Our attempt at e-EQE Paper C 2023 - Road racing pedal
Here's our attempt at this year's paper C. This year's paper concerned pedals for bicycles comprising sensors to help cyclist to optimize their pedaling.
A good chunk of the paper was quite mechanical requiting candidates to argue about the components of chain drives, but on the other hand a quite complicated ranges puzzles was also presented. The first part was clearly more work than the second part.
You can find our solution by clicking on "Read more" below.
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 15-03-2023 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname 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.
Joeri, Jelle, Nico, Sander
For the effective dates, the client explains that the priority document was filed by two applicants, but that A1 was filed by only one of them. There was no transfer of the priority right. That is not allowed, see the guidelines A-III, 6.1, so the priority claim is invalid. This means that no claims get the priority right.
For the list of evidence, we have three easy documents, A3, A4 and A7 were published before the filing date. A discussion of documents A2 and A5 would be needed. A2 has a publication date well after the A1 filing date, but we can use A2 as evidence of disclosures made during Eurobike 2017. Clearly the posters were disclosed, but judging by the comments in para 3 of A2, apparently the working of the pedal is discussed as well. We'll use A2[2] as 54(2) but will offer additional evidence. A5 is an internet disclosure made before the effective date. We know A5 was public as someone commented on this on the same day.
Claim 1 is not novel in light of document of A4. One feature that required some care was 'a sensor for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke'. A4 discloses strain gauges. From A3[5] we know that these are thin metal film sensors, and so they are sensors. From A5[3] or A7[9] we know that they are for power measurement. Power measurement can be used to detect dead spots, since these are the points with minimum power, A1[4].
Claim 1 is also not novel in light of A5. Also A5 uses strain gauges, so the same argument as above is needed.
The novelty attacks do not extend to claim 2, so we need to go to inventive step. For the closest prior art, it seems that only A4 is a reasonable starting point. Note that A5 is not the closest prior art since it uses a pedal axel that does not rotate in the pedal. Starting from A5, it seems impossible to reach the claim.
Having selected A4 as the closest prior art, we need to decide on the distinguishing features. This gave some discussion. How much of the feature 'the road racing pedal further comprising a pedal controller (109) for actuating the spindle drive' is disclosed in A4? A 'pedal controller' is mentioned in A4, but it is not the right pedal controller as it is not for actuating a spindle drive. Another sticking point is that A4 mentions a lot of optional features: strain gauges, a cadence sensor, a GPS sensor, a pedal controller, a wireless signal transmitter, a receiver. Are we allowed to select from this list just the strain gauges and the pedal controller? If one decides not the take the pedal controller from A4 it might cause problems later with A2, which will put the controller on the crank not on the pedal. To get the best attack, we have opted to argue that A4 discloses the sensor (so that we can use our novelty attack) and a pedal controller (so we avoid arguing its location).
The skilled person will then remember what he learned at Eurobike 2017, and find the configuration of magnets. This must have been disclosed then, because the poster shows a magnet configuration with 6 permanent and 6 electromagnets. Six magnets falls in the claimed range.
A2 is compatible because A4 already discloses a stator/rotor system, although used for a different purpose, clearly A4 has room for these magnets. Although A2 teaches putting the pedal controller on the crank, as A4 already has a pedal controller he would adapt the existing controller instead. Moreover, A2 is not suitable for road racing, so using the existing pedal controller would probably better.
As an alternative attack, one could opt not to take the strain gauge from A4, in that case one has to argue that the magnets are suitable for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke, which one could do from A2. One could also opt not to take the pedal controller from A4, and in that case an additional argument is needed why the pedal controller might be moved to the pedal.
For claim 3 we will extend our inventive step attack on claim 2. A2 already discloses receiving of pedal angle information at a bicycle computer, but it uses a proprietary algorithm for computing dead spots. In other words, Eurobike 2017 will not enable this for the skilled person. So we need to get another bicycle computer that does this. A3 and A7 both have computers, but A3 seems the easier option as it discloses the displaying of dead spots. Everything is compatible since A2, A3, and A4 all use BOT technology.
As an alternative, one could argue that 'showing the position of said dead spots on a display of said computer' cannot contribute to the inventiveness because it is merely an alternative way of presenting information. Here one argues that dead spots are already communicated to the user in A2 through resistance in the cycling, merely providing another way to receive the same information cannot be inventive. Some users may prefer a foot interface as in A2 or they may prefer a visual interface as in claim 3, but such a matter of preference cannot make the claim inventive. As the paper provides the means to do an attack without this argument (and because claim 7 will also use presentation of information, though one cannot know this now) a conventional partial problems attack was probably expected.
Claim 4 lacks novelty over A7. One feature that requires some care is the chain drive. However, A7 discloses front chainrings and rear sprockets connected by a roller chain, which is defined in A1[2] as a chain drive.
Claim 5 lacks inventive step over A7+A6. Starting from A7, the skilled person needs to find a stiff, light material that resists impacts. A6, page 2, left column, second para, tells him that CFRP has all these properties. Moreover, taking nanotube-reinforced epoxy resins will make it only tougher. The fibers and resin form a matrix A1[25]. For the number of filaments per tow, A6 has the range 7K to 9K for non-frame parts such as pedals. 7K falls in the claimed range. Although 7k-9K is less stiff, this has to be seen relative to the even stiffer frame range. According to the previous section any CFRP is still stiffer than conventional materials. For the elastic modulus, we will also take the preferred range 350 GPa-500 GPa, both endpoints fall in the claimed range. Combining these ranges like this is allowed, since we took either preferred embodiments, or we've taken the specified range for that component.
Claim 6 has added subject matter. Claim 6 was introduced during examination and claims ceramic ball bearings without the ceramic races. But the latter are essential, so we are isolating features that are functionally or structurally related. This is an intermediate generalization. Guidelines H-V, 3.2.1
Claim 7 is not inventive over A3. Annex 3 is the closest prior art, there is no combining document.
Claim 7 is an independent claim. Claim 4 is not included by reference. The only requirement is that the bicycle computer of claim 7 is suitable for the system of claim 4. For that the only thing we need is that the bicycle computer of A3 can communicate with a sensor. A3[5] and [6] discloses that angle measuring sensors, and power meters send information through a controller to the bicycle computer. So they are in communication. A3[7] discloses the display features except it uses an arrow instead of a heart icon and angry emoticon. This change in the presentation of information does not contribute to the technical solution of a technical system, and so it cannot make the system inventive, G-II, 3.7
An alternative approach would be to say that such non-technical elements do not even contribute to novelty (as was done in Paper C 2008, in which non-technical features were disregarded when assessing novelty, citing T553/02), but at least since G3/08, mixed claims are commonly handled in the Comvik approach.
In summary:
Claim 1: Novelty A4, Novelty A5
Claim 2: Inventive step A4+A2
Claim 3: Inventive step A4+A2+A3
Claim 4: Novelty A7
Claim 5: Inventive step A7+A6
Claim 6: Added subject matter
Claim 7: Inventive step A3
(c) DeltaPatents
Annex - the claims
C1-1:
1. A road racing pedal comprising a pedal body (101) with a pedal cavity (102), a pedal
spindle (103) for attaching the pedal body (101) to a bicycle crank arm (105) and a
sensor for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke.
2. A road racing pedal according to claim 1, wherein the pedal spindle (103) is placed
within the pedal cavity (102) and the sensor comprises a pedal spindle drive (106),
with at least four electromagnets (108) placed on the pedal spindle (103) and at least
four permanent magnets (107) placed on the pedal body (101) within the pedal cavity
(102) and facing the electromagnets (108), the road racing pedal further comprising a
pedal controller (109) for actuating the spindle drive (106).
3. A pedal system comprising a road racing pedal according to claim 2 and further
comprising a bicycle computer (110) adapted to receive pedal angle information and
to identify instantaneous dead spots in the pedal stroke and further showing the
position of said dead spots on a display of said computer.
C1-2:
4. A bicycle with a pedalling efficiency improving system comprising a chain drive,
clipless pedals, a sensor, and a bicycle computer (110) in communication with said
sensor.
5. The bicycle of claim 4, wherein the clipless pedals comprise a pedal body (101) made
of carbon fibre reinforced plastic with a carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy matrix and
with carbon fibre tows of 6 000 to 8 000 strands, with each tow having a tensile elastic
modulus of between 350 GPa and 600 GPa.
6. The bicycle of claim 4, wherein the clipless pedals further comprise ceramic ball
bearings (104).
7. A bicycle computer (110) for the pedalling efficiency improving system of claim 4, the
bicycle computer (110) displaying a heart icon on the computer display when the
pedalling efficiency of the pedalling efficiency improving system surpasses 80% and
displaying an angry emoticon when the pedalling efficiency is below 80%.
Thank you very much for the suggestion. Useful as always. Can I ask where you find the strain gauges in a4 as I can only see it in [0008] and there it only said that there is space for them in the cavity
ReplyDeleteQuestion on A4 and strain gauges. The exact sentence from 0008 of A4 is ''The interior cavity 480 is provided around the pedal axle to provide enough space
ReplyDeletefor the provision of strain gauges on the pedal axle''
This can be read as the cavity is suitable for the strain gauge. Is it actually clear that a strain gauge is there?
It's borderline perhaps, but at least the strain gauge is disclosed as an optional feature. Which is enough. I'm getting more antsy for claim 2, when we also get the pedal controller in. You can do some footwork to avoid making these two choices. But I guess that is not the intention.
DeleteI don't think the pedal of A4 is equipped with any sensors because it is a "retrofit ready pedal" - see A4:title. This is also consistent with paragraphs [0004], [0005] & [0008]. BTW, a strain gauge is indeed disclosed in A5, but so is "pedal angle measurement sensor (506)" - see A5:[0004]. The latter is what I used.
Delete"This means that all claims get the priority right." I think you mean to say, none of the claims get the priority right.
ReplyDeleteFor the rest I agree with all your attacks, except I didn't had the novelty attack against claim 1 using A4. I had to rush a bit during part 1, so didn't identify the strain gauge as sensors for detecting dead points. I only had lack of novelty of claim 1 using A5.
right. I've corrected it. Thank
DeleteWhat do you think on the computer of claim 7 not being merely suitable for but specially adapted to (thus limiting)?
ReplyDeleteIt was my understanding from the guidelines that computers that are ''for'' working with particular processes / systems are to be considered specially adapted to them, otherwise any computer would anticipate the claims.
That having been said, I think the attack was the same regardless of the above, i may have just missed marks from pointing that out.
I also did the attack combining A3 + A7, which was not needed apparently.
I think the A3 computer is adapted to work with the system of claim 4. The chain stuff doesn't impact the computer software.
DeleteDear Sander, why not IS attack for claim 7 based on A7 and non technical features (GL G-II-3.7)?
DeleteStill really unsure how A4 can be seen as disclosing a sensor???
ReplyDeletesame here, there is space for a sensor but no sensor. if space for a sensor dislocses the sensor, then it would also disclose anything else that fits there, like any noble gas, but a4 clearly does not disclose helium in the cavity
DeleteJust doesn't make sense about the sensor of A4. I don't see how it can be novelty destroying for claim 1.
DeleteThere was space for an explicitly mentioned sensor of a specific type. Other documents tell you that that specific type of sensor is suitable for detecting dead spots. This forms an enabling disclosure of an embodiment falling in the scope of claim 1. The skilled person has all the necessary information for making it. It is not relevant if the embodiment has actually been built or drawn.
DeleteYour noble gas example is different. A4 doesn't mention there can be a noble gas in the cavity.
thank you for explaining
DeleteJust because there was space for something, in this case a sensor, does it necessarily follow that it is present in the disclosed embodiment? The title of A4 suggests that no sensors come with the pedal - see definition of "retrofit". The idea behind A4 is that the sensor doesn't come with the pedal because it is fitted afterwards, no?
DeleteThe sensor is not ENclosed. But it is DISclosed.
DeleteA4 describes more than a pedal with a large enough cavity. It describes that you can provide strain gauges on the pedal axle, and inside that cavity.
Maybe it helps to look at it as an optional feature. It doesn't have to be there. In the pedal they sell, it won't be there. But it is known to be possible to do have it there.
@Joeri Beetz: the fact that additional information from other annexes is required, isn't this an indication of ambiguous disclosure in A4? So rather than a novelty attack, doesn't this become an IS attack instead?
DeleteThis does make it a difficult to discover attack. You only find it when you feel/know it must be there. But you don't need features from other documents. You only need evidence that strain gauges are suitable for detecting dead spots. If they are, A4 discloses a pedal with a sensor for detecting dead spots.
DeleteFor me personally, that suitability was what caused me the most problems in this exam. But I finally decided that this was the only way yo use A7 in Part 1. In addition thereto, also A1, A3, and A5 taught me that power measurements can be used for dead spot detection and also A3 and A5 taught me that strain gauges are used for power measurements.
Additional information from other documents in a novelty attack is a common theme in Paper C. Often even from documents that are not even admissible as prior art.
@Joeri Beetz: thank you for your comment :-)
Delete@Joeri: not sure I agree with the statement that "A4 discloses a pedal with a sensor for detecting dead spots. ". At best A4 discloses a pedal with a cavity for a sensor IMO. But let's agree to disagree ;-).
DeleteYeah, it seems A4 novelty argument in relation to claim 1 is a stretch. Inventive step, maybe. But where the heck is the time? Two inventive steps for claims 2 and 3 and on top of it, another one for claim 1. That would make little sense for marking purposes.
DeleteIs this sentence from your answer an error 'This means that all claims get the priority right'?
ReplyDeleteHi, can you check the last sentence of the first paragraph. Due to the priority being invalid, all claims get the application day as effective date. Correct?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that was a typo, sorry. I've updated it.
Delete"Note that A5 is not the closest prior art since it uses a pedal axel that does not rotate in the pedal."
ReplyDeleteWhere does the sensor from A2 specify that it does not work with a pedal axel that does not rotate in the pedal. Can't find it and without specification in A2 this is a violation of R. 22(3) IPREE.
What di you mean by: so the priority claim is invalid. This means that all claims get the priority right.
ReplyDeleteAll claims get the filing date
Claim 4, the computer communicates with the sensor - this was the other way round in A7, only in A3 it explicitly mentioned bidirectional communication - thus I did an inventive step attack.
ReplyDeletei missed that detail, but maybe communication includes both ways, so the listener is also in communication, maybe not communicating, but in communication
DeleteI thought so as well until I saw this bidirectional explicitly mentioned
DeleteGeneral comment; how would you rank this paper C compared to papers of previous years?
ReplyDeleteThis paper C (also paper B to a much greater extent) seem to suffer from a lot of unclarities.
It's difficult to rank papers of different years. Pass rates depend on the difficulty of the questions and the marking of the answers. Very difficult questions can be marked leniently and easy questions very strictly. If the answers are properly benchmarked (using the benchmarkers and the usual pre-marking phase wherein they correct a subset of the papers to agree on a common marking scheme), every year is equally difficult for the average candidate.
DeleteThat said, I personally think that Part 1 was quite a lot of work and had some difficult interpretation problems. Part 2 was less work and on the easier side. The main challenge in Part 1 may have been to find and perform all correct attacks. The main challenge in part 2 may have been to score as many marks as possible for those easier to find attacks.
Assuming both parts give 50 marks (not a rule), an average candidate, just good enough to pass the exam, may have been able to score, e.g., 22 in Part 1 and 28 in Part 2. Getting those 22 is just as difficult as getting the 28.
when already attacking the "inventive step" of claim 7, why not use a3 and a7 just to make sure claim 7 is clearly dead in every way the claim can possibly be understood. i mean its still basically the same attack but without any risk
ReplyDeleteBecause you do not need A7 at all. Using it just weakens the attack because 1. it displays that you are uncertain regarding what A3 discloses and 2. using two documents requires more effort, as you have to reason why the skilled person would read and combine the second document. This step is not needed when using a single embodiment from a single document.
Deletei just wasn't sure about the features of claim 4 being part of claim 7 or not. thus, i figured it was the safer way to attack from a7 and then using a3, feels like pretty much the same IS attack just starting from the equipment being clearly included
DeleteDo you think marks will be given for alternative attacks to claim 1 compared to yours? I.e. IS attack using A4 + A2 or A4 + A3? I personally could not justify A4 discloses a sensor.
ReplyDeleteI also did A4+A2 for claim 1, which is technically correct as this is the correct attack for the dependent claim 2. But I believe they may not give full marks.
DeleteI also did IS based on A4+ A3 for claim 1, as A3 discloses the sensor..and IS based on A4+ A3 + A2 for claim 2...
DeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteFor claim 7, I believe it is a mixed type invention as it has technical features (a bicycle computer for..." and non-technical features, as you mentioned.
So I used the COMVIK on a lack of IS as the only distinguishing feature is non-technical.
Is this reasoning correct? It seems you used COMVIK for a novelty attack.
Looks right to me, although I am a bit iffy with the lack of novelty of claim 1 with respect to A4. I did not see A4 as an enabling disclosure of a sensor for detecting dead spots. Would have to look into it again.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I already effectively had no time to read my own answer at the end, just barely finishing my attacks without the A4 novelty attack. If this was also required, then paper C1 was even worse time-wise. Seems a bit ridiculous frankly.
The partial problem attack on claim 3 was hell to work out as well. It was clear to me what was needed to be done (A4 + A2 + A3), but I could not properly isolate the distinguishing features and their technical effects. Took a lot of my time.
Regarding claim 6, I additionally included some other intermediate generalizations:
- A1[24]: the ceramic ball bearings cannot just be any material, it must be Zirconia
- A1[24] combined with [10] / [12]: the bearings must be sealing bearings, meaning they must seal off the pedal cavity
I took a slightly different approach to attack claim 7 since I assumed that an additional indicator for over 80% efficiency is a technical feature, then I argued that an additional indicator, and thus claim 7 is obvious in view of A3.
ReplyDeleteHowever, part 1 was much more work and, hence, hard to do in 3 hours considering that part 1 inckudes a orientation phase and reading all documents. 3.5 vs 2.5 hours separation would be more appropriate in this year's exam.
ReplyDeleteClaim 5 : the CPA should be A6 not A7. Selecting A7 as a CPA means that there are 3 distinguishing features (the selection of 2 ranges and the selection of carbon nanotubes). Which means that claim 5 is inventive over such combination.
ReplyDeleteThe selection of A6 as a CPA would give the distinguishing feature of having a sensor connected to a Computer which can be obtained from the teaching of A7.
What do you think?
How is it inventive when A6 discloses all of the distinguishing features and solves the technical problem in question?
DeleteFor me A7 seems to be the way to go. From there, you had the entire system, the only thing you needed was a new material for the pedal body. Of course the material had som specific properties, but still it was only a change of material. Then A6 discloses a material, and that material did have the right properties. Easy to take the entire system and switch material on the pedal body, which did not affect the overall system
DeleteThe three selections of preferred ranges/features was definitely the key issue they wanted to test with this attack.
DeleteIn my view, all three were aspects of a single material. Three synergetic claim features/aspects that together solve a single problem by the selection of a single material. You can't select a material that doesn't have some form of epoxy, some number of strands, or some tensile elastic modulus. For inventive step, you are allowed to choose one material from A6, having the preferred version of each aspect, if that seems to solve your problem.
Starting from just some material, it is difficult to argue that you need to add all claim 4 features. How would that improve the material?
It should also be remembered that A6 relates to CFRP in cycling, not CFRP in a pedal body per se. So, starting from A6 you do not necessarily start from a pedal made from CFRP but rather a cycling component (frame, crank, crank arm, pedal etc.) made from CFRP. A6 doesn't pinpoint a pedal. Thus, I agree that A7 is a more promising starting point for claim 5.
DeleteBeyond all the technicalities associated with PSA, please ask yourself whether you will modify a bicycle with a new pedal or start from the pedal to modify a bicycle. Moreover, A6 does not deal with the pedal per se. It has more to do with the material usage for bicycle components.
DeleteI agree that the CPA is A7. However, there are two partial problems to solve in this claim.
DeleteHow can we know that paragraphs [23] to [25] and claims 4, 5 and 7 were part of the application as filed and not introduced, or changed, after receipt of the search report and before completion of technical preparations? It only says that no amendments (apart from the introduction of claim 6) were made during examination, not that none were made before examination.
ReplyDeleteBecause it didn't say so in the paper. All facts necessary to answer the question are given.
DeleteYes A6 discloses all features but it is known that you can introduce only one feature from the document which is not the CPA (unless there is partially problem).
ReplyDeleteAnd where is that known from? You can introduce as many features as you need, as long as they're used for the same technical effect or to solve the same technical problem
DeleteIn my opinion, you only introduce one thing. The exact material. Eventhough A6 disclose different types of material, you are able to take only one type, with a sepcific set of properties that you implement into the system
DeleteYou can not cherry pick just one feature if it needs another one as well. There is no lower or upper limit to the numbers of features from the second document. But you cannot takes one feature from one embodiment from the second document and other from another, unless you use partial problems.
DeleteI think that is not the case her .See comment by Joeri Beetz above, which is explained very nice
DeleteThe entirety of A6 was directed to making bicycle components lighter and stiffer, so you could pick pretty much anything from that document for the inventive step argument. A skilled person would have no trouble implementing the teachings of A6 into A7 for a better pedal body
DeleteWhy no one mentioned claim 6 lacks of inventive step over A7 and A4
ReplyDeleteA4 par 0008: Zirconia bearings 490 enclose the cavity.
123(2)
DeleteBecause claim 6 violates 123(2) and has no date attributed to it.
DeleteOk in addition to the objection of added subject matter
DeleteI mentioned that claim 6's patentability can not be evaluated properly because it doesn't have an effective date, and only attacked it under 100(c)
DeleteAre we sure about A4? as novelty attack. So they were expecting A5, A4 for C1
ReplyDeleteA4+A2 for C2
A4 + A2 + A3 or C3
Where do they expect candidates to have the time to do this?
Lol. It's a joke I swear 🤣. I honestly think they just thought "oh the subject of the paper is only a bicycle pedal. Everyone knows what that is. Let's just give them a ton of information because it's such a simple invention. They can manage."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading DP summary, I'm not sure if A4+A2 for C2 is correct.
ReplyDeleteDo tutors get have a say to the committees? Surely the exams this year A,B,C are no longer within the "same remit and character" as in previous years anymore.
ReplyDeleteis it possible that the examination committee may not expect both Novelty attacks on claim 1 and just 1 attack would gain full marks for that claim?
ReplyDeleteI used A4 to attack claim 1's novelty, but didn't talk about strain gauges. Would I get no marks for claim 1?
ReplyDeleteNo marks for strain gauge. But then, how did you do novelty attack without this?
DeleteI think you will lose quite a few marks as this is the key for novelty attack. Sorry. But you never know what the committee is thinking during marking. They might be generous with CI as there was so much to do. A5 was a much stronger and clearer novelty attack so I suspect most marks for C1 will be for A5.
DeleteBK
Paper C is all about the best and strongest attack for each claim. For C1, it's clear A5 is the best novelty attack. I think most if not all of C1 marks will be for A5. I would be surprise if they wanted another attack on C1.
DeleteI didn't understand what dead spots and strain gauges are during the exam, so I couldn't understand that a strain gauge is a sensor for dead spots. I simply mentioned that sensors in A4 are suitable for detecting dead spots without explicitly referring to strain gauges, but I referred to paragraph 3. All my other attacks are correct though, so I guess I'll be fine unless claim 1 is like 25 marks
DeleteYou will need to explain ans provide reasoning as well and not merely cited paragraphs. This is where most of the marks are in paper C.
DeleteWon't get much marks even If you have the right intended attacks without explanations, argumentations and reasoning to back up your decisions.
DeleteI know, that's why I asked. That's the only missing thing my attack for claim 1 because I couldn't understand what dead spots and strain gauges are (I still don't tbh). I guess I'll still get some points for claim 1
DeleteI'm not convinced A4 can be used as a novelty attack against C1.
DeleteI have a remark regarding claim 1 and the following reasoning for the strain gauges given in your answer above: "From A3[5] we know that these are thin metal film sensors, and so they are sensors. From A5[3] or A7[9] we know that they are for power measurement. Power measurement can be used to detect dead spots, since these are the points with minimum power, A1[4]."
ReplyDeleteIn the German version, it was not so clear that the "Kraftmessung" disclosed in A5, [3] and A7 [9] is suitable for detecting dead spots, since in A1, [4] the term "Leistung" and not "Kraft" is used. As I understand, the English version uses the term "power" in all passages? The same terminology would make the conclusion that the strain gauges are suitable for detecting dead spots easier.
Also, "Leistung" and "Kraft" are not the same thing.
DeleteI agree - I think in the German version this novelty attack does not work, since there is a clear distinction between "Leistung" in A1 and "Kraft" in A5. Equating these two things would not make technical sense, either, I'd say. I assume this may be an "unintended" lack of novelty in the English version?
DeleteA5 discloses it can measure the "pedal angle" in [0002] and at least A1 specifys at least in [0022] that computers can use the angle information to calculate the "dead spots". did it in german so no clue what the correct terms are in english
DeleteYes, @Anonymous, therefore A5 works for a novelty attack in German, but A4 doesn't work.
DeleteOK, so it is not disclosed or given that "all gauge sensors can measure angles", a4 then only discloses a sensor that measures a non specified force ("kraft"). kraft=force is not leistung=power. Thus, a4 does not disclose the sensor as in claim 1. thus, claim 1 is novel over a4.
Deletethen, for claim 2 you must really thoroughly rectify why a4 is cpa over a5 because only a5 discloses all features of claim 1. next question, stolen from above, where do i find that the sensor of a2 cannot work with the pedal of a5.
For me it seems like the intention was to use A5 for claim 1, as it (like you said) had all features of claim 1. When looking at claim 2, you needed a spindle placed within the pedal cavity. Further I found it hard to argue how to place the sensors of A2, in A5 as there were no rotation in the pedal body. For me the rotation in the pedal body of A4 was their lead for us to switch a5 with A4 in claim 2
DeleteFor the comment above: Not the sensor, bot the magnet motor in the pedal body as described in claim 2
DeleteI am really curious how this matter will be evaluated. If a Novelty attack out of A4 is not accepted, English-speaking participants might be at a disadvantage because they might not have looked further for other attacks (e.g. out of A5) due to the limited time. If, on the other hand, a Novelty attack out of A4 is accepted, German-speaking participants are clearly at a disadvantage.
DeleteI agree with you that the German-speaking may be at a disadvantage if A4 novelty is accepted. For English, it is known that more than one novelty is expected, so I think I is expected to look for more than one.
DeleteThe exam committee should neutralize CI overall since ack of time for C1 leading to stress and bad work.
DeleteRegarding claim 5, I have the same attack (A7+A6), but I have used partial problems (problem 1: balance between flexibility and weight - solved by the carbon fibre tows and problem 2: increased "Bruchfestigkeit" - solved by the carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy matrix). What is your opinion on that?
ReplyDeleteI did the exact same thing. Two fratures (epoxy resin and fibre tows) contributing with different effects to the final composite.
Delete*two features
DeleteI don't think you need partial problems to attack claim 5 based on A7 + A6. The fibres together with the resin form the material CRFP, which has a technical advantage over the low-weight metal used in A7. Arguably, this is syngeristic.
DeleteA6 then goes on about various possible implementations, but:
- the specific resin of claim 5 is highly preferred in cycling according to A6
- there is a preferred GPa range of which the endpoints and everything in between falls in the scope of claim 5
- 7K-9K tows strongly overlaps with 6K-8K, so that the skilled person would select the endpoint of 7K trivially.
Alternatively to the last point, what I argued is they would arrive at something in between 7K-8K through simple experiments. 6K-8K is shown to have a good balance between different advantages and the skilled person would be able to identify this easily based on A6 (which mentions 7K - 9K but also identifies this very same balance/trade-off) and would without undue burden get something in between 7K and 8K.
Two novelty attack on claim 1, how the commitee can expect from us 8 attacks.
ReplyDeleteI think 8 attacks are probably possible in 6 hours without the split, but it is impossible to perform 4 attacks (2 novelty & 2 IS attacks) in part 1 with all the other stuff need, i.e. reading the material, understanding the claims, getting the effective dates and prior art out of the way.
DeleteAgree, it make no sense, last year, it was 7 attacks, the commitee are completely disconnected from reality
Deletetherefore, it means that the marking on claim 1 was at least 20 marks, even more, compared with 2022 where Two novelty were expected
ReplyDeletewill be
Deletecould also be full marks for just one of the possible two attacks
DeleteI don't think they can justify two inventive step attacks (claims 2 and 3) to be only 30 points. Also, some points go to the notice of opposition itself (details patent, proprietor, opponent, representative), the priority and effective dates discussion, and the prior art discussion.
DeleteFrankly, I don't think A4 was intended, but if it was, since claim 1 is relatively short, the total points for claim 1 shouldn't really exceed 15.
A4 attack looks like a weak novelty attack for claim 1, after much reflection. There is no mention of angle (not even once), but yeah the strain gauge is disclosed. This is weaker in comparison to A5 attack for claim 1.
ReplyDeleteA5 was definitely an intended attack. I'm not too sure about A4 either, but since you have to make all novelty attacks if there are multiple, it could be I suppose.
DeleteThough that means we have two novelty attacks, an inventive step attack and a rather complicated second inventive step attack using partial problems. Seems a bit much.
I also don't fully agree with needing the sensor/controller of A4 for the inventive step attack. A2 discloses this, and A4 clearly offers space for sensors and controllers in the interior/posterior cavities.
It was difficult during the exam to decide whether A4 was novelty distroying for C1. It was indeed. That is why this attack will be marked higher.
DeleteYes, that seems to be the case. Time management was a problem. I don’t think the examining committee will make it somewhat crazy difficult that you can’t even start an attack. In terms of the priority given within the time awarded, candidates should be expected to go through the most promising one. A4 is very wishy washy about the angle sensor‘s presence. If the idea was to make you search for something from nothing, then good luck to the Examining Committee. I believe deltapatents did the post-exam analysis outside the exam conditions including time pressure and such. So let’s see. Last year deltapatents also indicated of the presence of incentive step analysis for claim 1, should the argument that the end product be different due to the process employed succeed. The examining committee didn’t agree with this and gave only partial mark (less than half in most cases) for inventive step attack on claim 1. There’s a real chance that the Examining committee marks it differently than the deltapatents team.
Delete@Helloman, For last year's claim 1, candidates did receive full marks for the inventive step attack on claim 1. If executed properly, of course.
DeleteFrom what I've heard from other tutors (I wasn't there), the exam committee sort of admitted during the tutor meeting that the novelty attack was based on an incorrect application of the product-by-process principle. So full marks were available for both approaches. Unfortunately, the exam committee never corrects model solutions. Also unfortunately, candidates who used the better approach (inventive step) needed to do a lot more work.
Thank you for disclosing this. The model solution and the examiner‘s report both did not indicate this. It is a known fact that the model solutions along with the examiner‘s report are used for future examination preparation. Hence, why would the examining committee not correct their solution? I find it rather unhelpful to do this non-transparent way. With an examination report, I can compare feature by feature and know where I actually went wrong. This will help me correct my response in the next exam, unless the committee didn’t want to do have more appeals arising from this situation. I lost by 2 points (48 points). I could have appealed the decision. This is just unworthy of a transparent organization like EPO.
DeleteHelloman21 March 2023 at 12:57 I haven't seen the marks DP has given to the claims, did you ?
DeleteWow, how incompetent. They had 2/3 years to design papers and still mess it up.
DeleteWrong information: "the exam committee sort of admitted during the tutor meeting that the novelty attack was based on an incorrect application of the product-by-process principle." That was definitely not said in the meeting mentioned.
DeleteWhat are you talking about?
DeleteThe subject matter was mechanical but in reality, this year's paper attacks were quite straightforward and easy to pick out compared to other years, where it was more difficult to find CPA.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Compared to papers from other years, this one is relatively straightforward with no complicated issues.
DeletePriority for example was dead simple to deal with once you noticed the difference in applicant's. The clues given in the paper to provide attacks were more visible and easy to spot in comparison to previous years. Perhaps this was why they decided to make it more mechanical as a counterbalance.
DeleteSirs stop providing such biased comments. The subjext matter was impossible to grasp quickly for non native people not working in mechanics. Your comments are disgusting just as much as the higly immoral Paper C of this year. The commitee should think of how their Paper C can stand in people life and the long term consequences it has on the eEQE reputation.
DeleteI'm a native speaker and although I didn't have problems understanding the words, I can completely see how this paper favours the mechanical and native speakers. They did to give more time. It is completely unfair to those non-native speakers and they wonder why countries like Spain, Italy etc... have less qualified Attorneys. Its not a level playing field anymore.
DeleteI think they will be very generous with the marking this year on paper C. Just a feeling
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think they would be generous ?
DeleteI think it'll be the opposite, because C wasn't as difficult as A and B.
DeleteMe too, A and B were difficult papers this year. A was particularly hard. I would say C this year was not as hard as other years.
DeleteLet hope so, especially indeed.
DeletePaper C last year was easy, particularly C1 where only three attacks were expected and and it was clearly easy. Four attack this year for C1 in 3hours without taking account other stuff and study the documents. Paper C was very simulât to 2021 paper C.
ReplyDeleteI would say this paper was easier to deal with than last year where there were alot more issues and findings the right attacks were much harder.
DeleteI do agree though that 4 attacks in C1 is too much. I doubt A4 was intended to be used against C1. It seems most agree A5 is the best attack for C1 and they probably didn't expect another attack on C1 using A4. The novelty arguments for A4 against C1 seems quite weak to me.
The paper overall was better foe spotting attacks compared to 2021 and 2022. The second part was really chilled and easy. I had time to try alternative attacks. CI was too much but I only did A5 novelty on Claim 1. IS on claims 2 and 3.
DeleteOverall, I agree this paper was nicer than last few years in terms of finding attacks as prior art were nicely signposted for setting up attacks.
Deletethey do need to consider that candidates need much more time in C1.
Paper C this year wasn't as difficult as previous years.
DeleteThe people in the comments section who say this exam was less complicated. Y’all start preparing to get decimated by the marking system of the Examining Committee. Like A4 novelty attack on claim 1, what deltapatents proposed in the blog, there could be ways for filtering candidates which we don’t know. I took 2022 exam and lost by two points. And except for art. 123(2) attack, I had all the attacks in. Sometimes marks are awarded in a manner to fail candidates. So please keep this in your thoughts before making such comments.
DeleteSo you had all the attacks in 2022 apart from 1 and still fail 2022. Hope u get it this year.
DeleteIf you don't provide sufficient reasoning/explanation then you will drop alot of marks. It is also what happened to me last year. I had one liners of each step e.g. CPA, TF, OTP. I believe they now want more stated reasoning with evidence from the annexes.
DeleteNot commenting about the marking schedule but in terms of picking out attacks, I would say it is alot more obvious to spot this year. Perhaps this might be why they included a lot in the first part.
DeleteThere was far less work to do in CII. They need to change the balance
@Helloman is right.
DeleteIn my experience, if you get the right combination but the wrong details e.g. wrong distinguishing feature, wrong technical effect etc... then it can be punishing.
Hi, in way this year was easier. The high mechanical content made it impossible to process in the time given in the C1 part. You must be from the EM field and be practicing duch inventions every day. The paper should not be that EM biased.
DeleteI agree that it is significantly more mechanical but there are also less complex issues than the last 2 years. This paper clearly favours the mechanical candidates.
DeleteOverall, yes I would agree that this paper has less complex issues than in 2021 and 2022. Nevertheless, they really are pushing the limits with the timing. Give candidates more time or reduce the content.
ReplyDeletePaper C this year wasn't as difficult as previous years.
DeleteWho are you to tell that. Are you in the exam committee?
DeleteSurely either a comitee member or somebody who git nothing better to post inappropriate comments.
DeleteCI was completely overloaded. I doubt not many did a good job even if there are less issues to deal with. Its completely unbalanced and no longer an exam fit for purpose. The exam committee every year make these papers worse and have no idea the impact it causes. It's impossible to do.
DeleteDid they not test the papers anymore before it is used for an exam.
Be great if they neutalise C1 and hold their hands up with timing.
ReplyDeleteWould be really great!!! but for which reason? that they have gave us 4 attacks to do (2 novelty and 2 IS) + 36 pages to read ?
DeleteDid anybody consider an alternative attack on claim 3 stating that the only technical contribution from claim 3 was the bicycle computer, as the rest was non-technical. Then using the embodiment on annex 4[0011] saying that
ReplyDelete"A further embodiment of the present invention is thus a pedal system or a cycling training system with a bicycle computer and the present pedal."
And then arguing that as the technical feature of claim 3 was already in A4 and thus the inventive step of claim 2 could be used again (inventive using A4+A2)
In relation to the novelty attack on claim 1(either with A4 or A5) and your arguments that the Strain gauge are used for argumentation of a power meter that can detect dead sports, I do not fully agree.
ReplyDeleteIn annex 1 [0004] as you cite, it is right that at point 111/113, minimum power is produced and that these spots are called a dead spot.
But I don't see any proof that a power meter (strain gauge) can measure this.
In annex 1 [0005] they describe that "by measuring irregular heel movements in the pedal stroke, instantaneous dead spots can be identified".
Further in A1 [0006] they state There are several methods for measuring instantaneous dead spots..."one of the most common is the measurement of the heel-up, heel-down movement disclosed here above, This is very simple to measure as it only requires a pedal angle sensor".
Overall it means that this minimum power production is measured by a pedal angel sensor and not a power meter according to annex 4. Further, all references in[0004] refer to figure 3 showing measurements of angles, not power.
In annex 3 they describe that a power meter "Power meters 324 are configured to measure power exerted by the cyclist on the left and right platform pedals 320". There are no description anywhere connecting dead spots with a power meter, and in my opinion annex 1 didn't do it either, so I cannot see how Strain gauge should be able to measure dead spots with the information we have.
I also used the angle measure sensor as the sensor for measuring dead spot by referring to paragraph 6. I did not use the gauge sensor. I don’t know if this means I will have no marks…..
DeleteI kinda see the point you are making about claim with respect to A4 but I really don't think A4 attack on C1 is strong enough based on the reasons given. Plus, there is a balant and clear novelty attack using A5 for C1.
ReplyDeleteHow many marks is claim 1 worth. If I miss out A4 or A5, that could be half the amount of marks on Claim 1. I see A5 as the strongest attack and that alone should sufficiently knockout claim 1. Why is there a need to do another novelty attack, which in my view, is quite a stretch using A4.
DeleteReally struggling to see A4 as novelty attack on claim 1 even with DP solution.
DeleteI still don't get how A5 discloses all features of claim 1.
DeleteMe too someone can explain that please ?
DeleteA5 discloses:
DeleteA lightweight pedal designed for roadracing [according to the comment under the figure]
- pedal axel champer (502) inside the pedal housing[0003] (as seen on the figure is a pedal body with a cavity)
-A pedal axel(503), in the form of a pedal attachment arm [0004] can be attached to the crank arm (505), at the attchment hole and rotates inside the bearings (504) placed in the crank arm (505) at the attachment hole [0004],
-A pedal angel measurement sensor (506) placed at the tip of the pedal attchment arm [0004]
According to annex 1, There are several methods for measuring instantaneous dead spots like measurement of the heel-up, heel-down movement, which only requires a pedal angle sensor [0006].
Yea, I also used the angle sensor for novelty attack.
DeletePower sensors, strain sensors, angle sensors, so many sensors to read and understand within such little time. They really need to stop getting so technical
Deletea4 only discloses a strain gauge, nowhere is given that "all strain gauges can measure deadspots", the strain gauge in a5, however, can measure angles (see A5) and angles can be used to get to the dead spots (see a1), thus imo only a5 discloses all features of claim 1.
DeleteWhere in A5 do you see that strain gauges can measure angles? I dont see that. In my opinion, the only reason for A5 to destroy novelty, is because the pedal of A5 comprises an angel measurement sensor (506).
DeleteThe only description of Strain gauge in A5 is here:
"The Arrow 6 allows for direct power measurement by using strain gauges
(501) in our redesigned pedal axle system. The strain gauges can be replaced by accessing the pedal
axle chamber (502) in the pedal housing."
sry, your right, so anyway a5 measures the angle and a4 does not
DeleteTo me, A4 doesn't disclose the sensor so not novelty for C1. A4 is CPA for C2 and A2 discloses the sensor.
ReplyDeleteI used the angle measure sensor as the sensor suitable for measuring the dead spot (see par 6 in A1, which suggests that the angle measure sensor can measure dead spot). Does it mean that I would have no marks in relation to this feature without discussing the gauge sensor?
ReplyDeleteIn the two last years, it seems that the marking was around 50 for each part. For C1, with four attacks and generality, it will be more than 50, for sure. May be the commitee has innovated this year
ReplyDeleteAnd clearly, if 4 attacks were expected with generality and read the documents in 3h (with 20min) and without taking into account the pressure, it is clearly insane.
ReplyDeleteWonder how they split the marks… If is 100 -10 (Effective dates) = 90 marks available for attacks. Assuming a somewhat equal split between C1 and C2., i.e. around 45 marks for the attacks. For C1 I do not see how that could be reasonably done with the additional Cl1 attack with A4… Claim 3 presumably gives quite some marks…For C2 Assuming that 123(2) was typically worth around 5 marks. The COMVIQ claim was 9 Marks last year, then there should be around 36 marks for claims 4&5.So I dont see how the three attacks for cl.1 (A4, A5) and 2 (A4+A2) should be worth only around 30 marks… So I assume A4 attack is 0 marks… In my humble opinion they should not even design the paper for an even split. You have around 3’ per mark, but for part 1 it is 180-100reading=80 minutes left, while for part 2 it was 180-20reading=160 left. So twice as much time to bring attacks to paper - do they not understand this??? Should be 40:60 split, then the Examiner’s report could read « Surprisingly many candidates did an excellent job in providing detailed and well reasoned arguments… », would be a nice change for once…
ReplyDeleteI really believe they only wanted one attack for C1. A5 is the best attack for it. The arguments around A4 novelty for C1 is much weaker and not clear whether it can be used.
ReplyDeleteI didn't finish the attack for claim 2 and claim 3 when C1 was over. So I continued writing the attack for claim 2 and 3 when C2 started. Can I get marks for the attack for claims 2 and 3?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid not. See the EQE FAQ: "If an attack which is available in C1 is discussed only during the C2, no marks will be awarded to that attack."
Deletevery unlikely to happen
Deleteno chance, possible to obtain the attack by another people : no points for an attack made in C2 which should have been filed in C1
DeleteThe C1 was IMPOSSIBLE TO PROCESS IN THE GIVEN TIME IN VIEW OF THE TOO HIGH MECHANICAL CONTENT. IS THE EQE THOUGHT ONLY FOR PEOPLE WITH AN EM BACKGROUND? IF SO PLEASE DEAR COMMITTEE MAKE THIS CLEAR AND EPO BE READY TO GET RID OF THE CH PROFESSIONALS. What a shame.
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteAgree as well
DeleteStronly argee
DeleteAccording claim 2:
ReplyDeleteI see your point according the novelty attack to claim 1 with A4 (I did an inventiveness attack with A4+A2 for claim 1 and continued that attack for claim 2).
When I start with A4 as closest state of the art for claim 2, and claim 1 is not novel to A4, why should someone use a sensor according A2 in a pedal of A4 when the strain gauges of A4 are already sensors to measure the dead points? The sensor of A2 is much more complex than the strain gauges of A4.
I do not get the problem-solution-approach here.
The rotor/stator combination is not just able to detect a power drop, but as described in A1 and A2, also to increase the pedal rotation resistance in order to signal the occurrence and location of the dead spot.
DeleteDoes anyone agree on an IS attack to claim 1 with A4=CPA and the sensor of A3? A3[0003] discloses a sensor to detect dead spots, and A3[0007] discloses that this measure can be used to improve pedaling efficiency.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, there are dead spot sensors everywhere. A2, A3, A5. If it's not novelty A4, then which one to use as D2? And what to do with A7 in the morning, if not using it for an argument for an A4 novelty attack?
DeleteBut I dont see it as an argument that A7 has to be used in the morning. In my opinion they have to provide some prior art that should not be used for the first claims, to test if we were able to select the correct annex. A7 was the only one to describe a chain drive and thus, for clear use in the evening session.
DeleteYes I made an IS attack using A4 + A3. If I well remember, none of A4 and A5 explicitely disclosed a sensor suitable for identifying dead spots. You cannot use common knowledge or definitions from other documents for a novelty attack. Just one document.
DeleteA5 did mention a sensor for angle measurement, which according to A1 can measure deadspots. That is simple an explanation of what the sensor does, which is allowed in a novelty attack.
DeleteMaybe the exam committee forgot there was a split in the paper this year. CI is completely unworkable. I think it's only fair to partly neutralise this if indeed 4 attacks were expected. It is an overload and no longer a proper test. Unfortunately you cant even use the time you had left over in CII to work on CI as this is no allowed. Anyone else agree.
ReplyDeleteHmm any undercover exam committee member here? Please respond to the above comment!
DeleteI fully agree with a) too mechanical paper and b) lack of time for C1 leading to stress and bad work
Delete"The archer who misses his mark does not blame the target. He stops, corrects himself and shoots again."
ReplyDeleteYou sounds like one from Examination Committee. You have no idea how hard people worked on paper C already. I had chat with some colleagues who passed the most difficult infringement and validity (P2/FD4) paper in the UK, but they think two parts paper C is even more difficult. In particular, you have a short time to do C1 and have no opportunity to correct yourself later on. Prior to 2021, you could re-adjust your answer when you read a bit more and get a better understanding about the long documents. After splitting the exam, you have no chance to do that. It is even difficult for English speaker candidates. How about for the non-EPO language speaker. Furthermore, if a single answer is available for this type of exam, this is also a stretch. People could read the paper in many different ways so should never give marks purely based on the model answer.
DeleteAgree. In fact, you cannot judge if a person can become European patent attirney with an exam splitted in two parts, wherein there is no opportunity to correct yourself later on. In this way competencies of a candidate are not properly assessed as in real life you can correct yourself when drafting an opposition, as was the case before 2021.
Deleteagree, I would also say the way papers A and B are also tested are not a true reflection on working practices either.
DeleteEnough time to post a cryptic polemic quote here, but only capable of doing it anonymously.
Delete"Practicing archery is like practicing to be a Gentleman. When you miss the bulls-eye, you look for the error in yourself."
ReplyDeleteNo Gentleman-like behaviour at all to post these strange things anonymously. @The DeltaPatent team: could you maybe remove this spamming troll from the discussions of the content of the EQE?
DeleteRegarding claim 7, I did a novelty attack using A3 based on T553/02 and G2/88 that non-technical feature as only difference in the claim is disregarded for novelty. Is this case law completely overruled by the introduction of the COMVIK approach in the guidelines? or will I get some marks for this attack (at least for providing the basis of all features of claim 7 disclosed in A3)?
ReplyDeleteI considered the GL G-II 3.7: "a claim directed to or specifying the use of any technical means for presenting information (e.g. a computer display) has, as a whole, technical character and is thus not excluded from patentability", and thus display of information on a computer display when efficiency > or < 80% (if i well remember) as technical features in claim 7. therefore I also did not use a full COMVIK approach. And then T 1567/05 for the difference with A3.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the GL G-II, 3.7 completely, you will notice the difference between "technical character" and "technical effect". Personally, I would say that there is no inventive step, as the differemt displays of > < 80% were provided in the prior art by the presence or absense of an arrow pointing upwards. But of course, you might try do argue that the user does not perform any mental step but will use the displayed information directly to change the way he/she moves the pedal. Then you might consider the quasi-automatic-without-human-input change in the pedal activity as a technical effect.
DeleteHI Gabriele, how did you select A3 as CPA? which technical features of claim 7 did you consider to select A3 as CPA?
DeleteThe time in C1 was actually too short from my point of view to get the inventive step discussion right fully in terms of "the problem to be solved is XY", and this problem is addessed in Z. Thus, I think that combining A3, A5 and A2 (because of the back-reference to the pedal system) should do the job, but I have no idea of what ordering is considered the correct one.
Delete@Anonymous 23 March 2023 at 15:29
DeleteGL G-II 3.7 refers to technical character of the claims for the purposes of establishing whether it can be patentable at all in the first place. This is a requirement under art. 52 EPC.
In the COMVIK approach, this is by definition always satisfied, because it is an approach used on 'mixed-type' inventions. Such inventions necessarily include both technical features (thus giving it technical character according to GL G-II 3.7), and non-technical features.
COMVIK was applicable here, because arguably the particular icon used is not a technical feature, whereas the rest of the claim was technical (it is a bicycle computer).
Hope this helps.
Thank you for the explanation...I tried to apply the COMVIK but I was not sure about the formulation of the tech/non-tech features in the fist step...do you think that they will give points for an IS against claim 7 over A3 alone if i arrived to the same solution (i.e. like DP above) but applying only a standard PSA instead of all the steps of the COMVIK?
DeleteIf I remember correctly, last year I got zero points for stating that the sport betting claim was not patentable under Art. 52 EPC (I should have known better from daily work, but for some reason, in the high stress situation of C2 after a server connection crash at hand in of C1, I suddenly used that attack - not recommendable...).
DeleteAgree with Gabriele but I've used A7 + A3 and COMVIK
ReplyDelete