C 2019: first impressions?

To all who sat the C-paper today:

What are your first impressions to this year's C-paper? Any general or specific comments?

How did this year's C-paper compare to the C papers of 2013 - 2018 (assuming your practiced those)?

Any pleasant and/or unpleasant surprises?

The paper and our answers

The C paper is available in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, Paper C.

We will give (the core of) our answer after we have received the paper, made the paper, and completion of our internal review. See here.

We look forward to your comments!

Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 03-03-2018 03:03"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.


Comments

  1. time time time as always in c :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seemed to have 9 possibles attacks. Isn'it huge ? I believe that the usual number is six or seven.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found this year's puzzle to fall in place quite nicely. When analyzing the claims, I first got scared about dependent claims being dependent on dependent claim. But in some attacks you could benefit from other attacks, I think. I made many partial problem attacks. There was US application that some might mistakenly use as A.54(3) document. One annex disclosed claimed coating and material of soleplate on different embodiments, that can be a trap. I think there were less reading, but I haven't compared the numbers of pages with papers of previous years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There weren't so many issues about effctive dates etc. But lots of attacks were expected especially inventive step attacks with partial problems. I only wrote one novelty attack for an alternative included in claim 1 and added subject matter attack again for the Same claim, the other attacks were all inventive step attacks for me. I also wrote an inventive step attack only with one document for other alternative for Claim 1 that I never saw that in the past papers( at least which I studied). We'll see :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No possible added subject matter as no modification was made during examination. Rather A100(b) attack.

      Delete
    2. But the combination of KareSi "and" KareMa was not in the application. İt was not derivable from the passage, i think.

      Delete
    3. Yes Vylona, I think you are right.

      Delete
    4. Yes, it was an added subject matter attack on claim 1 in the alternative KeraMa AND KeraSi.

      A 100(b) will NEVER be used in the C paper, see https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/etc/se2/p18.html (IPREE Rule 25(5)), "Article 100(b) EPC shall not be cited"

      Delete
    5. When rereading the paper, it's not immediately obvious if the claim 1 as recited on first page of the paper is for the priority document or for the new application.
      Hence the hesitation between 100b and 100c.

      Delete
  5. What about amending the "and-combination" to Claim 1 during examination?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have done the analysis.

    First impression:
    - An original set of attacks for claim 1, but since there were no real alternatives to what I think should be the attacks, it should be doable.
    - Claim 2 may trick you into difficult to argue, but quite plausible attacks. Claim 3 makes clear that there is a better option.
    - Nice product by process feature in claim 3. Luckily, there is no other way to attack it, so in the end it you should find that argument.
    - From thereon it all looked quite straightforward for me.

    If you got all the way to the end, it should be an ok paper. But I can imaging candidates getting stuck at the first three claims.

    Sorry, I'm not posting attacks until my colleagues have had the opportunity to analyse the paper too and before we agree on the solution. Expect our solution around lunchtime tomorrow. For now, take a beer and enjoy the ocean of free time that suddenly lies in front of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. claim 3 is partial product by process according to a3 that only cold air determines the property (so limiting) but this is disclosed in A2 i think. The pressure does not change the property so not limiting. A3 should be used as common general knowledge. that is my answer.

      Delete
    2. The big issue of this paper is to handle so many documents in so little time.
      After reading the 7 documents, there is only about one hour left to build the answer. And it is compulsory to read all the documents to start an answer.
      The question is where does this time management intervene in the profesion.
      Why are we tested on the crireria of working in very high speed with plenty of information. Among those quite not relevant few.
      When will the epo president intervene to stop this.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous 28 Feb @20:14
      You don't need to read the full documents, I even doubt that that is the purpose of the exam. I do believe that it is crucial to scan the documents and write down on a paper/table, the paragraphs where definitions, technical effects, functional incompatibilities are, so that in some claims you can quickly find where the definition is and not scan all the other documents again to look for it. After 12h it will work even worse. It was quite nice that they didn't put any cascading of divisionals or legal questions.

      Delete
    4. JP you can not be serious.
      With these papers, missing an information hidden in the last sentence of document 7 will cause one to go to the wrong direction for all the paper.
      I guess you are jocking

      Delete
    5. I don't understand what is there to joke nor what is document 7. I went through all the documents (A1-A6) once and wrote down notes with paragraphs with definitions, synonyms, technical effects. Half A4-sheet was more than enough for A2 to A6, only A1 required almost an A4 sheet. A few times I had to go back to the documents to "search within them", but my sheets were sufficient to find information. And let me tell you, after 12h-12h30 it made a big different due to being tired. At a point I had something in front of my eyes and didn't spot it, but in my lists I found it in less than 1 minute.

      Delete
    6. The paper comprises at least 7 documents, with the opponent letter which is to be read very carrefully. See the point about 100b or 100c.
      You must be a genius.
      I'am already missing informations when reading carefully.
      I can't even imagine what it would be going randomly.
      Regards,

      Delete
  7. Did anyone argue Annex 3 being novelty destroying for Claim 6?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Claim 6 should fall with claim 4. The free space is derivable from Annex 2. At least this is what I wrote. I also did not notice that no further (!) amendments during examination took place and argued based on 100b. Hope on marks nevertheless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claim 6 is disclosed by A3 the figure is in scale so there was a disclosure of at least 4 cm. A3 is 54(2) doc for claim 6 as claim 6 was not entitled to priority.

      Delete
    2. There was an amendment during examination though, claim 1.

      Yes, it was an added subject matter attack on claim 1 in the alternative KeraMa AND KeraSi.

      As I posted above, Art. 100(b) will neverbe used in the C paper, see https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/etc/se2/p18.html (IPREE Rule 25(5)), "Article 100(b) EPC shall not be cited"

      Delete
  10. Damned you are right. Fig 2 of A2 is not in scale and the description states that there are more unshown openings. Missed that. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok, it was a long paper but in the overall a ‘more traditional C paper ‘ when compared to 2018... (!!!) Joeri you are right, potential issues with first set of claims... I decided to start with claims 4,5,6,7 and then went back to 1, 2, 3 (which I could not finish properly) ... For the rest, the features/effects were straightforward to spot. Laura

    ReplyDelete
  12. btw why don’t they stop putting staples on the all block of documents??? We all take docs apart anyway and first few minutes are gone and fingers injured!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 😂😂
      Agree!
      However, EPO doesn’t seems to be the most flexible org so probably 10 more years if you give it asa nice suggestion for improvement!

      Delete
  13. While reading through the Annexes I had a nice feeling that I know what are to be tested… until I realized that I spent too much time reading and became panicking and messed up my thoughts. I am a first time sitter. Lessons learned.

    My attacks were
    Cl 1(KeraMa) - novelty A4
    Cl 1(KeraSi) - IS A4 (probably wrong, did it while panicking)
    Cl 1(KeraMa + KeraSi) - added matter
    Cl 2 - A2+A4
    Cl 3 - A2+A4 (feature in A2)
    Cl 4 - A6+A2
    Cl 5 - A6+A2+A5 (partial problem)
    Cl 6 - novelty A3
    Cl 7 - A3+A6

    Some info representing common knowledge taken from A3 for some claims.

    Hopefully at least some attacks are correct.

    Fj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is exactly how I solved it as Well. Hopefully examiners See this The Same way...

      Delete
    2. added matter is for modification after filing, not at filing. Rather insufficient disclosure 100b.
      For claim 6, i don't see why novelty whereas its independant claim 4 is with inventive step.

      Delete
    3. On claim 7, don't you find easier to replace the base on A6 with that of A3 instead of adapting A3 to have a reservoir in the back?

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous 28 Feb @20:44
      A3 cannot be used with claim 4 although it discloses all its features which are then on claim 6 which has no priority right.

      Delete
    5. Had exactly these attacks. did not finish the IS attack on claim 1 based in A4 because it took me a while to see it. Agree with the comment about that claim 7 could have gone either way. I was swayed to the attack above because I didn't want to write out novelty for claim 7 based on A6!

      Delete
    6. Did the same attacks (but I didn’t have the time to attack claim 1 inventive step)... laura

      Delete
    7. @Anonymous 28 Feb @20:44 I have a vague memory that A.100(b) is not supposed to be used in C exam.
      @RJ A6 has a feature-effect pair that fits A1, and it felt time-saving to just continue attacking new feature while all the features of cl4 and cl6 were just discussed. What would be the effect and problem if starting from A6?

      Fj

      Delete
    8. Eef, if A3 cannot be used for claim 4, A3 cannot be used for the part of claim 4 comprised in A6.
      So for me there is a trouble using A3 for novelty on Claim 6

      Delete
    9. I used the same attacks for claim 1 with an additional attack on KeraMa+KeraSi using Art. 100b)
      Claim 2: I used A4 for inventive step based on the attack on Claim 1 on KeraMa - which is obvously wrong as A4 does not disclose a steam iron - a feature I missed.
      Claim 3: same as you (A2 + A4)
      Claim 4: I used A2 combined with common knowledge based on the handbook described in [0011] as A2 discloses every feature including a steam iron but with an external instead of an internal tank.
      Claim 5: same as claim 4 plus IS A5
      Claims 6 and 7 same as you.

      Delete
    10. "Eef, if A3 cannot be used for claim 4, A3 cannot be used for the part of claim 4 comprised in A6.
      So for me there is a trouble using A3 for novelty on Claim 6"

      I don't think that is the correct way to look at it?

      Claim 6 as a whole (including the features of claim 4, see it as "one" embodiment) was not entitled to priority. Thus, A3 can be used against claim 6 as a whole (including the features of claim 4, which was part of the embodiment). Does this make sense?

      Delete
    11. 100b is not Part of the eqe

      Delete
    12. Finally a post "to the point". I did the same combinations but choose A4 as prior art for claims 2 and 3 and not A2. Because A4 discloses almost the whole combination of claim 1 and claim 2 with exception of word "steam" see my answer to Jell below...

      Delete
  14. Anyone reading "An intermediate coating chosen from among Yur 52, Yur 54, Yur 56 and Yur 58, added to promote adhesion of the polymer or ceramic coating to the aluminium base plate" (A4, paragraph 0005) with paragraph 0004 disclosing ceramic coating KeraMa, disclosing the order of claim 2?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  15. First attack: A4 against claim 1.
    Second attack: A2 + A4 against claim 2.
    Jelle, did you mean A2 + A4 OR did you mean A4 + A2?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do I ask the question: because in my view A4 is still closest prior art for the combination claim 1 + claim 2, let's be honest, in this combination the only "new" thing was the word "steam" (steam iron), all other features are disclosed in A4 , A4 is "almost" novelty destroying for claim 2 as well...

      Delete
  16. I think A3 (or A6) mentions in paragraph 001 that dry irons are not so efficient as steam irons.
    Could one use this common general knowledge information in order to render claim 2 not inventive ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that a skilled person would still start from a steam iron and modify it with Al and KeraMa, taken from A2, to get to the solution of claim 2. Why would the skilled person start from a study on coatings? I got same solutions as Fj. Laura

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry taken from A4. So attack is A2+A4 in my opinion. Laura

    ReplyDelete
  19. but A4 was not only " a study about coatings", the said study was in conjunction with ironing devices and the specific problems and effects described in the opposed patent A1. Whereas A2 deals indeed with a steam ironing device but only in the context that KeraTix would give a glossy appearance, no mention in A2 about using the Keramas coatings in order to avoid scratches and thus protect the ironing device ? Does this make sense? Jelle, could you please tell us: if I combined the other way around (A4+A2 NOT A2 + A4) am I also going to get points or are points available only for "the official" version of IS ? Thanks !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Statements inside [[...]] are lifted from the EPO GL.

      [[The closest prior art is that which in one single reference discloses the combination of features which constitutes the most promising starting point for a development leading to the invention.]]

      A2 = a steam iron.
      A4 = a dry iron.
      Claim 2(1) = an ironing device, being a steam iron, with a protected soleplate.

      [[In selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it must be directed to a similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention.]]

      The purpose of claim 2(1) regards protecting the soleplate from damage. This is achieved by use of a KeraMa protective layer. The protective layer is beneficially adhered to the soleplate by intermediate layer Yur56.

      Purpose A2 first embodiment: provide a steam iron that isn’t tiring for a user when ironing (par. 1 A2).

      Purpose A2 second embodiment: adapting the soleplate by inclusion of channels to avoid damage to delicate fabrics by better steam distribution. (Note the aesthetically pleasing “glossy finish” of a Kera layer is disclosed in this embodiment (par. 14). However, “glossy finish” doesn’t tell the skilled person that this layer protects the soleplate.)

      Field A2 = steam irons.

      Purpose A4: how to avoid baseplate damage, thereby allowing the baseplate to glide efficiently (par. 2).

      Field A4 = protective coatings for baseplates of dry irons.

      [[In practice, the closest prior art is generally that which corresponds to a similar use and requires the minimum of structural and functional modifications to arrive at the claimed invention (see T 606/89).]]

      The extent of A2’s ‘similar use’ = steam ironing. A2’s structure and function = a “steam iron” (note that a steam iron is a complete unit (par. 2 A1)).

      The extent of A4’s ‘similar use’ = protecting a baseplate from damage. A4’s structure and function = “coated baseplate {for a dry iron} to avoid damage of said baseplate”.

      CONCLUSION

      A2 is completely silent with respect to the purpose of claim 2, given my construction of the purpose of this claim is to provide a protected soleplate.

      A4 teaches the skilled person (PSA) that the layering of the baseplate avoids damage. A4 is therefore not silent with respect to the purpose of claim 2 given my construction of the purpose of this claim.

      It seems appropriate, therefore, that the skilled person starts with the advantageous soleplate of A4, and bolts this/adapts this to fit onto the complete unit of a notoriously known steam iron (the steam iron of A2 has been around since 1999).

      Given various soleplates/baseplates are known in our “c-paper 2019 world”, it would seem to be mere workshop modification to adapt soleplates/baseplates to fit onto irons. (Moreover, if arguing A2 = CPA, you still have to adapt a “dry iron” baseplate of A4 to fit onto the “steam iron” of A2 and hence the baseplate always requires modification if starting from A2 or from A4).

      If we now consider the alternative, i.e. A2 = CPA, we would need to ask ourselves why should the steam iron of A2, which is silent with respect to a protective layer for the soleplate, be the “most promising springboard” for the PSA, when the only “promising” aspect of A2 is a “steam iron”? Moreover, a PSA reading that the Kera layer of A2 provides a “glossy finish” is basically told that the Kera layer is pretty because it is “aesthetically pleasing” . This doesn’t much sound like a promising springboard for an engineer interested in designing a robust baseplate... perhaps this may even dissuade the engineer from using a Kera layer - she is only told that this layer makes the baseplate pretty!

      Given these facts, it seems inappropriate for A2 to be considered, with absolute certainty, to be the closest prior art based on the reductive proposition that because-A2-discloses-a-steam-iron-A2-must-be-the-CPA.

      I do appreciate that when the mark scheme is released I’ll probably be proven incorrect - as I’m obviously not as experienced as the Delta people!

      Delete

Post a Comment