Paper C 2019 Ironing device
Here a quick first answer to the paper.
So far only two of our C tutors (Joeri Beetz and me) have made the paper, so we may make some amendments tomorrow when more tutors will have made it.
Priority: valid for claims 1-5; invalid for claims 6 and 7 (claims and supporting paragraphs [17] and [18] respectively were not present in the priority application).
Evidence list: A2, A4, A5, A6: 54(2) for all claims (one option in claim 1 gets no date).
A3 is 54(2) for claims 6 and 7; not useable for claims 1-5 (US application, not useable under 54(3))
Claims 1 is an and/or claim and covers three embodiments.
Claim 1 has been amended after filing: 'or' has been changed to 'and/or'. This introduces a third option: the 'and' embodiment KeraMa and KeraSi layer. This embodiment is not derivable from A1 as filed (the two options are only mentioned separately in A1 [16] and filed claim 1). Thus, perform an attack on this embodiment under Art.100(c), 123(2). No date is assigned to this embodiment and no further attack performed.
Claim 1 Kerama: lack of novelty in view of A4 first test.
Claim 1: KeraSi: lack of inventive step in view A4 first test + A4 second test
Claim 2(1) [limited to Kerama]: Inv. step A2 + A4 first test
Claim 3(2) [limited to Kerama]: Inv. step A2 + A4 first test. Basically same attack as claim 2. Is a product-by-process claim. Process not shown, but same product
Claim 4(ind): Inv. step A6 +A2
Claim 5(4): Inv. step A6 + A2 + A5
Claim 6(4): Nov. A3
Claim 7(6): Inv. Step A3 + A6
Looking forward to your comments.
Jelle Hoekstra
So far only two of our C tutors (Joeri Beetz and me) have made the paper, so we may make some amendments tomorrow when more tutors will have made it.
Priority: valid for claims 1-5; invalid for claims 6 and 7 (claims and supporting paragraphs [17] and [18] respectively were not present in the priority application).
Evidence list: A2, A4, A5, A6: 54(2) for all claims (one option in claim 1 gets no date).
A3 is 54(2) for claims 6 and 7; not useable for claims 1-5 (US application, not useable under 54(3))
Claims 1 is an and/or claim and covers three embodiments.
Claim 1 has been amended after filing: 'or' has been changed to 'and/or'. This introduces a third option: the 'and' embodiment KeraMa and KeraSi layer. This embodiment is not derivable from A1 as filed (the two options are only mentioned separately in A1 [16] and filed claim 1). Thus, perform an attack on this embodiment under Art.100(c), 123(2). No date is assigned to this embodiment and no further attack performed.
Claim 1 Kerama: lack of novelty in view of A4 first test.
Claim 1: KeraSi: lack of inventive step in view A4 first test + A4 second test
Claim 2(1) [limited to Kerama]: Inv. step A2 + A4 first test
Claim 3(2) [limited to Kerama]: Inv. step A2 + A4 first test. Basically same attack as claim 2. Is a product-by-process claim. Process not shown, but same product
Claim 4(ind): Inv. step A6 +A2
Claim 5(4): Inv. step A6 + A2 + A5
Claim 6(4): Nov. A3
Claim 7(6): Inv. Step A3 + A6
Looking forward to your comments.
Jelle Hoekstra
SHARE:
I came up with basically the same attacks, except for claim 3 I also cited A3 as evidence of the fact that it was known before the priority date that low-pressure die casting could be used to form recesses in an iron baseplate.
ReplyDeleteI also used A2+A4+general knowledge of A3. So I used A3 only as a disclosure for general knowledge that both casting methods are useable. I did not use A3 as a state of the art document. The casting technology disclosed in A3 is known for many years. Then I offered a hearing of witnesses.
DeleteLooking forward for your comments.
Yep, the same here. I went A2+A4+general knowledge from A3.
DeleteHello,
DeleteI agree that A3 was explicit about the general knowledge.
However, Dir F-IV-4.12 is explicit about the words "obtainable by". As long as all the technical features of the product are known, the claim cannot be either novel or inventive only because of the process steps.
I agree with the proposed solution in which, the general knowledge of A3 must not be used and claim 3 is supposed to be attacked by interpreting the process steps as non limiting features.
Any other opinion ?
The opinion of a tutor would be very helpful :-)
DeleteYour attack should primarily be based on that it is the same. Additional proof for such a statement you can base on A3 and even on A1. In order to have the benefit of the doubt the application should indicate that the specific way the product is produced implies certain properties. If not indicated, only the claimed properties need to be attacked.
DeleteHello Jelle,
DeleteThank you for sharing your opinion !
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI still don't get why A6 should be closest prior art for claim 4 (and 5) as A2 discloses a steam iron including all features except the external tank and also discloses the same effect (saving water). A6 only discloses a steam iron (having steam outlets) and an internal water tank and neither the distribution of the nozzles nor the effect coming therewith.
ReplyDeleteA3 discloses that it is known from the Handbook of Domestic Science of 2001 that structures on the ironing side of a baseplate as well of the distribution of steam nozzles (as disclosed in A3) can be readily adapted to other types of ironing devices, i.e. for steam irons having an external water tank.
Therefore it would be obvious for the person skilled in the art to adapt the steam iron of A3 to a steam iron having an internal tank.
whoops, amend "A3" in par. 2 and 3 to "A2"
DeleteA2 is a device for professional use. The second embodiment of A1 (claimed in claims 4-7) is expressly for domestic use only. So, I agree for cliams 4 and 5, A6 is the closest prior art as this is the only prior art disclosing a steam iron with an internal water tank for domestic use. A3 also discloses this, but is not citeable for claims 1-5. However, for claim 7, A3 is structurally closer than A6 so now this is the closest prior art.
DeleteA2 teaches away from further combinations to incorporate an internal tank since it expressly states in the first paragraphs that it is essential to have it external. I think thats why A2 must be disarded as c.p.a.
DeleteFor an inventive step attack you should try to find a starting document which is technically very close to what is claimed.
DeleteIn many C exams the technical field is subdivided into subfields which are relevant for different claims.
If we look here. The inventions all relate to ironing devices. A1 [01] indicates that such devices are used at home and in laundries. No technical difference is indicated yet. In A1 [02] the field subdivides into dry irons and steam irons. Clear technical differences are indicated such as a tank. In A1 [12] it becomes clear that a steam iron with an internal tank is for domestic use. This subdivision is confirmed by the prior art. A2 [02] describes a steam iron with an external tank for professional use; using a low density plate. A6 [02] describes a steam iron for domestic use with an internal tank; uses a composite base plate. A3 show a steam iron with an internal tank, but does not mention domestic use and no base plate material. A4 investigates coatings baseplates for dry irons. Some but not all can be used in steam iron, see A4 [08]. The first test uses an Aluminium baseplate. A5 is a bit unclear but seems a professional steam iron; no baseplate material is shown.
Looking at the claims:
claim 1: general ironing device with aluminium plate
claim 2: steam iron with aluminium plate, focus on coating
claim 3: steam iron with aluminium plate, focusing on outlets and grooves
Claims 4-7: steam iron with internal tank
Remembering that A3 can only be used for claims 6 and 7, this sorts out the picture quite nicely which documents can potentially be closest prior art.
To further a bit on the above.
DeleteFor claims 1 both A2 and A4 seem close enough, having a low density plate. For claim 1, A4-1 happens to be novelty destroying (A2 is lightweight but does not show aluminium).
For claim 2, we need a steam iron. So, A4 is not close. This brings us to A2. The required coating can be found in A4-1, giving A2 + A4-1.
For claim 3, we again need a steam iron and the outlets and grooves are also in A2, making A2 again closest, giving A2+ A4-1
For claims 4 and 5 only A6 can be closest (being a domestic steam iron). This gives for claim 4 A6+A2 and for claim 5 A6+A2+A5.
For claims 6 and 7 also A3 (in addition to A6) can be closest. A3 happens to be novelty destroying for claim 6. A3 is also very close for claim 7, giving A3 + A6
I have used attack A2+A6 against claim 4 and claim 4+5. For me A2 seems to be the closest prior art. There was written in A6 that because of the internal tank, the iron is very uncomfortable, because it is needed to fill up the tank frequently, but I have argued, that A2 discloses a way to save water and because of this the downside of A6 is equalized. Now I understand that A6+A2 could be possible, too, based on the limiting tank of A6 and the water saving solution of A2. All other attacks are the same as I did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of them except claim 7. I used A6 as the closest prior art and combined it with A3 which resulted to changing soleplate similar to the previous attacks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the proposed attacks. I would add that for claim 2, the CPA is either embodiment of A2, whereas for claim 3 the CPA is specifically the second embodiment of A2. Further, in claims 4 and 5, it is the first embodiment of A2 that is the secondary document for inventive step.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with the comment above that A3 should be discussed in claim 3, as it teaches that it was known in the art that the low-pressure die casting process of claim 3 is a suitable alternative to the counterpressure die casting process of A2, second embodiment, to make the same product.
Thank you for your solutions.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you reduce the attacks on claims 2 and 3 on kerama? I thought an attack on kerasi might also be needed for these claims.
Claim 2 explicitly states "KeraMa" and claim 3 depends on claim 2.
DeleteI have the same trouble. And I think I understand why after checking the German and the English version. The German version of claim 2 has one particular article “the” less than the English version, which causes ambiguity here.
DeleteThe German version of Claim 2 can be read like the coating of the ironing device comprises a KeraMa layer as (a) Kera type layer in the claimed order of claim 2 and a KeraSi layer as the Kera type layer claimed in claim 1 in another position. Different to the English version of claim 2, the coating does not comprise a KeraMa layer being "the" Kera type layer of claim 1.
So, in the German version, claim 2 is not explicitly claiming "the" Kera type layer of claim 1.
In other words:
Bügelvorrichtung umfassend eine Aluminiumsohle, die auf ihrer Bügelseite mit einer (unbestimmter Artikel, nicht numerisch, siehe englische Fassung) Kera-artigen Schicht beschichtet ist, wobei die Kera-artige Schicht eine KeraSi-Schicht ist, und
wobei die Beschichtung auf der Bügelseite der Sohle, beginnend von der Sohle in dieser Reihenfolge, eine Yur56-Schicht und eine KeraMa-Schicht als [„eine/a“? or „die/the“?] Kera-artige Schicht umfasst.
Technically, it is possible that the sole contains two Kera type layers, one being a KeraMa layer in the claimed order of claim 2 and one being a KeraSi above or under the layer configuration claimed in claim 1.
This means, that an
"Ironing device comprising an aluminium soleplate coated on its ironing side with a Kera type layer, Kera type layer being a KeraSi layer, wherein the coating on the ironing side of the soleplate comprises, starting from the soleplate in this order, a Yur56 layer and a KeraMa layer as (a, but not the) Kera type layer"
falls under the scope of claim 2.
I look forward to reading what the tutors have to say.
If somebody could send us the German version of the paper, that would be appreciated.
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1IVQzyau2ciuHVii8CKPCm3FVlWbaXqEl
DeleteThank you for the German version, and indeed, the particular article is missing in claim 2. I admit that when reading the German version of claim 2, I would still consider the KeraMa layer as representing a limitation of the Kera type layer of claim 1 (also in view of claim 2 referring again to 'the' coating again), but it cannot be denied that the claim may also be interpreted as having a coating with two Kera type layers.
DeleteAs such, if one interprets the claim as such, this poses the problem of not only having to deal with the additional layer, but also the 'or' remaining in the claim and thus having to deal with the KeraSi variant as well.
Does this count for the French version also? At least it is my interpretation.
DeleteFrench claim 1:
Dispositiv de repassage comprenant une semelle en aluminium (1) revêtue sur sa face de repassage d'une couche de type Kera, la couche de type Kera étant une couche en KeraMa et/ou une couche en KeraSi.
French claim 2:
Dispositif de repassage selon la revendication 1, qui est un fer à vapeur dans lequel le revêtement sur la face de repassage de la semelle (1) comprend, à partir de la semelle (1) et dans l'ordre suivant, une couche en Yur56 et une couche en KeraMa comme couche de type Kera.
To my mind, there are also two Kera type layers for the sole claimed in claim 2, namely KeraMa in the order of claim 2 and KeraSi above or under the order of claim 2. Especially, because the coating comprises the layers of claim 2. It does not consist of the layers of claim 2. Also, the KeraMa layer in claim 2 is introduced with "_une_ couche en KeraMa comme couche de type Kera". So, it is "a" KeraMa layer, not "the" KeraMa layer.
After all, this leads me to the interpretation, that there have to be two Kera type layers.
So, I think, the German AND the French version differ from the English one.
Lucky ones, who began with the attacks on claim 4 and the followings and had no time for this problem! :-)
As a resitter, yes I started with claims 4 to 7. Nonetheless French is my mother tongue and in the French version it was clear to me that claims 2 and 3 are limited to Kerama as the kera type layer.
DeleteHello, I agree, that the claim should be interpreted as having a coating with two Kera type layers. But I also had another thought: Why exclude KeraSi(claim1)+KeraMa(claim2), even for one layer, as it was possible in claim 1. The combination of KeraSi+KeraMa was only to be attacked by Art. 123 II EPC, so it was an inadmissible extension, but sufficient to enable the skilled person to carry out the "invention KeraMa AND KeraSi" over the whole of the broad field claimed. Elsewise, it wouldn't have been granted for claim. To my mind, this is a pointer, that KeraSi+KeraMa for claim 1+2 or 1+2+3 is not excluded. They only contain Yur56 and a special order between KeraMa and Yur56.
DeleteFurther, I think that ignoring KeraSi+KeraMa of claim1+2 happens using your glasses of daily practice. I think you need Art. 100 b) EPC, if don't want to allow the combination of KeraSi+KeraMa, although it seems practicable to me with respect to the granted claim 1. According to the IPREE, Art. 100 b) is not to be used in the EQE. So our task was not ask if the combination of KeraMa+KeraSi is insufficient to enable the skilled person to carry out the invention over the whole of the broad field claimed in claim 1 and 2, but to attack any possible combination of the granted patent.
Please have in mind that this is the EQE, which means: We should go on every attack that is possible. If there is an "or"-configuration in a claim, in daily practice it is enough to attack one combination (T1868/07). In the EQE you always need to attack every possible combination, if there is a "or"-configuration (every Examiners' Report). A lack of practicability is a matter of Art. 100 b), so to be ignored. Conclusion: To my mind, the attack as it is written in the sample solution from DeltaPatents does not revoke the patent as whole, and as marked by a cross in the form 2300. The claims 1+2[KeraSi] and 1+2+3[KeraSi] would persist.
I am a bit confused about this reasoning.
DeleteYes, in the C exam you normally kill-off every claimed embodiment. So, an 'OR' claim needs at least two attacks.
In the exam almost all claims are formulated in a 'comprising' way. You can thus kill it off with something that has the same scope or is more narrow (e.g. has more features). Since there can be many further limitations of such a claim you only need to kill-off the boadest and may ignore any possible restriction the proprietor may do.
In my view claim 2 in the broadest form has an aluminium plate coated by a KeraMa and Yur56 layer. Killing that off is sufficient. So, no need to discuss KeraSi.
Claim 1: KeraSi is not compatible with steam. But claim 1 does not refer to steam, it referes to ironing device
ReplyDeleteSo, novelty based on A4 ok
DeleteThis is pretty much exactly what I had except for claim 3, where I also referred to A3 as evidence of common general knowledge in the inventive step argument, rather than arguing "process not shown, but same product" but am not sure that's necessary now.
ReplyDeleteHello,
DeleteI agree that A3 was explicit about the general knowledge.
However, Dir F-IV-4.12 is explicit about the words "obtainable by". As long as all the technical features of the product are known, the claim cannot be either novel or inventive only because of the process steps.
I agree with the proposed solution in which, the general knowledge of A3 must not be used and claim 3 is supposed to be attacked by interpreting the process steps as non limiting features.
Any other opinion ?
I also did all the attacks as you posted, except claim 5. I could not find a reasonable argumentation as to why A6 is CPA for claim 5, there was not the slightest hint about delicate fabrics, which was mentioned in A2. It puzzled me a lot, because I also could not deduce a decent inventive attack starting form A2. So I decided to leave this claim for the end and it appears I made the right choice not to spent too much time on it.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I found the paper comprehensable. And I did something a little daring. While I was studying, I was reading the prior art docs very carefully from the beginning. That seemed to make me overwhelmed with information which I could not "store" in my memory properly. Yesterday, for the first time (hence daring) it felt more natural to quickly scan first each prior art doc and then, having a general idea of what to expect, read it more carefully. It was much better that way.
I wish to everyone all the best with their results!
Natasha
"I could not find a reasonable argumentation as to why A6 is CPA for claim 5"
DeleteThe way I viewed it, A5 was the document relating to the same purpose as claim 5, so at first glance seems to be closest prior art. However, A5 was a different type of device and needed too much structural modification, so I then defaulted back to the same closest prior art as claim 4 (A6), because claim 5 was dependent on claim 4. Also, I thought A6 was a better starting point than A2 because A6 relates to a steam iron comprising an internal water tank (like claim 5), whereas A2 had an external water tank and would again require too much structural modification to be a good starting point.
Forgot to mention as well that the internal vs external water tank point was important, because A1 disclosed that the steam iron with internal water tank was designed for domestic use (also mentioned in A6), whereas A2 with external water tank was said to be more suitable for professional use, i.e. a different purpose. The purpose of A6 more closely aligned with A1, so more suitable as closest prior art than A2.
DeleteI used A6+A2 for claim 7, with A6 as closest prior art, because purpose of claim 7 was to enable easier filling of the water tank (same as A6). Then combined with A2 for missing features of density of steam outlets, because A2 disclosed this solving same technical problem as A1, whereas A3 disclosed density of steam outlets solving a different problem.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I think I used same attacks as Jelle and Joeri.
Can anybody of you explain how are you able to get to a solution with both KeraSi and Aluminium? KeraSi is disclosed only in A4 and only in combination with that other special alloy.
ReplyDeleteI basically argued that swapping the special alloy for aluminium would be obvious because it's a well known equivalent and it was just a new use (the combo of KerSi and Alu) of a well-known material employing the known properties of that material (light-weight). Not sure if that's sufficient?
DeleteI started from the first embodiment in A4 - KeraMa + aluminium soleplate - as closest prior art. The only difference then is the use of KeraSi instead of KeraMa.
DeleteA1 did not describe any special technical effect for KeraSi, so its technical effect is merely the same as any Kera-type coating (including KeraMa, KeraSi and KeraTix), which is to improve gliding.
A4 shows that the gliding properties of KeraSi are as good/almost as good as KeraMa, so it would be obvious to use KeraSi as an alternative to KeraMa. Therefore, using KeraSi instead of KeraMa with the aluminium soleplate is obvious.
That's how I argued it, anyway!
Yes but the person skilled in the art knows the existence of KeraSi from the 2nd embodiment of A4 only. And that same paragraph states that the other special alloy is essential. How and whete can the person skilled in the art read that Aluminium and that alloy are alternatives? The only place where he gets the information of the possibility of using KeraSi tells him at the same time "dont change the alloy, man"!
Delete"In a second test series we tested a similar prototype ironing device with a
baseplate made of Medur alloy. This alloy provides an outstanding compromise between
strength, ease of shaping and cost. Starting from this ESSENTIAL element of the ironing
device, we applied Yur74..."
If that ESSENTIAL element of the ironing device refers to the baseplate? It's written in a strange way, though.
DeleteHello Jelle,
ReplyDeleteFor claim 7 I firstly wrote down the A3+A6, but during the last step of my argument, why the skilled person wouldn't have any difficulty to put an opening at the back of the iron I did not know the answer, because A6 doesn't teach that it's easy to implement its teaching in other irons.
Then I remembered the teaching of A3 para 0011, that the features of... have been developed for steam irons with internal water tanks and that the structures on the ironing side can be readily adapted to any ironing devices.
Therefore, I also wrote down an A6+A3 attack for Claim 7.
I believe it's possible to argue that A6 is also a promising starting point because of the opening for the water tank at the back of the iron, meaning that A6 serves the same purpose as Claim 7. Then of course the skilled person would read A3. A3 and A6 are, in my humble opinion, very close to each other in view of Claim 7, if you understand what I mean. A3 has all missing features and also a teaching of their general applicability.
Somehow, I felt the puzzle A6+A3 falls nicer together than A3+A6.
Best wishes,
Oleg
If starting from A6, the different features are (1) outlets distribution as set forth in claim 4, and (2) back region at least 4 cm as set forth in claim 6.
DeleteEffect of (1): prevent waste of steam (A1 [11])
Effect of (2): speed up the ironing process (A1 [17])
A3 discloses feature (1) having effect: steam is dispensed where it is really needed (A3 [03])---> not matching A1
A3 discloses feature (2) in the Fig. and no effect is mentioned.
So I would feel difficult to continue the problem-solution approach.
Or did I miss something?
Fj
Hi Fj,
DeleteGood point. One could argue, however, that the skilled person would go for A3, because dispensing the steam, where it is needed, would reduce the waste of steam. Therefore, the skilled person would change the distribution of the outlets as in A3 and solve the problem i)
Then the thing is that as soon as the skilled person takes the distribution of the outlets from A3 s/he will inevitably arrive at the feature (2) - so-called "one-way street" situation. The technical effect of (2) is then just a bonus effect, which the skilled person would get anyway, and which does not confer inventiveness (GL-VII, 10.2)
But maybe this way of thinking was not expected. I cannot know :-)
Best
Hi Oleg,
DeleteThanks. Good argument. However, after reading A3 again, I am not so sure whether the feature (2) disclosed in A3 is inevitable. A3 [10] says that “there are no steam nozzles in the region beyond the ribs 33“ and that “ribs with a length of 3 cm may be sufficient depending on their number, position and orientation.” So it would provide the skilled person a number of choices of the arrangement of ribs, resulting a various lengths of the back region not necessarily falling in the claimed range.
As it appears that the views about the attack on claim 7 are divided, I’m interested in knowing what the tutors would say about this claim in more detail.
Cheers,
Fj
Hi Fj,
DeleteI meant that this inevitably comes from the scale drawing (Para 008). There you count the centimeters and see that the region without the nozzles is 6cm if the ribs are 5cm long. Therefore, it seems that the skilled person will have a region without the nozzles, which satisfies the condition "at least 5 cm" in any case
I.e. I went with two inventive step attacks on Claim 7. I'm wondering how this will be marked :-)
ReplyDeleteI repeat here my assessment from the other C-blog hoping to get a clarifying reply:
ReplyDeleteFirst attack: A4 against claim 1 KeraMa (=Novelty attack, A4 discloses the entire "KeraMa" embodiment of claim 1 ).
Second attack: your (=Delta) version: A2 + A4 against claim 2.
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...
A4 was not only "a study about coatings". The said study was described in conjunction with ironing devices and the specific problems and effects associated with ironing devices and described in the opposed patent A1 as well.
Whereas A2 deals indeed with a steam ironing device but only in the context that a similar KeraTix coating 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.
I understood that when one makes an IS attack he must detail a) difference b) effects c) problem solved by the said effects.
In this respect is more logic to start from A4 (actually continue with A4).
I actually combined A4 with general technical knowledge stated in A6:
"[0001]Use of steam has been a major improvement in ironing devices. Dry irons are of simple design but are not very efficient."
And then I combined A4+A2 to arrive at sm of claim 3.
Does this make sense?
Thanks for an answer.
I believe the simple word "steam" renders the device completely different. A6 para 001, 3rd sentence explains for example that the steam ironing devices are very different.
DeleteAs far as I understand GL G-VII, 5.1, 1st paragraph you should look for a) same technical field, b) similar purpose/use and c) minimal technical and functional modifications.
Because of c) A2, I believe, is closer than A4.
As Oleg already points out, "steam" may just be a small word but it's a big change to the product and relates to the core function of the ironing device. Starting from A4, you need to add a steam source, openings and means to supply the steam to the openings. A2 is much closer to claim 2, both structurally and functionally.
DeleteSo, Joeri, you think starting from A4 will bring me no points at all ?
DeleteI can't answer questions about points that will be awarded. Our solution and arguments may not always be the same as the exam committee's. Also, the exam committee often stresses that marks can be awarded for 'plausible' alternative approaches, although it's not clear how often that actually happens and how plausible the alternative must be.
Deleteit sounds "vernünftig", the marks awards at this exam is like the Oscars, one never knows who wins, all movies are nice..
DeleteBut I understand from you that my combination A4+A2 also in view of general technical knowledge stated in A6 [001] is not plausible at all, right ? Damn, I lost lots of points.
Statements inside [[...]] are lifted from the EPO GL.
Delete[[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!
Unfortunately I think you are wrong.
DeleteThe section in the Guidelines on the closest prior art is just a collection of separate T-decisions, but give no good general process.
It is recommended to always start with looking at the technical field as expressed by the claim in question. If this gives several good candidates, it is good to go deeper into the purpose. If still not decisive, look at similiarity in construction.
Only using purpose and totally ignoring the field does not work. For example, if the purpose of the claim is to be lightweight you can still not select a closest prior art: what do you want to make - a lightweigth car, a tennisracket, .... So, even then you need both the purpose and the field.
Furthermore, as also discussed by the caselaw it is not easy for a skilled person to change field and this being seen as obvious. A bit of a rule is that if you start with type A and improve that, you end up with an improved type A. Starting from B gives an improved B. If you improve a steam iron you get an improved steam iron. If you start froma dry iron you get an improved dry iron. Using this principle, since claim 2 wants a steam iron you need to start with a steam iron. Such a principle makes a lot of sense. A steam iron is not just different from a dry iron in the word 'steam', but this implies a lot of technical features, such as a water supply, a steam production unit, steam outlets, electronics and a user interface to control all of this.
The purpose of claim 2, depending on claim 1: A1 [03] indicates a general purpose to provide an ironing devices which makes ironing easier and more efficient. [04] adds that gliding properties are important. [05] adds that using aluminium allows to make a lightweight device.
We use the problem solution approach when the closest prior art misses something and we can define a relevant technical problem for this closest prior art.
Starting from A2: A2 already has a lightweight plate but shows no particular material. It does also does not show the particular two-layer coating, which according to A1 [06] provide good gliding by avoiding damage and good sticking to the aluminium plate. So, the steam iron of A2 has a problem with its plate. A4-1 in a neighbouring field of dry irons solves this problem with a baseplate of aluminium (lightweight, A4 [04]), using a KeraMa outer coating (good gliding, avoids damage A4 [02]) and a Yur56 intermediate layer (good adhesion, A4 [05]). This baseplate solves the problem of the steam iron of A2: so the skilled person can replace the baseplate.
Starting from A4: effectively you would keep the baseplate of A4 and replace the rest of the iron. So, we do not really modify the dry iron of A4 but use its plate. However, the baseplate of A4 does not have an objective technical problem such that it would want to end up in a steam iron. If you want to develop a steam iron, you should start with a steam iron.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Thank you both Jelle and Anonimus for your answers.
DeleteI still see one objection in Jelle's opinion: there is nowhere in the paper except A6 a comparison amonng a dry iron and a steam iron. They are both irons and they both serve the same purpose. We learn from A6 [and only from A6], that the steam iron is somehow better, in the sense that one who affords should buy a steam iron instead of a dry iron. But basically the whole paper does not point away from replacing a dry iron with a steam iron because the steam iron would have so many more features. I even used this common general knowledge combined with A4 in order to "kill" claim 2. I used A4+A2 further to arrive at the subject matter of claim 3. I hope my arguments will bring me some points, I don't really think A2 + A4 would have been much more straightforward.
Cheers,
Dear John, I do not really know how the committee could have described it better than in A6 [01] "Dry irons are of a simple design but are not very efficient. Steam irons are of a different and much more sophisticated design. Additional functions ... necessarily result in an antirely new type of iron".
DeleteThe only reasonable interpretation is that dry irons and steam irons are very different. Whether you like it or not: you have to start with one that is close to what you want to have.
Another issue: A3 discloses the ribs 33. The space between this ribs creates a sort of grooves, right? Aren't these spaces equivalents to the grooves of the A1? I made a last attack A4+A3 for claims 2 and 3 in the last minutes. I argued that the structures of the baseplates of A3 when used with an iron that has NOT an internal tank could actually be A.54(2) based on 0011 in A3:
ReplyDelete"[0011] The features of the baseplate of the present invention have been developed for steam irons with internal water containers. However, as stated in the Handbook of Domestic Science of 2001, structures on the ironing side of a baseplate as well as the distribution of steam nozzles can be readily adapted to other types of ironing devices."
A3 is only prior art for claims 6 and 7.
Deletewell, that was a "panic" attacks, I hope they will not give me negative marks for that, I thought [0011] means still "disclosed in 2001" for some irons..
DeleteI attacked the novelty of claim 6 via A3 as suggested by Delta.
ReplyDeleteHowever, during the last two days it came to my mind that claim 6 should have two relevant dates:
- the priority date of A1 for the features of claim 4, which are incorporated in claim 6 by back reference to claim 4, and
- the filing date of A1 for the features as additionally defined in claim 6.
A3 cannot be prior art against the features of claim 4, so a novelty attack against claim 6 based on A3 seems impossible to me now, leading to the conclusion that the only possible attack on claim 6 is an inventive step attack based on A6 as CPA combined with A2 (as for claim 4) and A3 to address the partial problem derived from the additional features of claim 6.
Thoughts, anyone? Having read all the comments on paper C I feel more confused than ever.
Claim 6 has a later effective date than claim 4 and A3 is prior art for claim 6 under A54(2).
DeleteYou did it right. No alternatives (either explicit or coming from a partial priority splitting within the meaning of G1/15) means no several effective filing dates. Full stop.
ReplyDeleteThats good to hear - thanks a lot.
DeleteFor me it's clear that A4[0005] discloses the combination of any Kera (so KeraSi) with the listed Yur*, so Yur56.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't see why you need Inventive step and not Novelty for claim1/KeraSi.
You must be too intelligent for me.
With Error correction to preceeding
ReplyDeleteFor me it's clear that A4[0005] discloses the combination of aluminium with any of the listed Yur* except Yur74, so Yur56.
So I don't see why you need Inventive step and not Novelty for claim1/KeraSi.
You must be too intelligent for me.
A4 discloses two embodiments. In the first embodiment, with the Al soleplate, KeraSi is not disclosed. Only Kera type in general and two other species (Tix and Ma). Therefore, novelty doesn't work and the second embodiment, with the Medur soleplate, is needed for the KeraSi.
DeleteAlso, selecting a coating from a first list and an intermediate coating from a second list is novel when the selected combination is not specifically suggested. So, even if KeraSi had been listed in [0004], that would not have been enough.
In real life, the following A[0005] extract discloses ALL kera type species.
DeleteWhy should it be different in this paper? Isn't it MADNESS???
"...These versatile intermediate coatings are compatible with aluminium, most ceramic coatings, in particular the Kera type coatings, ..."
Disclosure of genus does not take away novelty of the species.
DeleteE.g.
prior art disclosure of metal does not take away novelty of copper, or
prior art disclosure of Kera type coating does not take away novelty of KeraSi
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't even see how you guys can attack claim 1 KeraSi even with inventive step. If one starts from 1st experiment, why would the skilled person try witv KeraSi if in view of the 2nd experiment provides worse results. Further, if starting from the 1st experiment, the 2nd one can be read as if KeraSi needed the particular alloy Medur (speaking against compatibility with other metallic soleplates like Aluminiun). Starting from the 2nd experiment directly discarded as Medur is cited as essential.
ReplyDeleteI struggled with this attack, but if I remember right, I started from A4 2nd test, and wrote an IS attack A4+A2. The distinguishing feature was Aluminium. Effect was given: lightweight. A2, 3: low density metal-->main body thin and light. Then, A4,4: aluminium, low density metal.
DeleteI understood from A4,7 that the "essential element" refers to the baseplate in general, not to the material of the baseplate.
Well, this was one of the last attacks I wrote and I was already in a hurry, so maybe not the strongest attack, but that's how I figured it out in the exam.
I also got stuck in this attack and hastily decided to start with A4 2nd test.
DeleteThe memory has been fading out, but I guess I had the attack like this:
I interpreted that "essential element" in A4[7] means that the alloy is essential for Yur74, because according to A4[5] Yur74 does not adhere to aluminium. Problem to be solved was formulated as how to provide a lighter iron. Then I took the teaching of A4[4] to swap the whole alloy+Yur74 with aluminium, resulting KeraSi applied direct on aluminium. A4[4] states "the coatings were applied to the baseplate" without mentioning intermediate coatings, and A4[5] states that intermediate coating is to "promote" adhesion ---> intermediate coating is not essential.
Didn't have time to do the proper reasoning, dunno whether this approach would attract at least a few points...
Staring from A4 1st test seems easier - you just swap the KeraMa to KeraSi. But as Pablo said, 2nd test shows worse results, why would the skilled person be motivated to swap?
Looking forwards to more opinions. :)
Fj
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow many marks will be lost if the US document was taken into account as 54(3) document?
ReplyDeleteFor sure you will not get any point for an attack based on this document.
DeleteYou will loose some points in the general part. This part is usually awarded between 10 and 15 pts.
Impossible to tell you how many points precisely.
Regarding claim 1 (KeraMa option).
ReplyDeleteI struggled to find an explicit disclosure in A4 for "aluminium soleplate coated on its ironing side with a Kera type layer, the Kera type layer being KeraMa", because A4 first test comprises an intermediate coating chosen among Yur52, Yur54, Yur56 and Yur58, which explicitly discloses the intermediate coating as being coated on the ironing side, not the Kera type layer.
Since A4 describes the intermediate layer as being added to 'promote' adhesion [5], I argued implicit disclosure for an embodiment where the intermediate layer is not added. How did you argue it?
This plate has two sides. The two coatings are both on the ironing side of the plate. The claims and description do not state that the KeraMa coating is directly onto the plate. In fact it is clear that there can be an intermediate Yur coating for adhesion. A4 has the same coating structure (materials and sequence Al-Yu-KeraMa) as A1 and thus kills that off.
Delete