thank you, still hope there, although not much...

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Joeri Beetz: I disagree with your statement that “A1 [005] defines a textile as a material made of fibers”

    A1[005] only specifies that a textile layer can be formed from fibres.

    Using you false logic the following statement would be true:

    An omelet can be formed from of an egg, consequently an egg is an omelet.

    Your statement is most likely true, however knowledge of textiles and fibres not deductable from the exam is needed.

    A novelty attack on claim 1 based on A5 would therefore go against the practice established by the examination comity in the previous exams.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that I have said more about the textile/fabric issue, than only the sentence you are citing. However, A1 clearly says "textile (i.e. fabric)". I.e. means 'that is', fabric means 'resembling cloth' and cloth (which is a different word than 'clothing') involves fibers (see m-w.com).

      In my opinion the "can be" is only used to tell you that both woven and non-woven, synthetic and non-synthetic materials are textile, and not to hint that also a third and fourth option may exist. I agree that linguistically the latter interpretation may be correct, but without a clear third example in another document that is of no use.

      Nevertheless, I don't see how this discussion could be relevant for deciding whether A5 is novelty destroying for claim 1. Whatever interpretation of textile we choose, A5 definitely discloses textile in the form of a non-woven fiber layer.

      Delete
  21. It is relevant because:

    A5 does not mention textile in the form of a non-woven fiber layer.

    A5 does only disclose a non-woven fiber layer.

    To make the novelty attack on claim 1 and 5 using A5 you have to proof that the non-woven fiber layer in A5 is a textile/fabric layer.

    M-W

    specifies that

    1. Fabric means 'resembling cloth'
    2. Cloth means a pliable material made usually by weaving, felting, or knitting natural or synthetic fibers and filaments.

    Using the same argument as I used above, logically your argument that a fiber layer is a textile/fabric layer is just as wrong as concluding that an egg is an omelet.

    Thus your argumentation is missing a link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last try, using your own example. If A1 claims an egg and tells us that an egg may be an omelet and A5 discloses an omelet, then the omelet of A5 is certainly novelty destroying for the claimed egg.

      Delete
  22. I really like that you have take on my egg/omelet example, and you are almost there, but you have made a small mistake in your analysis.

    Using the egg/omelet talk:

    A1 claims an omelet and tells us that an omelet may be made of egg.

    A5 disclose an egg.

    Thus A1 is novel :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok. Another final response.

      Genus (claimed): egg/textile
      Species (examples in the description): omelet/non-woven fabric

      Not the other way around.

      Delete
  23. you are wrong:

    omelet = textile/fabric.

    from A1[5]

    "textile/fabric can be formed from any nonwoven or woven material which both can be made from various synthectic or natural fibres."

    Thus:

    egg = nonwoven or woven material which both can be made from various synthectic or natural fibres.

    Thus in A5:

    egg = nonwoven fibre layer

    you are mixing it up



    you are mixing it up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I give up.
    Let's wait for the official model solution.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry to flog a dead horse, but I only just found this page and couldn't resist getting involved! It took me a while to work out what was going on, but evidently 'Anonymous' (of June 14) is intepreting "textile" as a species within a genus "nonwoven fibre layers". If so, then 'Anonymous' is the one mixing it up...!

    A1 [005] gives examples of types of textile layers. This defines "textile" as a genus which includes at least the following species:

    1. Nonwoven synthetic fibre layer
    2. Nonwoven natural fibre layer
    3. Woven synthetic fibre layer
    4. Woven natural fibre layer

    A5 [004] discloses a nonwoven fibre layer (i.e. species 1 or 2 above), thereby destroying the novelty of a claim to the genus "textile".

    'Anonymous' also suggests that a nonwoven fibre layer is not necessarily a textile layer. I see no evidence to support this view. A1 [005] simply says that the textile layer can be a nonwoven fibre layer. There is no mention that only certain types of nonwoven fibre layers are textile layers, so I think it is safe to assume that any nonwoven fibre layer is a textile.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Another thought - perhaps the source of confusion is the use of the phrase "can be formed from" in the definition of the textile layer. I guess 'Anonymous' reads this as meaning that e.g. you start with a nonwoven fibre layer, and then do something to it to turn it into a textile layer.

    There may be a language barrier at work here - as a native English speaker, I would read A1 [005] as simply meaning that the various examples (nonwoven/woven synthetic/natural fibre layers) can all be used as a textile layer. I think this is what is meant by 'formed from', but I see the potential for confusion. An unfortunate choice of words perhaps!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I (Anonymous of March 12, 2012 5:51 PM and also EQE-C1) got 78 points in Paper C with the attacks I specified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations. Very nice score. I see that you also passed the other three papers and obtained an excellent score for D.

      I am really interested in a copy of the work you (and others) handed in. For calibrating our marking schemes we need some answers in different scoring ranges.

      Delete
  28. Congratulations EQE-C1, an excellent result! I also passed Paper C, but with a lower score (53). My attacks were mostly similar to yours:

    Claim 1: Nov A3, Nov A5
    Claim 2: A2 (wound healing, storage layer) + A6 (textile), A2 + A4 (textile)
    Claim 3: A4 (analgesic) + A2 (adhesive)
    Claim 4: A3 (anti-wrinkle) + A4 (hydrogel)
    Claim 5: Nov A3
    Claim 6: Inv A4 (gelatine is an alternative to starch)
    Claim 7: A6 (manufacturing process, all layers) + A5 (curing)

    ReplyDelete
  29. So, does anyone know, if you really get 0 points for an attack on claim 2 (N, A2) if you attack claim 1 wrongly with A2(N) and are just consequent? And if you attack claim 6 with A4, but N, not IS, which is somehow the first part of the right attack, also get 0 points for this attack?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, the exam committee does not really want to explain in detail how they mark wrong/alternative solutions. But we can of course speculate about it.

      The exam committee does generally not award marks for consistency, only for argumentation. If the arguments are not valid at claim 1, they are also not valid for claim 2.
      That's also why they use multiple independent claims and different technical fields (e.g. claim 2: patch for wound healing, claim 3: patch for alleviating pain). To give you an opportunity to start all over again.

      If you perform a novelty attack, where an inventive step attack was attacked, you will probably still get some marks for arguing about the claim features that are disclosed by the closest prior art. If that involves a lot of arguments, you might still have a lot of marks. You will however miss the marks for formulating the problem and discussing the obviousness of the required adaptations.

      Delete