Paper C 2018 Cleaning and milking cows

The DeltaPatents team has worked throughout the night to give you an impression.
Some/many of you may not have slept so well either and did not feel in the mood for opening the champagne bottle.
This exam definitely had some challenges.

We came to the following attacks:

Claim 1 (ind): Nov A2
Claim 2(1): I.S. A4 + A2
Claim 3(1): I.S. A2 +A4
Claim 4 (ind): Nov. A5
Claim 5(4) teats only: I.S. A3 + A2 + A4
Claim 5(4) teats and udder: added subject-matter
Claim 6: Nov. A6

We welcome your comments.

A brief explanation.

1. Priority issue
All claims are disclosed in the priority application, thus there seem to be no ‘same invention issues’
Based on a time line, usability of A6 is an issue. This PCT application might be useable under Art.54(3), but has not entered. So, prima facie not useable.
The client clearly indicates the A1 is granted to Odysseus and that A6 is a PCT application of Odysseus. A6 is filed before the claimed priority, thus A6 is a potential 1st application for some claims.
Checking A6, A6 is novelty destroying for claim 6. To have a full 1st application problem, A6 should disclose the same invention as claim 6. However, A6 is more specific – does not show a colourant in general but a specific one European Blue. Until recently there would thus not have been a 1st application problem because A6 does not describe the same invention as claim 6. However the recent G1/15, T282/12 decided that we can have partial 1st application problems. Thus, Claim 6 partially loses priority for the disclosure in A6. This makes A6 Art.54(2) for that part and thus novelty destroying.
This will have been a challenge for most candidates.

2. Added subject-matter
Claim 5 was added. Investigation will have shown to most candidates that everything of claim 5 is disclosed in the application as filed, in particular [21], [23], with the exception of the second ‘OR’ “both the teats and the udder”. So, here an attack under Art.100(c), 123(2).

3. Claim 1
Seemed relatively straightforward: novelty attack based on A2 is possible. The use/purpose ‘for … outside a milking robot’ should be assessed under ‘suitable for without modification’. A2 discloses all claim features and would be suitable for the outside the robot use.  

4. Claim 2, depending on 1
Here a bit of extra care is required. Both claim 2 and 3 depend on claim 1. In most exams a swap of closest prior art needs to happen.
First checking A2: A2 basically misses the whole bit of claim 2. Thus no novelty attack. A2 is handheld and the essence of claim 2 is to be autonomously driving. Starting from A2 as the closest prior art is unrealistic.
Autonomous moving: A3 and A4 could be used as a starting point. A4 is closer – four wheels motor.
A4 misses the rotating brush of claim 1. This is disclosed in A2 and in A5 for the same effect. A5 is an odd document (farm) and would not easily be consulted for details on cleaning. A2 is best. This gives an inventive step attack A4 + A2.

5. Claim 3, depending on claim 1   
A2 (novelty claim 1) also discloses the amount of liquid. A2 misses the checking means. A2 so far seems a good candidate for the closest prior art.
The checking means plus effect are mentioned in A4 [12]. The checking means in A4 detect a drop in temperature. The cleaning in A2 also causes a drop in temperature [08]. So, this seems nicely compatible.
The checking means are also disclosed in A3 [10] for the right effect. A3 uses cameras. They only work if the cow is in the milking robot due the precise position of the cow. That is a problem because it should be suitable for use outside a milking robot. Thus an attack based on A2+A3 is not possible.

6. Claim 4 (independent)
Due to claim 4 not being tightly drafted the odd disclosure in A5 is novelty destroying. We leave it at that.

7. Claim 5(4)
A5 does not disclose the additional features of claim 5. It may be possible to get the conditioning composition out of A4 [14], but the heated nozzles are a problem. A3 discloses those but does not mention the effect given in A1 [23]. Problematic. A5 is anyhow not a great closest prior art.
Trying another closest prior art: only A3 is a realistic starting point, also relating to using a milking robot.  A3 misses using 2 liters of soaking liquid; this is disclosed in A2 for the effect mentioned in A1. A3 also misses the conditioning composition, which can be taken out of A4 [14]. This gives a partial-problems attack A3+A2+A4.

The DeltaPatents C team 
Jelle, Joeri, Nico, Sander, Tanja