Our solution for Paper C 2024 - Wireless charging pad
The paper C
of this year 2024 was about wireless charging of cars.
Our solution in short. Our full solution is after the break.
Claim 1:
Added subject matter
Lack of novelty over A2 (priority publication Art. 54(2), A2 Art. 54(3))
Lack of inventive step over A3+A5
Claim 2:
Lack of novelty over A2 (priority publication Art. 54(2), A2 Art. 54(3))
Claim 3:
Lack of inventive step A2 Prio Pub. + A4
Claim 4:
Lack of novelty over A5
Claim 5:
Lack of novelty over A7
Lack of novelty over Model Q evidenced by A6
Claim 6:
Lack of inventive step over A6 ‘Model P’ and A5
Claim 7:
Lack of inventive step over A6 ‘Model P’ and A5, evidence provided by A7
We had some discussion on whether A5.4 (this notation also being used elsewhere and referring to A5 [4]) enables a novelty attack on claim 5. As the signal of the pressure sensors decides on the charging, it seems that all features are disclosed. A processing unit would be implicit as any unit that processes a signal may be called a processing unit. Nevertheless, this is attack seems too much of a stretch and was probably not the intention.
Claim 7 is
another claim that we had some discussion about. The reference to pricing
suggests that maybe an attack exploiting non-technicality might be possible. To
follow this idea, one might take model Q as the closest prior art, and argue
that it is already adapted to charge based on a signal. One would then argue
that using a signal to represent pricing is a non-technical difference which
may be ignored.
Unfortunately,
this attack is not possible, since the model Q is not suited for wireless charging
which is required by claim 7. The comments under A6 make clear that the model Q
cannot be adapted to wireless charging either. This makes any line of attack against claim 7 starting from model Q impossible.
A second
reservation we have about this argument, is that it is not altogether clear whether
reference to price automatically makes a feature non-technical. Engineers are often
charged with problems related to price, e.g., to make a device cheaper, and the
solutions they find are typically technical. Also in this case, high energy
price reflects a busy electrical network, so the feature of claim 7 contributes
to reducing congestion on the electrical network.
The alternative
option is to take model P as the closest prior art and focus on the RFC
standard. This has the advantage that price related charging is actually
disclosed, mooting a discussion about its technicality. This line of attack
would require one to argue that it is implicit from A6 that model P is adapted
to the RFC standard. We are not sure that A6 really clears this bar. Although
model Q was the first model to have the standard, it might also have
been the last—in other words, it is not inevitable that model P has the RFC standard.
An alternative would be to accept that the standard is a distinguishing feature and
introduce the standard via inventive step. This approach is also a bit dodgy
since the obvious D2 document A7, is 54(3). The combining document would have
to be the model Q. On balance we took the first approach, arguing that it is
implicit that the model P has support for the standard.
Finally, we give our regards to Ms. Molly Dorsett Pauley. She must have quite a reputation as an opposition specialist after her successful oppositions in 2015 and 2021.
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.
.png)
