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:
