Friday, 4 March 2016

Paper C 2016 - Reusable cooling device

Paper C of the EQE of 2016 provides us with an excursion into cooling devices for horses. My first impression is that this paper should be doable in the time provided. Although the number of annexes is a bit large (7), one of them quickly disappears when making the paper and another is 54(3) for most of the claims.

Below is an indication of our solution. Note that in a full solution more details need to be given.


Effective Dates

Claims 1, 3, and 5 of A1 are contained in the priority document and thus entitled to the priority date.

Claim 2 has added subject matter (see below), and no date is assigned. 

Claims 4 and 6 were not present in the priority document, but were present in the application as filed. They are not added subject matter.

Claim 4 claims two straps only one of which is elastic. Section 25 of priority document gives support for two elastic straps, but not for two straps only one of which is elastic. Claim 4 has no support in the priority document and is not entitled to the priority date. Claim 4 has the filing date as effective date.

Claim 6 is supported by section 11 of the application as filed, but this section was not present in the priority document. Section 13 discloses a combination between activators and Ahlericheon but not the specific combination of Claim 6. Sections 14 and 15 disclose a combination of Lesmorsase and Ahlericheon but this combination does not include Edgalase. Accordingly, claim 6 has no support in the priority document and is not entitled to the priority date. Claim 6 has the filing date as effective date.

List of Evidence 

A3, A4, A5 and A6 are published before the earliest priority date and are prior art under 54(2). Document A5 requires a discussion of the date.

A2 is 54(2) against claims 4 and 6, and is 54(3) against claims 1, 3 and 5


Objections

There is no added subject matter in the description. Although section 22 was amended this is within the bounds of Art. 123(2).

Claim 1: Novelty A2.

The claim requires a thermally active composition but does not require that it cools. So the heating device of A2 anticipates.

Claim 2: Added subject matter
Claim 2 was added during examination. Claim 2 claims the shaping to conform simultaneously to hock and hoof, and cooling to hock and hoof. Sections 20 and 21 of the application disclose shaping and cooling to only one of hock and hoof. The application as filed gives no indication that sections 20 and 21 can be combined. No other embodiment is given that shows such a combination. Accordingly, claim 2 is added subject matter and no date will be assigned.

Claim 3: Inventive step A3+A4+A6
Claim 3 is an 'or' claim, both branches of which must be attacked.

There are two candidates for closest prior art: A3 and A5. Of these two A3 is the best choice. A3 is a reusable therapeutic device for cooling a horse and shares the purpose of accelerating the healing process. Moreover, A3 has many structural features in common.  A5 is not reusable and structurally very different.

Starting from A3 there are two distinguishing features.

A: Claim 3 has a thermally active composition, whereas A3 uses chilled water.
B: The device of Claim 3 is shaped to conform to the contours of the hock or hoof of a horse, whereas A3 is for the lower portion of the front leg between the hoof and the knee of a horse.

These features do not have synergy and can be attacked using partial problems.

The effect of feature A is to actively produce cold, without using a freezer (A1, sections 2 and 3)
The effects of sections 10 and 13 are not related to features in the claim. The problem of feature A is thus to provide a way of actively cooling in a reusable therapeutic device without using a freezer. This problem is solved by document A4.

The effect of feature B is to avoid abrasions. The corresponding problem is solved by A6 both for hocks and hoofs.

One point of worry in the combination of A3 and A6 is that CPA A3 warns that fastening means other than pressure tabs are unsuitable, whereas A6 indeed has different fastening means. Will this deter the skilled person from using this combination? We concluded that this is probably not a problem. A6 makes explicit that it is the shape that avoids abrasions. So the skilled person will only adopt the shape from A6.

An alternative solution may be to do inventive step on A3+A4 followed by work shop modification to get the shape right. The skilled person is motivated to do this based on section 11, and will try to get a snug fit as in section 13. A disadvantage of this approach is that the effect of avoiding abrasions is not mentioned in A3.


Claim 4: Inventive step A2 + A6

The closest prior art is A2 because it is a reusable therapeutic device using a thermally active composition and is structurally the closest, in particular A2 has straps along the length.
The missing feature of having only one elastic strap may be obtained from A6.

Claim 5: Inventive step A5+A4

There are two potential closest prior art documents here: A4 and A5. Both have a thermally active cooling composition. For each closest prior art candidate there is a corresponding D2 document. This gives you either A4+A5 or A5+A4 as the attack. We need to select the strongest one of these two.

In the combination of A5+A4 the D2 document provides the effect of the missing feature (non-toxicity), but in A4+A5 the D2 document does not give the effect (fast cooling). So the former attack is the better one.

Claim 6: Novelty A2 using A4, section 3 as evidence.

A2 discloses a combination of Edgalase, Lesmorsase, and Ahlericheon. A2 does not disclose that this composition produces a cooling effect. However, that this composition does have this property is provided by A4, section 3, which is cited as evidence. The proprietor is thus not entitled to a claim covering this composition.

That the device of A2 could never be used for cooling, as the pouch is waterproof is immaterial. Note that claim 6 is not made novel by Art. 54(4).


Jelle, Sander, Nico, Joeri, Gregory




124 comments:

  1. Hi,
    In addition to the 54(3) attack on claim 1, I included an IS attack using A3 as cpa and A4 as D2. Did you ever considered this IS attack?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought about that too but did not have time. I am sure you will get some marks from that!

      Delete
    2. It was on my list as an optional attack. But you have to make this attack at claim 3 anyhow. No need to already do it at claim 1. No problem to do it either.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, I understand. I did that attack on claim 3 too, but I realized at some point that it should work on claim 1 as well.

      Delete
    4. I did for Claim 1, and then referred to it when attacking Claim 3.

      Acco

      Delete
    5. When using A. 54(3) for novelty I thought it was necessary to also do IS attack. Also used A3 + A4. For claim 3 I then referred back to this problem but didn't mention explicitly that it is a partial problem there... Well, at least I think I got it covered well for claim 1 (hope that'll give points)

      Delete
    6. @Ela: Back in the 'overlapping states' days, it certainly was necessary. Nowadays, that's not so clear anymore. There has been a 54(3) novelty only attack in an earlier paper, but it was for only one part of a dependent 'or'-claim, not for claim 1. If you want to be sure, you add a clearly available inventive step attack. So, good decision.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for your quick post! i have basically the same attacks! :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for posting! My solution, as I remember it, is similar to yours (even though I made additional attacks on c.1 and c.6 because I got uncertain/stressed). I found the exam overall fair with the expected amount of attacks and prio/123 issues. The technical aspects were easily understandable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the answer. I wonder if claim 6 can be attacked on inventive step based on A4+A2. A4 discloses the combination of a thermally active composition which produces a cooling effect upon activation with water, section 3. The section also discloses that Ahlericheon and at least one activator of the class EKLAG are useful for cold therapy. Thus in order find a specific combination of an Ahlericheon and at least one activator the skilled person would use the combination according to A2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, a novelty attack with only 1 document is always stronger than an inventive step attack using 2. But that doesn't mean that inventive step is impossible. What was your objective technical problem?

      Delete
    2. I did an IS attack on Claim 6 based only on A4. Objective technical problem is to provide an alternative.
      Acco

      Delete
    3. Answer to Joeri's question. In A1 I did not find any effect related to the combination of Edgalase, Lesmorsase, and Ahlericheon. So the OTP i formulated starting from A4, section 3, was to find a combination of compositions disclosed in A4.

      Delete
    4. I didn't see the novelty attack so I did IS using A4 and A2.
      Problem was to provide a more environmentally friendly composition since adding Les makes it less toxic but keeping some Edgalase makes it cheaper... When arguing it I realised that it is not a snug attack so I was sure I had a mistake there somewhere. Only found out afterwards that it should have been a novelty attack :-/

      Delete
  5. clai 3 is an "or" claim including two embodiments (hock and hoof), do you consider attacking each embodiment separatedly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..I don't know why, but in the hurry I did not pay attention to the OR in claim 3 and handled it together, just if it was only one missing feature/alternative. Do you think I might still get marks for it??
      I thought it was the only papers of A-D on which I was doing OK. Now I fear I messed up all four papers.
      I think the rest of the attacks I have fine, still my IS arguing was a bit messy/short.
      Will I pass???

      Delete
  6. Why not attack claim 6 on novelty based on A4?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi
    I don't get it for claims 5 and 6, nor claim 4.

    They both claim a composition which produces a cooling effect upon activation with water (for claims 5 and 6).
    So, the CPA should be the same: the Guidelines state that "in selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it should 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".
    Thus, I end up with A4+A5 against claim 5 and A4 (Art. 56) against claim 6.

    Furthermore, as claim 4 states that the fastening means comprises 2 straps, only one of which is elastic, it extends beyond the content of the application as filed because the disclosed straps in A1 are both of them elastic [0025] of A1)

    Pluto

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With regards to claim 4, it was not added during prosecution of A1, it was part of A1 as filed but not in the priority document. So there was no 123 (2) issue, but the effective date was the filing date of A1.

      With regards to claim 5, A5, was related to a composition which provides cooling but with the disadvantage that it included a toxic compound. The solution to that problem is found in A4.

      I rushed through claim 6 in the last two minutes, so I only guessed novelty based on A4, which I think is wrong...

      Delete
    2. I reckon for claim 4 my error. Did not notice it at all...

      For claim 5, I am still convinced that A4 was the CPA (it relates to composition providing cooling) with the difference that the 20-40% by weight is very effective for fast cooling and particularly suited for use immediately after strenuous physical exercises ([0014] of A1).
      Then the problem to be solved was to provide a composition particularly suited for use immediately after the physical exercise.
      Then the skilled man can use A5, which deals with a composition used to cool the horse down (while you cool him - the horse - down, line 12 of A5)...

      Then I use A4 as the CPA also for claim 6, with the difference that Lesmorase is added (effect, non-toxic).
      So the problem to be solved was to provide a composition with less toxic effect.
      A4 itself discloses that Ahlericheon can be activated in the presence of one or more of the activators, and discloses Lesmorsase as non-toxic compound.
      So it would be obvious to add this compound to this known composition of A4, which already contain Ahlericheon and Edgalase...

      Pluto

      Delete
    3. Moreover, A5 discloses that therapack should be used AFTER cross country. So it fits with the problem of use immediately AFTER strenuous physical exercise (IMMEDIATELY because it is directly after the cross country that you cool down the horse).

      Pluto

      Delete
    4. Maybe for claim 5, but I think the more obvious choice is A5 as cpa. In particular due to the hints regarding the toxicity in both documents. Also, was there any direct hint that 36% ahlecheon was particularly advantageous or that it even cools efficiently?

      Delete
    5. For claim 6, I would never made a novelty attack with A2 using A4.
      In A2, a composition which produces heat is disclosed with the three claimed compounds. Saying that the skilled person knows that the properties of this particular composition can also produce cooling effect is wrong as A4 has been made available to the public in July 2010, i.e. 6 months AFTER the filing of A2 in December 2009.

      So I stick to lack of IS vis-à-vis A4 alone...but maybe I will be wrong at the end...at least for now, I think that.

      Pluto

      Delete
    6. [0014] of A1 states that an activation time of about 2 minutes is considered "fast" (this is the effect of the range 20-40%).
      A5 disclosed that the therapack must be soak for at least 2 minutes. (Therapack comprising the 35% of Ahlecheon).

      And besides, A4 is directed to the purpose of finding thermally active composition for producing cooling...

      So, I used A4 as CPA for claim 5 and 6, and still now, I will use it again...

      Pluto

      Delete
    7. OK, regarding to claim 6, my post at 15:29, I reckon the section 3 of A4...and then I also reckon, that A2 using section 3 of A4 can render the claim 6 unpatentable for lack of novelty.

      But still, alternatively, I think we can attack this claims for lack of inventiveness with A4 alone too...

      Pluto

      Delete
    8. I agree A4 feels a better CPA than A5 for claim 5. I used A4 as CPA for claim 5. Difference is percentage of Ah, effect is fast activation (A1, [14]), activation in A5 is 2 min (Instructions for use), which is considered fast.
      But now I realized something: starting from A5, there is a hint to combine A4 (mentioning toxicity in A5). However, starting from A4, there is no mentioning that activation time is a problem, so less motivation to look for a solution.
      So it seems an easier way to go starting from A5.
      Acco

      Delete
    9. We will see what the examiners report says :)

      Delete
    10. OK that A5 discloses a composition. But the goal of A5 is a cooling device, as stated in [0003] of A1.
      The goal of A4 is composition providing cooling effect upon water activation.

      The subject-matter of claim 5 is a composition providing cooling effect upon water activation.

      So really, I am not convinced why A5 would be considered as CPA.

      Pluto

      Delete
    11. But A5 discloses a composition which provides cooling upon activation with water, right?

      The only difference between claim 5 and A5 is the activation compound, which in A5 is toxic and thus poses a problem.

      Delete
    12. Agree with you.
      But I think/though that the only difference between claim 5 and A4 is the concentration range, which solves the problem of fast cooling...so now, I think I got the point...this is not stated as a problem in A4...
      Thanks for shedding light on that...it's helpful for next year exam... Pluto

      Delete
    13. I see... well, we don't know for sure until the examiners report is out.
      Good luck!

      Delete
    14. But A5 does not relate the fast cooling to the percentage of Ah... In any case, the skilled person would select a 35% of Ah and would add Pag when trying to achieve the advantages of A5: the addition of a further compound is compatible with the discloure of A4. However, the resulting composition with Les, Pag and Ah would contradict the "consists of" of claim 5.

      Not sure if this is correct, but this made me choose A5 as CPA in the exam.

      Delete
  8. I think than an IS attack against claim 1 (A3 + A4) is strongest that a 54(3) novelty attack in view of A2. I did it both, just in case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for posting this so quickly.

    My attacks largely agree with yours with the only differences being that I completely omitted the "or" aspect of Claim 3 (this was stupid but these things happen) and that my Claim 6 attack was inventive step based on A2 + A4 rather than the slightly different A2 using A4 - although I am confident that A2 + A4 must be quite a solid IS attack if A4 can be used to support a novelty attack based on A2.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Tutors
    I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on whether attacks that are not 100% correct are awarded any marks? For example, a partial problem attack that uses 2/3 of the correct documents or an attack with two correct documents but the wrong CPA? What about an attack that is made but not an expected attack (ie- it is wrong but there is some degree of argumentation and plausibility given?). Any thoughts gratefully received- thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have the same question. You always find a sentence like this in the examiner's report: "In addition to the attacks set out in the possible solution, marks were awarded for other plausible, well-reasoned attacks." But then you also find something like this: "A blah blah attack based on blah blah is for blah blah reason not appropriate..."

      Acco

      Delete
  11. Would it be possible an inventive step attack for claim 6 based only on A4?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also did that attack and still think it was reasonable. Itwould be interesting to hear what the tutors say.

      Delete
  12. How do you like the attack for claim 3 hoof alternative: A3 cpa combined with A5 ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I felt that the situation with claim 6 and A2 was analogous to the "Friction reducing additive" case (G2/88) i.e. claim 6 is a new non-medical use of a known product (the composition of A2) to attain a new technical effect and is therefore novel over A2. In G2/88, even though the new effect may have occurred inherently when the known use was employed, the claim was still novel and I thought that claim 6 was the same situation. So, I used an inventive step attack based on A4. Is my understanding wrong though?

    Thanks for any input!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that will work PaperCSitter. G2/88 relates to 'use'-claims. Claim 6 is not a use-claim, and so G2/88 won't help you.

      Delete
    2. I read the "which..." part of claim 6 as a functional limitation (i.e. if it has to do the "which..." part then it is "for" this function), but I guess I read too much into it (and it's not something I come across at all in real life!).

      Ah well, hopefully there will be some consolation marks for the A4 inventive step attack (which seemed to fall out reasonably well).

      Thanks for your answer, and for the other Delta Patents answers for A, B and D - I really appreciate it!

      Delete
    3. paper C Sitter proposes a solid argument - the which clause of claim 6 incorporates a technical feature. GL IV 4.13 states that a product unsuitable for(for=which unless evidence to the contrary) a particular use, in this case the A2 device not capable of cooling on water addition, is not a novelty destroying product.

      Delete
    4. Please consider that A4 gives evidence in [0003] that "the compound Ahlericheon (Ah) ALWAYS (!!!) actively produces an endothermic (i.e. cooling) chemical reaction when placed in contact with water in the presence of one or more member(s) of the class EKLAG of activators."

      This means that the composition of A2 having Ah and "at least one activator" (= Edg and Les) also ALWAYS produces a cooling effect upon water contact.

      Of course, A2 additionally teaches that the composition of Ah, Edg and Les produces heat upon activation by microwave radiation. However, this does not say that the composition of A2 does not also have the inherent cooling effect upon water contact in accordance with A4.

      Hence, the composition of A2 is a "thermoactive composition of Ah, Edg and Les, which produces a cooling effect upon activation with water" (because of presence of Ah and at least one activator). Thus claim 6 is not new over A2.

      Greetings,

      Xentres

      Delete
    5. Dear Nick,

      maybe it is also an issue of different languages. I wrote the exam in German. At least in German, I did not see any room for interpretation of the feature "upon activation with water" (German: "bei Aktivierung mit Wasser"). For me, "activation" is means "expose the composition to an activator".

      Further, according to my understanding, the composition of Ah, Les and Edg as proposed by A2 is capable of providing two different effects:
      a) when activated by (i.e. in contact with) water, it provides a cooling effect (evidence in [0003] of A4)
      b) when activated by microwave radiation, it produces heat (according to [0004] of A2).

      So the composition of A2 is capable of both, providing cooling and providing heat, wherin the selection of the effect depends on the activator, water or microwave radiation.


      For me, whether the reaction is self-supporting or not is not relevant for the assessment of novelty of claim 6.

      Since the composition of A2 can produce a cooling effect upon activation of water and comprises Ah, Edg and Les, it anticipates claim 6.

      If I am totally wrong here, please enlighten me.

      Best Regards,
      Xentres

      Delete
    6. Addition to my post of March 8, 16:31

      Please also consider that A4 refers to "water-activated cooling compositions" in the title and that [0007] of A4 teaches that "The activated composition creates a continuous cooling...".

      Delete
    7. Dear Xentres,

      thank you for the well-argued response.

      In my opinion, since claim 6 relates to "thermoactive composition", it requires that the composition provides a cooling effect after the activation (e.g. after the exposure to water or radiation). IMHO, A4, par [003] does not provide sufficient evidence that the composition of A2 will produce a cooling effect after the exposure to water (i.e. when there is no longer contact with water).

      In other words, for me, whether the reaction is self-supporting is relevant for the assessment of novelty of claim 6 since claim 6 relates to "thermoactive composition".

      In addition, while the title of A4 is "ADVANCES IN WATER-ACTIVATED COOLING COMPOSITIONS", it does not mean that all compositions falling under specific sentence in paragraph [003] are water-activated cooling compositions. However, compositions in A4, par [004]-[009] indeed present the advances in water-activated cooling compositions.

      Indeed, A4, par [004] states "The different compositions obtained were then soaked in either pure water", and "The activation time ... were measured."; and par [007] states "The activated composition creates a continuous cooling that is suitable for cold therapy applications". These sentences actually disclose the activation process with water and the self-supporting reaction with a cooling effect after the activation, but these sentences do not relate to the composition of A2 (in contrast to par. [003] of A4, words like "all" or "always" are not used).

      I quickly dismissed the novelty attack in my mind during exam for the reason described above: I just thought that the specific composition of A2 would not have a cooling effect after the activation. However, I do not think that you are wrong. I think it is a question of interpretation and the best way is to attack claim 1 twice. I am not sure which attack is stronger: the novelty attack seems to be generally better, but it relies on a specific compound in A2 and only par [003] in A4 as evidence. The inventive step attack is generally worse, but more paragraphs from A4, and specifically par. [004]-[007] of A4 disclosing the sequence "activation with water, then cooling" may be used in it.

      Best Regards,
      Nick


      Delete
    8. Dear Nick,

      thanks for the fruitful discussion.

      Apparently, I first went only for an IS attack based on A2+A4 against claim 6. After I had written my IS attack, there were only 10 minutes left, but I only then realised that A4 teaches the "always" in par. [0003]. Consequently, I hastily put my novelty attack against claim 6 based on A2 on paper and had to stop myself from getting to detailed. Otherwise I would not have heard the ending signal which would be even worse than not having the novelty attack.

      Actually, I wonder why claim 6 is such a big topic since a novelty attack usually does not yield the big points.

      On the other hand, I found deciding on cpa for claims 3 and 5 much more time consuming and difficult. But well, there is already a separate discussion for claim 3.

      Best Regards,
      Xentres

      Delete
  14. Hi,
    I also wonder whether claim 6 can be attacked based on lack of novelty over A4 (no purposive selection?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would disagree with your assessment regarding an Article 123(2) objection against the description. At least in the german version of the paper, the paragraph read as it was discribing a single flexible device. The paragraph did not directly and unambiously disclose two different devices.

    As such it appears that a change from a flexible device to two different devices would violate Article 123(2) EPC

    ReplyDelete
  16. I fully agree with PaperCSitter!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The G2/88 decision only applies to claims drafted as the use of a product for a given purpose, not to a product claim... The novelty attack with A2 is correct.

    Juan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Citation from the Case Law:

      In T 59/87 (OJ 1991, 561) the respondent had contended that a particular document inherently disclosed the claimed invention and was therefore destructive of novelty. However, the board stressed that decision G 2/88 (OJ 1990, 93, Corr. 469) emphasised that the question to be decided was what had been made available to the public, not what might have been inherent in what was made available to the public. Furthermore, when considering how far the teaching in a written description also made the inevitable result of carrying out such teaching available to the public, in each case "a line must be drawn between what is in fact made available and what remains hidden or otherwise has not been made available". Thus, the board decided that whether a previously undisclosed technical effect, which in fact inevitably occurred when a previously disclosed technical teaching in a written description was carried out, had been made available to the public by reason of the teaching in the written description was a question of fact which had to be decided in the context of each individual case.

      G 1/92 (OJ 1993, 277) further stipulated that a commercially available product did not per se implicitly disclose anything beyond its composition or internal structure. Other characteristics, which were only revealed when the product was exposed to interaction with specifically chosen outside conditions in order to provide a particular effect or result, or to discover potential results or capabilities, therefore pointed beyond the product per se as they were dependent on deliberate choices being made and thus could not be considered as already having been made available to the public.

      In this case the cooling effect is inherent of the composition as long as it comes into contact with water. As in A2 the "envelope" is made of a water resistant material A2 does not make the effect of "cooling" of the composition publicly available.

      Delete
    2. @Ana: The cooling effect upon activation is an inherent feature of the composition. Also when no water is applied. The claim is only on the composition, not on the step of actually adding the water and obtaining the cooling effect. That would be a method claim.
      Plus, how do you think the composition ended up in the envelope? And wouldn't it be possible to cut it open and apply the water? Does a present only exist after you open the package?

      Delete
    3. I see your point :-) Thx

      Delete
    4. The explanations in support of an A2 novelty attack on Claim 6 need clarification: why must one cite A4 as evidence if A2 is absolute in its novelty destroying capacity as suggested at 17:33 ? (IF A4 must be cited as evidence the inference is that A2 alone is unsuitable for a novelty attack)

      Delete
    5. As suggested from previous posts, reading A2 in isolation is not novelty destroying as the cooling aspect of the composition combined with water is a technical effect not described in A2; A4 used as evidence (and not directly cited within A2)is incorrect as it is not CGK as it is a scientific publication. The use of A4 as cited evidence for a novelty attack using A2 is coming perilously close to conflating Novelty and Inventive Step.

      Delete
    6. What would be the difference between CGK and a Journal Publication? Both are equally capable of serving as D2 in an inventive step attack. If a missing feature is known from CGK, it does not make it a novelty attack instead.
      However, if a feature is present in a document, though its properties are not described explicitly, the feature is there. It is not missing. One just needs proof (from whatever source; CGK could be one) that the feature has that certain property, and that the document should therefore be read to contain the property implicitly. Hence the use of A4. CGK could have served a similar purpose, if that would be the source.

      Mr. Know-it-all

      Delete
    7. A novelty attack can make use of cgk or a within document specifically cited specialist publication clearly associated with the relevant technical features- A4 represents a non-cited specialist publication and is not useable for supporting a novelty attack using A2.

      Delete
    8. A2 is unsuitable for Novelty attack on claim 6; GL F-IV 4.13 states "Apparatus which otherwise...". Paragraph IV of A2 describes the composition in pad form only which is water impermeable, hence unsuitable in its described form for cooling. "A composition which..." equates to a "composition suitable for" hence GL F-IV 4.13 is applicable. Citing a specialist journal (A4)as evidence to support a novelty attack based on A2 only serves to further undermine a novelty attack based on A2. An IS attack is the only robust attacking option.

      Delete
  18. Referring to claim 6, I missed that A2 discloses in par.4 Edgalase+ Lesmorsase+ Ahlericheon
    Therefore I attacked claim 6 under inventive step with A4 + A3.

    A4, par.3 discloses Ahlericheon+ Lesmorsase.
    A3, par.7 discloses Totalisen+ Edgalase.
    A4, par.6 discloses that Totalisen does not affect cooling temperature not activation time, thus I combined A4 with A3 having Totalisen (and also Edgalase).
    Therefore the combination of A4+ A3 is Ahlericheon+ Lesmorsase+ Totalisen+ Edgalase, which falls under the terms of claim having "comprising".

    Giancarlo

    ReplyDelete
  19. If it is appropriate to combine A3 and A6 for Claim 3, why not doing the same for IS against Claim 4?

    ReplyDelete
  20. In my understanding, there is added subject matter in A7.
    A device shaped for both hock and hoof (A7)
    is different from
    two devices shaped one for hock and the other for hoof (A1)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It_went_too_fast4 March 2016 at 19:37

      I did the same attack, though to admit on the para before it clearly gives the context of two embodiments;) but I think attacking as much should not be false

      Delete
    2. In the original text it said "a device for...hock OR hoof, and in a7 (or the otjer way around) it was rephrase as a device for hock OR a device for hoof. I think the meaning is the same, so no 123(2).

      Delete
    3. An exam for mechanics or chemists (one paper)
      is not the same as an exam for mechanics or an exam for chemist (2 papers).
      But to deal with A123(2), we need a claim filed after the filing date and covering this added matter. Which is not the case.
      The possible attack could be A100(b) for Claim 3. But can this attack be used in EEQ_C?

      Delete
    4. Your second option is still only one device due to the "or".
      Also, added subject matter also applies to the description, it doesn't have to be in a claim.

      Delete
    5. The disagreement is interesting because it shows that the committee should allow different understandings as this is not the ground for the exam.
      For A123(2), remember that only claims can be attacked in opposition.

      Delete
    6. No, not only claims can be attacked in opposition. For 123(2), also the description can be attacked.

      As for the or, consider the first option, you have one machine that can do A or B.
      The second option, you have one machine that can do A, or you have one machine that can do B. That is, you still have only one machine.

      Delete
    7. Basically it's not exactly the same: first might be read in the sense one-fits-all and the other wording as two separate embodiments. Still I think in the overall context an amendment was justified

      Delete
  21. Will a clean version be put available?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think that the novelty attack against Claim 6 based on A2 may be incorrect because A4 does not disclose that water is an activator. A4, par. [3] says only "in contact with water", "can be reactivated in the presence of water", and only EKLAG members are called activators.

    I used IS and A4 only.

    Nick

    ReplyDelete
  23. I disagree with your conclusion regarding claim 5 (i.e. comb. A4+A5). Using A4 as the closest prior art document; the missing feature of 25% and the sentence "Thus, this mixture is particularly suited for use immediately after strenuous physical exercise" of A1, the problem can be in the form of how to provide a thermally active composition that can be used immediately after strenuous physical exercise for cooling. The term "fast" is relative. If you write the problem citing only "fast cooling" without "explaining" it by "after exercise" it may be unclear because what is fast for you can be slow for me... if the problem mentions that the cooling is suitable for after exercise then we can easily consult A5 as it is also suitable for being applied after exercises. Of course when once you cool a horse after cross the cooling must be fast. In A5 it is stated that the "conveniently cool your horse’s tired legs AFTER cross country". That is A5 provides solution for cooling immediately after a physical exercise. my 2ct. MeD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition, A5 discloses "if a longer application time is required...". This means that a shorter (i.e. fast) application is possible with the composition of A5. MeD

      Delete
  24. claim 6: I think it makes sense to use only A4 as novelty destroying because the composition of claim 6 is arbitrary and has no specific advantage compared to the other options (in analogy with subranges).

    Further, I believe that the usage of two documents is not allowed when assesing the novelty (G-VI, 1). In the GL it is mentioned that we can use a second document ONLY FOR INTERPRETATION. In this case you have used A4 to include a further limiting feature of claim 6 whcih is not in A2.

    Assuming that we have used A4 in combination with A2 for interpretation i.e. using A4 as a common general knowledge; however: 1. A2 already provides an "interpretation" of a property of that composition (i.e. heating composition) so why I should look for another "interpreation".
    2. can we consider A4 as a common general knowledge? only if A4 provides a BROAD review or survey of the topic (cf GL) which is not the case here with this two pages doc.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please consider that A4, section 3 teaches that a composition of Ah and at least one activator ALWAYS generates a cooling effect upon water contact. That is, the cooling effect is an inherent effect of the composition of A2 irrespective of the different way of activation in A2.

      I first decided to attack claim 6 based on A2+A4. After I finished my IS attack, I realized that a novelty attack based on A2 alone should be possible. I then added that attack with very little argumentation since we were already in the last 5 minutes.

      Some people said that having a novelty attack and IS attack against the same claim based on the same document is considered as bad style because one did not decide whether the document was novelty destroying or only cpa.

      Could someone confirm whether this may yield a penalty?

      Delete
    2. I assume that this practice (i.e a novelty attack together with and intentive step attack based on the same document) will not be punished if it has been used only once in the exam. I mean, I assume that the problem would be doing these "simultaneous attacks" a lot of times. Could someone confirm?

      Delete
    3. Doing it once; doing it multiple times - what would it matter? If there's a penalty, there's a penalty. But I do not believe that there is a penalty. The only disadvantage is that it takes time to do unnecessary attacks. If the unnecessary attack could still be argued to be valid, though weak, you will not get double the points, though, if the other attack (the one that was expected) is already a correct one.

      Mr. Know-it-all

      Delete
    4. I don't see a novelty attack based on A4 alone. That document simply does not disclose the combination (although it comes very near).

      Inventive step on Claim 6 will not be strong. The application gives a very specific temperature range as effect (A1, [10]). You can't get the effect from the prior art.

      Delete
    5. A1 states (paragraph 11) Lesmorase (L) AND/OR Egdalase (E) with Ahlericheon (A) are compounds of the invention (providing the 6-13 C cooling range) i.e. L + A, E + A and L + E + A all have the same cooling effect. A4 (paragraph 9 1st sentence) describes E + A as a cooling composition combination. The difference is L and the problem to be solved is an alternative cooling composition. A4 states that A can be combined with ONE or MORE activators and the last sentence of paragraph 9 describes L a a further suitable activator. A4 kills claim 6 based on lack of inventive step.

      Delete
    6. Reading the comment of the DP Tutor one might conclude that the novelty attack on claim 6 proposed by DP was provoked by the absence in the prior art documents of a reference to the 6-13 Celsius cooling range disclosed in A1. Is the C exam so prescriptive that alternative, well-reasoned attacks are discounted ?

      Delete
  25. FirstTimeSitter7 March 2016 at 13:16

    Dear all,

    in overall, the C paper seemed quite fair. My problem was that i completely overlooked that A3 had to missing features. Therefore i used A3 for an additional novelty attack of claim 1 and for claims 3 both alt. i only added A6 (only solving one object).
    What do you think, will i get some marks for the claim 3 attacks or do you think i will not get any mark, since i failed to see that there are two objects to be solved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I made the same mistake besides another one and I am getting mad...

      Delete
    2. and do you think to award some marks or lose them all for claim 3?

      Delete
    3. Hi FirstTimeSitter - Which claim 1 feature was missing from A3?

      Delete
    4. FirstTimeSitter6 April 2016 at 16:15

      I think there was one of the chemical substances missing, which was needed for the cooling function activated by water.

      Delete
  26. Hi all,

    Regarding claim 3 is it not neccesary to perform 2 IS-attacks, i.e. a first one for hock and a second for Hoof? Even if both hock and hoof designs are described in A6, they are two different embodiments. Was it allowed/possible to handle both "or"-alternatives in one and the same IS-attack?

    I solved this by first performing an IS-attack on claim 1 based on A3+A4, in order to be able to refer back too, and argued that the only difference between claim 3(hock) and claim 1 belongs to a different partial problem. Then I did the same for claim 3(hoof) and re-used a substantial part of my argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess it depends on what you consider "an attack". If you consider an attack to be "one piece of text", my answer would be: no, it is not necessary to divide your arguments against the two alternatives in two text portions. When using a single text portion, though (which I did), I guess it needs to be clear that it is actually TWO IS attacks being performed, based on the TWO disclosed embodiments, and which one of the attacks is based on which one of the embodiments.

      (IS in "IS attack" meaning "inventive step".)

      Mr. Know-it-all

      Delete
  27. What about added subject matter in the description by the change in paragraph 21?? Don´t you think that two devices (instead of only one as originally filed) are being described when introducing such an amendment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is the reverse.
      Two devices originally filed (see [020] for "one aspect", and [021] for "another aspect"). Two different embodiments and two devices originally.

      Delete
    2. But both devices were not disclosed with the technical effect of avoiding abrasions. In my opinion,in paragraph [022] as originally filed, only one device was disclosed together with the technical effect.

      Thank you for your comment!

      Delete
    3. [022] can be read as follows:
      A device according to [020] (first aspect) or a device according to [021] (other aspect)
      will avoid abrasions.
      It is about two devices.

      Delete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi,

    * Claim 5 *

    The composition of claim 5 *consists in* Ah + Les with 30-40% A
    As far as I remember the prior art documents explictly disclose only:
    - compositions *comprising* Ah+Les (A4)
    - compositions *comprising* 35% Ah. (A5)
    (Numbers and details may be wrong, but that's the general idea. I don't have the papers with me, sorry).

    I therefore added, to the combination of A4 and A5, general knowledge and statements regarding toxicity to reach the claimed product, i.e. the composition consisting of 30-40% Ah + Les, rather than commprising 30-40% Ah + Les.

    Does that make any sense or is a composition "consisting of (...)" directly and unambiguously derivable from a composition "comprising (...)", without the need to even discuss the point?

    I combined starting with A4, which is evidently weaker, as the toxicity feature is much easier to argue convincingly. There was a statement in A4, however, hinting to a link between %Ah and time / t° of cooling, so it was possible to provide some kind of argumentation to show incentive to combine. Still, this is much less straightforward and convincing.

    * Claim 6 *
    My question above regarding "comprising / consisting" may be unbecoming of an EQE C candidate, but I must say I am surprised when reading the comments above regarding claim 6.

    Claim 6 is a product claim. Read again: A product claim. Not a use-limited product claim, not a method (or use) claim.

    The product has structurally defined features and functionally defined features. Any product having all of these features, disclosed prior to the effective date of filing, is novelty-destroying. <-- period

    Is it irrelevant that a functional feature might not have been stated, explicitly or implicitly, in the novetly-destroying disclosure. Is is irrelevant whether common knowledge was sufficient at the time of filing to establish that the dislcosed product indeed had the claimed functional feature. Actually, even if the world leading expert of the field could not establish it at the time, the feature still was there.

    In the present case, according to the documents, any composition having the structural feature (Ah + Les and ??) also has the functional feature (water-activable cooling). So A2 is novelty destroying. <-- period, again

    A4 is cited only to show evidence that, indeed, the composition of A2 also has the functional feature. Maybe I am wrong, but I remember a statement of A1 also allowing to reach the same conclusion, which - if I do remember correctly - could also have been stated. A 54(3), or a post-filing document could have been ok too, or even experiments performed e.g. by the Opponent with the composition of A2, even if such experiments were disclosed for the first time in the Opposition proceedings.

    The story would have been completely different if claim 6 had been a therapeutical use-limited product claim (E.g. the composition... for use in cold therapy), or a method claim (use of the product for...). In order to foresee such a use, the skilled person needs to be aware of the functinoal feature that makes the product suitable for said use. Therefore, if the skilled person is unaware that the product has such a feature, even if the product is known, the above use-limited product and method claims could be perfectly valid.

    Keep in mind that if such a product claim could be granted based on a prior unknown feature of an existing product, the patentee could prevent anyone from manufacturing / storing / selling / etc the product...
    This could be true for products which have been in use for decades: they would suddenly become unavailabe without a licence! Phew. The patent system ain't that bad.


    I at least hope no chemists got this wrong!... :-D

    Léon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. largely agree with leon wrt claim 6.

      GL G-VI, 6:

      In the case of a prior document, the lack of novelty may be apparent from what is explicitly stated in the document itself. Alternatively, it may be implicit in the sense that, in carrying out the teaching of the prior document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of the claim.

      In A2 it is stated that the "used gel" (i.e. composition of claim 6 after microwave activation) is regenerated by soaking the gel in water.

      Thus, the skilled person soaking the gel in water ("performing the teaching of the prior art") would inevitably arrive at something falling within the scope of claim 6 (as the soaking step would inevitably produce the cooling effect of claim 6).

      There is no reason to look to A4 for this purpose - A2 alone provides sufficient teaching for anticipating claim 6.

      Delete
    2. Though I basically agree with you that A2 is novelty-destroying for claim 6, your argumentation based on the soaking step in A2 does not seem to be convincing for me.

      According to [0006] of A2, the pouch of the pad is made of a waterproof material. Therefore, the gel composition contained in the pouch will not get into direct contact with water during the soaking step of [0008] of A2 because of the waterproof pouch.

      Hence, the soaking step in A2 does not anticipate the "activation by water contact" in claim 6.

      You need the evidence from A4 that the gel composition in the pouch is already such a composition that would produce a cooling effect upon water contact.

      Best regards,

      Xentres

      PS: Copy of my below post on March 8, 16:02; disregard post below

      Delete
    3. Fair point, but then how would the gel reactivation step work if not by contact with water, which would seem to be the point of the soaking step?

      ps im working from memory, dont have a copy of the paper to hand...

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous (March 8, 17:00)

      Well, first of all there is a lot of information in the paper and one will not use every little piece of information when drafting the opposition. There is always an surplus of information in the paper to create the haystack for finding the needle.

      In my opinion, the soaking step only serves to believably explain how the heating pad of A2 is reusable and therefor is only relevant for the novelty attack against claim 1 based on A2 as an A54(3)-document. According to [0003] of A2, the gel composition solidifies due to the heat exchange. When soaking the pad into water, the properties of Ah are restored, the gel composition is reformed and the pad can be used again ([0008] of A2).

      There is no hint to a contact of the gel with water. In fact, the pouch of the pad of A2 is waterproof.

      That's the technical information from A2. Do not mix in any real-life experience or technical background knowledge.

      To be honest, this Ahlericheon must be one hell of a super material.

      Greetings,
      Xentres

      Delete
    5. Ok I have managed to get my hands on a paper C (already put up on EQE webite). Yours is a fair point again.

      There is something inconsistent between [0006] and [0008]. I get that the pad (or pouch - irritating lack of consistency with nomenclature) is waterproof, however [0008] implies that it is the soaking in water that regenerates the gel, i.e. contact with water is required to reactivate the gel.

      Seems like yet another nuisance EQE ambiguity.

      Delete
  30. Though I basically agree with you that A2 is novelty-destroying for claim 6, your argumentation based on the soaking step in A2 does not seem to be convincing for me.

    According to [0006] of A2, the pouch of the pad is made of a waterproof material. Therefore, the gel composition contained in the pouch will not get into direct contact with water during the soaking step of [0008] of A2 because of the waterproof pouch.

    Hence, the soaking step in A2 does not anticipate the "activation by water contact" in claim 6.

    You need the evidence from A4 that the gel composition in the pouch is already such a composition that would produce a cooling effect upon water contact.

    Best regards,

    Xentres

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi,
    I know that I am insisting a little bit, but I am not really convinced about a novelty attack on claim 6 using A2. If we have a look in F-IV, 4.13, it is stated that an apparatus which otherwise possesses all of the features specified in the claims but which would be unsuitable for the stated purpose or would require modification to enable it to be so used, should normally not be considered as anticipating the claim.
    A2 discloses the composition but with the use in heat therapy.
    So I took A4 only as Art. 56 document (since the composition was not disclosed as such in A4 but only suggested in the background section of A4 (section 3).

    First-time-sitter-who-is-going-to-resit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concur - unfortunately it depends upon whether 'which' is to be interpreted as 'suitable for'. Any enlightening case law on offer ?

      Delete
  32. Here, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_c_6_3_3.htm, last paragraph.
    But I think we got wrong... Anyway, I do not regret because I wrote what I thought at the exam...be more ready next year...

    First-time-sitter-who-is-going-to-resit

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear Jelle, Sander, Nico, Joeri, and Gregory,

    Do you think that two different interpretations of the feature "activation" in claim 6 are possible?

    For example, A2, par 4 states "This composition ... is activated by microwave radiation. Once activated, as a result of a chemical reaction, the gel composition actively produces heat for several hours". Apparently, the term "activation" as used here means that the reaction runs after the microwave radiation is off (since the period is "several hours", rather than "until microwave radiation is off").

    If a skilled person interprets claim 6 in a similar way, this claim would require that the composition produces a cooling effect after activation, when there is no contact with water anymore. However, A4, par. 3 does not disclose that the composition of A2 would have such a property, since it only relates to the case when the composition is in contact with water. In such a case doesn't an attack based on experiments described in A4, par 4-9 seem to be more appropriate?

    Thanks,

    Nick

    ReplyDelete
  34. Did anyone consider Totilasen of A3 as being a "thermally active composition"? Clearly, its activity can be manipulated thermally (see [0010] of A3). Thus one could make a novelty attack against claim 1 based on A3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Peter,

      the term "thermally active composition" seems to be clearly defined in [0002] of A1:
      "thermally active composition, i.e. any composition which, as a result of a chemical reaction, is able to actively produce either cold or heat, by a decrease or an increase of its temperature to accelerate a healing process"

      You refer to [0010] of A3, which states that the effect of Totilasen is highest at around 7°C. In order to reach this temperature, cooling the area to be treated using a bandage soaked in chilled water is proposed. There is no disclosure that Totilasen produces heat or cold by means of a chemical reaction.

      According to my understanding, Totilasen of A3 therefore does not fall under the defintion of a "thermally active composition" of [0002], A1.

      Your proposed novelty attack against claim 1 based on A3 alone does not seem to be successful to me. I attacked claim 1 via A2 (novelty) and via A3+A4 (IS).

      Delete
  35. I see your point, but don't agree. As indicated e.g. in Guidelines (F-IV-4.2): "Art. 69 and its Protocol do not provide a basis for excluding what is literally covered by the terms of the claims". So the question is, how a skilled person would understand the word "thermally active composition" without the definition of description.

    Should "thermally active composition" mean a composition that is active as a result of thermal energy or lack thereof, it seems that A3 discloses such a composition. It is of course possible that, in the exam, the candidates must not assume that a skilled person understands anything apart from what is literally given in the annexes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Peter

    Actually, I do understand that, in the exam, what is given in the annexes is fact and limiting.

    I think that is also what Rule 22(3) REE tells us:

    "Candidates shall accept the facts given in the examination paper and limit themselves to those facts. Whether and to what extent those facts are used shall be the responsibility of each candidate.
    Candidates shall not use any special knowledge they may have of the technical field of the invention."

    During preparation, I learned that definitions in the EQE papers are essential. If there is a definition for a term, it's a fact. The information in the papers, especially the definitions, form their own technical knowledge in the EQE micro universe.

    Sometimes I wonder, whether this can be exaggerated to the extreme. Imagine that they will tell you in an exam paper that the earth is flat or that the moon is made from cheese cake. According to Rule 22(3) REE, it's a fact.

    But well, we had "Totilasen" this year - so it's already quite hilarious ("Totilas" is a very famous dressage horse).

    Greetings,

    Xentres

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Peter.
      In many exams reports, it is asked to put oneself in the context of the prior art.
      And generally speaking the attacks in C are made generously.

      The definitions are just additional means for bringing closer features from different documents.

      Delete
  37. Anyone there??

    I have just received copy of the exam, and I´m checking the attack on claim 4. In the solution proposed by Delta it was said:
    "The closest prior art is A2 because it is a reusable therapeutic device using a thermally active composition and is structurally the closest, in particular A2 has straps along the length"

    But.... A2 has no straps fixed to opposing sides of the envelope as indicated in claim 4... From my point of view, the difference between claim 4 and A2 is the complete fastening means (with two straps fixed to opposing sides of the envelope, only one being eleastic and having complementary securing means) which can be found in A6.

    Thank you in advance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had the same idea during exam and wrote accordingly, but I did not check it after.

      Delete
  38. Thank you for your response!

    We will keep our fingers crossed and hopefully A2 has no straps...

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree with both of you. I wrote that the difference is indeed all the additional features of claim 4, which can be found in A6 and which has the effect of avoiding pressure points (while permitting an adjustable fastening).

    Yes, fingers crossed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How did you deal with the feature:
      "two straps fixed to opposing sides of the envelope, only one being elastic" which is:
      -absent from the description in A1;
      -hence has no technical effect indicated.

      Delete
  40. A1 paragraph 19 states: " the fastening means of the invention provide an even distribution of pressure and avoid any pressure points"

    The difference between claim 4 and A2 is the fastening means... so, it can be said that the effect of the fastening means of the invention is to provide an even distribution of pressure

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your claim 4 corresponds to a device according to claim 1 further comprising fastening means.
      Whereas in claim 4, very specific features are given.

      Delete
  41. Not exactly... the difference is a fastening means that has all the features specified in claim 4. As far as this is a fastening means disclosed in A1 and A1 states in paragraph 19 that the fastenig means of the invention provide an even distribution of pressure, it can be considered that the specific fastening means of claim 4 provide this technical effect.. (from my point of view).

    Which is your proposal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would maybe agree with you if the "only one trap being elastic" feature was disclosed in the description in A1. But it is not.
      A way to get rid of this issue is to start the IS attack by A6 which contains that feature, so there will be no need to search for its technical effect.
      A general view is that those papers are to complicate for the time allocated. One month would be correct.

      Delete
    2. I suspect it is even too complicate for the examiners to write a consistent paper. and the exam is just a lottery.

      Delete
    3. I would not say that A6 is the CPA since it´s not directed to the same purpose as the device of claim 4 (reusable therapeutic device).

      If A6 would be the CPA, the distinguishing features would be all the features of claim 1, and it seems difficult to argue the motivation to add all these features to the gaiter of A6

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous(May 3, 23:38)

      I think that you might exaggerate a bit.
      In contrast to reality, there is usually a golden thread throughout the exam which one has to find (exaclty or at least partially).

      In this case, at least for me, the technical effect was generally disclosed in par. 19 of A1 ("The fastening means of the invention..." + effect = the claimed fastening means = fastening means of claim 4 with all features).

      Since claim 4 was originally filed, it therefore forms a "fastening means of the invention" and provides the effects described in par. 19 (irrespective of "only one strap being elastic").

      A2 already states that, though pressure distribution is improved (but there is no statement about even distribution in A2), pressure points might occur. Therefore, having in mind the general statement of par. 19 regarding the effect of the fastening means according to the invention (i.e. as claimed), the even distribution and the resulting prevention of pressure points could be regarded as effect and problem solved by claim 4.

      Solution: A2 + A6 (while the "only one strap being elastic" is achieved by simply transferring the teaching of A6 to A2).

      If you ask me, "only one strap being elastic" provides the effect of adjustability according to the last sentence of par. 25 in A1 and the other aspects (especially "along the entire length") of claim 4 provide the even pressure distribution.

      However, since A6 already proposes to provide one elastic strap and one non-elastic strap and mentions even pressure distribution, the skilled person would "automatically" reach the feature "only one strap being elastic" of claim 4 if he/she combines the teaching of A6 with A2 for a solution to the pressure points problem .

      To be honest, I did not check the copies of my own paper yet, since I wasn't in the mood, but my above argumentation seems quite familiar to me.

      Anyway, we will all have to wait for the Examiner's report for the "correct" answer.

      Greetings,
      Xentres

      Delete
    5. A2 is in the same area as all the missing features ...blabla.
      If you decide to, you will.
      And it won't be weaker than the first solution.
      In either solution you consider a group of features as a whole.
      And you have one minute to make a decision.
      It's poker.

      Delete
  42. Do you think that it is equally right to base the technical problem on achieving an even distribution of pressure and on avoiding any pressure points? It seems to be the same, but I took the pressure points option...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to be the same.... If an even dsitribution of pressure is achieved, pressure points are avoided

      Delete