Paper C 2022 (Part 1 and Part 2) - EPO scores with accessible paper
The theme of this year's paper was football. Specifically, the electronic detection of goals.
This was the second year with the online electronic paper C. Like last year, you were provided with all of the prior art in the first half, but not with all of A1's description. Last year the claims were split down the middle, with 3 claims in each half; this year the first half had 2 claims and the second half had 4 claims.
Some felt that last year's claim split was not ideal, as most of the analysis is done in the first half. This year with one claim less to do, there was enough time to read everything.
The application did not claim priority; thus the effective date section was straightforward. But the list of evidence made up for it, and was more challenging, with a lot of admissibility issues: A2 was a newsletter for which you would have to argue that it was available in time. A3 was clearly too late, but contained lots of information about past prior art. A4 referred to a conference, but with the twist that the slides of the talk were provided to the participants. A5 was regular prior art and A6 a 54(3).
Claim 1 was a special type of yarn that could be used in a ball. The yarn has a metal wire which makes it electronically detectable.
1. A hybrid yarn (1) for use under high mechanical stress conditions, such as for a ball (9) for a ball game, wherein the yarn (1) comprises an inner strand of chemically-resistant organic fibres (2) and a circumferential outer layer consisting of 10-20 thin electrically conductive metal wires (4), the thin electrically conductive metal wires (4) being twisted around the inner strand along the longitudinal axis of the yarn (1), whereby a void is formed between the inner strand and the outer layer by removal of material using a solvent.
All documents are in time and need to be considered. The 54(3) document A6 missed two features (no void, and the wires where the wrong way around). So that one is unlikely. A2 discloses a yarn but misses the void. A3 only discloses metal yarn, so seems even worse. A4 misses a couple of features, e.g., the materials of both the inner and outer strands, and the number of conductive strands. A4 also misses all of the purpose features (high stress, a ball). Seems A4 is a typical D2, but one could keep it on the shortlist if nothing better comes along.
A5 seems to have everything then, except for the feature 'removal of material using a solvent.' A5 does remove an intermediate layer but uses a thermal method. This feature is a product by process feature, so one needs to ask yourself if novelty is imparted through it--can you tell the difference in the end product without having seen the manufacturing?
This one, unfortunately, led to a split jury here, with some of us arguing one way and some the other.
One could argue that Claim 1 is novel over A5. That, you can tell the difference, and so the feature does impart novelty. The argument would be that A5 explains that the thermal treatment is not so great, as it leaves material behind, leading to a non-constant void. A1 explains that chemical removal is a more precise method leading to well-defined and constant dimensions. These are things you can see in the final product. In fact, A1 spends two paragraphs on explaining why chemical removal is better. Also A4 seems to imply that chemicals remove all of the intermediate layer.
Once one opts for an inventive step attack, the D2 document can only be A4. A weakness in the inventive step attack is that A1 explains that a constant void is good for mechanical resistance (otherwise you 'rupture even under low mechanical stress conditions'). But A4 does not mention this effect at all. So, here we get the missing feature from A4, and we don't exploit the product by process part.
Final attack is Novelty A5 or Inventive step A5 + A4.
Claim 2
2. Method for producing the hybrid yarn (1) according to claim 1, comprising the
steps of
a. providing an intermediate layer of polyamide fibres (3) around the inner strand
of chemically-resistant organic fibres (2),
b. twisting the thin electrically conductive metal wires (4) around the intermediate
layer of polyamide fibres,
c. chemically removing the polyamide fibres (3) by a treatment with a solvent
consisting of 40-60 wt% of trifluoroacetic acid in acetone to provide a void
between the inner strand and the thin metal wires.
We need to consider if we have a closest prior art change. Perhaps we need to switch from A5 to A4? But A4 still misses the materials of the inner and outer layers, and the electrically conductivity. Still no purpose features, although these are now perhaps less important as we are not formally dependent on claim 1. None of these seem to be of sufficient importance to tip the scales though. It seems we can stay with A5 as closest prior art. If we do, we get the difference feature of claim 1, but also the particular solvent. Fortunately, both the solvent and range are anticipated by A4. A1 mentions as an additional effect that trifluoroacetic acid is a good cost compromise. A4 does not mention costs, so we fudge this a bit, perhaps cost is not really technical, or implicit, or inherent, pick one. Final attack is A5 + A4. When drafting the attack, you may have to a good chunk of the novelty analysis again, to make sure every nitty-gritty bit is disclosed.
Part 2
Claim 3: added matter
Claim 3 was introduced during examination, and should therefore have support from the application as filed.
Claim 3 as filed, corresponds to claims 3 and 4 as granted, includes all features of granted claim 3, but also include the features of present claim 4, in particular to use 'antenna yarn', ie., a hybrid yarn consisting of organic fibres (2) and thin metal wires (4). Antenna yarn is essntial. Only through such a
yarn is a stable three-dimensional configuration of the antenna is guaranteed. Moreover, the yarn facilitates stability and ensures a long lifetime. Without the yarn, the effect of the invention is lost. [19].
Thus claim 3 cannot be based on claim 3 as filed.
In addition to the Art.123(2) attack, also two auxiliary novelty attacks were possible.
A first novelty attack over the first model Vuwuseeler introduced in 2010, citing A3 as evidence. If you did not do this attack for claim 3, you would need a lot of this anyhow for the attack on dependent claim 4.
A second novelty attack over A6 (Art.54(3) document). If you did not do this attack for claim 3, you would need this attack anyhow for the dependent claim 4.
Claim 4(3) is not novel over A6 and Claim 4 is not inventive over The first Vuvuseela ball (2010) (described in A3) and A2.
Claim 5. Inventive step: first Vuwuseeler ball + arrangement (as described in A3, page 2) + second Vuwuseeler arrangement (as described in A3, page 3) + A2.
Claim 6 Basically the same attack as for claim 5. A3 does not disclose a computer-implemented method for adapting the odds in live sports betting. The latter feature is not technical, and thus does not contribute to inventive step. Accordingly, claim 6 is not inventive for the same reasons as claim 5.
It is noted in passing that the application of the goal detecting arrangement to odds computing would in any case be not inventive, as betting on goals is well known and a commercial issue, as evidenced by the final remarks in the interview of A3 about ''odds for sports betting"
To me, a strong A123(2) attack means that the subject matter is clearly not disclosed in the claims AND in the description of application as filed. If the subject matter is found in the description, it can be easily overcome or workaround the A123(2) objection by the Applicant. Hence, because the subject matter can still be found in the description, another attack is probably warranted.
ReplyDeleteAlso - Art 54(2) EPC is a very strong attack and it is clear that C3 can also be attacked using A3 1st embodiment.
As I said, marks should still be awarded for A123(2) and/or novelty attacks as the end goal is to knock out the claim.
@SV- same here. I did the same thing as you.
ReplyDeleteAgree with above. A3 does teach that all 'classical' balls comprise bladders. But it doesn't infer that all classical balls comprise rubber bladders. Hence, A6 does not disclose rubber bladders, and so is not novelty destroying. And of course A6 is not available for an inventive step attack.
ReplyDeleteInteresting view indeed. cl.2 is an independent method claim, I agree, but it is not a "false" dependency. cl.2 relates to a method to produce a hybrid yarn exactly as required by cl.1. Therefore, cl. 2 is novel over A4, because as you indicated correctly, there is the differenciating feature of the outer layer material.
ReplyDelete(If cl.2 would have read on a method SUITABLE for, then and only then, A4 may have worked for novelty, I guess.
The above is very true. A3 teaches that all 'classical balls' comprise bladders. But it doesn't imply that all classical balls comprise rubber bladders. Thus, even is A6 implicitly discloses a bladder, it doesn't disclose a rubber bladder. Hence, claim 4 is novel over A6 by the rubber bladder. And of course A6 is not available for an inventive step attack.
ReplyDeleteA6 implicitly discloses a bladder, because of A3. But it doesn't disclose a rubber bladder. Claim 4 is thus novel over A6.
ReplyDeleteI understand, but I maintain my grounds:
ReplyDelete"Independent claims containing a reference to another claim or to features from a claim of another category
A claim containing a reference to another claim is not necessarily a dependent claim as defined in Rule 43(4). One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different category (e.g. "Apparatus for carrying out the process of claim 1 ...", or "Process for the manufacture of the product of claim 1 ..."). Similarly, in a situation like the plug and socket example of F‑IV, 3.2(i), a claim to the one part referring to the other co-operating part (e.g. "plug for co-operation with the socket of claim 1 ...") is not a dependent claim. In all these examples, the division carefully considers the extent to which the claim containing the reference necessarily involves the features of the claim referred to and the extent to which it does not. Indeed, objections on the grounds of lack of clarity and failure to state the technical features (Rule 43(1)) apply to a claim which simply says "Apparatus for carrying out the process of claim 1". Since the change of category already makes the claim independent, the applicant is required to set out clearly in the claim the essential features of the apparatus."
The only difference with the product of claim 1 is the number of thin bars (which is not limiting/essential for the fabrication method). If it were not for the metallic conductive puter layer which is explicity mentioned it would be a clear novelty attack for me.
After reading all the comments above, I am finally convinced that A6 can be used for novelty attack against claim 4 and claim 3 (Ref: A[18]-As with all balls which are sewn from segments or panels (7), a rubber bladder (6) .. is provided to guarantee airtightness). I admire those who could spot this during the exam! Does anyone know how the points will be given then? As there are two N-attacks & one IS-attack for claim 4, can one only get 1/3 marks from claim 4 if one just had the IS-attack? thanks :)
ReplyDeleteI think this is slightly wrong. There are two novelty attacks for C3 + added matter for C3 too. I think this is too much for a candidate to do under the time given. I suspect you should be awarded full marks for novelty section if you have one or the other novelty attacks for C3.
DeleteFor C4 - There is 1 IS attack and possibly? A6 as Art 54(3) EPC. The IS attack on its own is pretty strong and I think most (if not all) marks will be attributed to the IS attack.
I somehow gained the same impression, as this would be typical for the EQE to distribute the feature information/definitions over several documents. And as one shall rely only on the info given in the exam, one would not doubt the statement in A1[0018]... The only point, however, that makes me doubt is the fact that A6 does not directly and unambigously shows a ball that was indeed produced.. But I am sure, that one gets marks when presenting the arguments as in all the comments above
DeleteG-VI, 6 Implicit disclosure and parameters
Delete"In the case of a prior-art document, the lack of novelty may be apparent from what is explicitly stated in the document itself. Alternatively, it may be implicit in the sense that, in carrying out the teaching of the prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of the claim."
--> A6 teaches how to make such a ball, thus A6 novelty destroying if the argumentation line is without any reasoanable doubt
G-VI, 2 Implicit features or well-known equivalents
A document takes away the novelty of any claimed subject-matter derivable directly and unambiguously from that document including any features implicit to a person skilled in the art in what is expressly mentioned in the document, e.g. a disclosure of the use of rubber in circumstances where clearly its elastic properties are used even if this is not explicitly stated takes away the novelty of the use of an elastic material. The limitation to subject-matter "derivable directly and unambiguously" from the document is important.
123(2) attack is very strong here and should be sufficient as the only way to overcome is to add features of claim 4...resulting in granted claim 4 already attacked...
ReplyDelete123(2) attack should be sufficient as it is a strong attack: the only way to overcome is to add features of claim 4 which results to granted claim 4 already attacked!
ReplyDeleteIt’s similarly weak as a A.54(3) attack in the past C Papers. And in those past C papers, further, stronger attacks were expected
ReplyDeleteThe disclosures in A6 you are referring to are not contained in a list.
ReplyDeleteI agree I had a doubt that the bladder in classical ball were made of rubber bladder, I still did the attack though. One reasons is that there was no information that the bladder could be something else than rubber. Moreover, a bit further in A3, where the first ball is described, a passage can be interpreted to mean that a classical football has a rubber bladder.
ReplyDeleteBut after having given some thought about it, I agree the A54(3) attack on claim 3 and 4 are probably not intended.
Ah, I found a source...in A1 [0018] As with all balls which are sewn from segments or panels (7), a rubber bladder (6),...
ReplyDeletePuh, a tough one. But still, even with the statement in A6 [11] that "The yarn forms a long-life structural component of the ball's outer covering." it is not unambigously and directly clear in A6 that such a ball has actually been produced.
What is a traditional football? One could argue there are American (traditional) footballs and European (soccer) footballs. It is not clear from the documents alone what a "traditional football" is.
ReplyDeleteI also did the same attack for C5 - A3 2nd embodiment + A2 and A3 2nd embodiment + A5. From the blog, it seems that it is a plausible attack and certainly a plausible alternative attack on C5.
ReplyDeleteI hope it is sufficient to gain many of the marks for C5. Its a partial problem so really need to get something from this claim.
@Rea, I agree with you. It seems like a reasonable attack (claim 1 A5+A4) and (claim 2 A4+A5). Points must be awarded for these attacks as there is good basis. Also, in past EQE papers, it was typical to switch the CPA when moving to a new attack (as the technical field/purpose change or focus in more).
ReplyDeleteA3 1st embodiment (smart goal) already has the ultra-high frequency receivers in the goal posts (integrated), and now the first thing you do is ignore those or take them out of the goal posts and make them attachable? Seems like a lot of work. A3 2ns embodiment (smart referee) already said they are attachable and can be moved, which is the whole point of the claim. I think both are good attacks. Both deserve points, as both would be tried at an opposition.
ReplyDeletedoes traditional football mean "American" football or "European" football. It is not clear. The World Cup is called football by some, and soccer by others. Traditional football is not a clear enough term.
ReplyDeleteAmerican football or European Football? It is not clear.
ReplyDelete@Anon. 16:27
ReplyDeleterubber bladder is disclosed by A1[18]
I agree that it has never been required to do additional attacks. But it also has never been this possible to make strong additional attacks. So I'm still not sure if you are expected to do so.
ReplyDeleteNormally, I would say that if the exam provides you a good attack, it is intended and thus required. But here it may just be an unfortunate consequence of attacks being necessary for dependent claims.
But it's certainly not something to worry about. I can't imagine that they would deduct more than a few marks for not attacking C3 with novelty and inventive step.
@Gregory - what's your OTP when starting from A4?
ReplyDeleteFrom A5 it was straightforward - how to ensure complete removal of the intermediate layer, you would look to A4, etc. A5 acknowledges this problem as the thermal step doesn't remove it all.
I am struggling to formulate it from A4.
rubber bladder follows from the football A6[11] which meets the definition of A1[18] and thus has a rubber bladder
ReplyDeleteNot sure to well underdand. If you add C4 features on C3 to overcome 123.2 issue, then your IS attack on C4 can be applied on the amended C3. For me, if you attack C3 using A123.2, you do not need to add a novelty attack. By the way, the novelty attack on C3 is not relevant if you consider adding characteristic on C4 to overcome a first attack of C3 using 123.2.
ReplyDeleteIn both cases, A123.2 on C3 is the strongest attack. Am I the only one to think like that?
If you overcome 123.2 of C3 by adding a characteristic, then your novelty attack of C3 does not work since you have another characteristic that the novelty attack does not comprise. The only way to overcome 123.2 in C3 is to add C4 in C3, and you already have attacked C4.
ReplyDeleteI believe no attack of novelty was needed here but may be I am completely wrong. What are your thoughts about this?
@Rea:
ReplyDeletemethod for manufacturing a product of claim 1 is limited to the features of the product, as such claim implicitly includes the step of "providing a product having the features of claim 1"
See GL F-IV, 4.13.3 "Interpretation of expressions such as "Method for ...":
Analogously, in the case of a "method of manufacture", i.e. a claim directed to a method for manufacturing a product, the fact that the method results in the product is to be treated as an integral method step
I had something like an objective technical problem how to choose an a chemically-stable fibre that can be used in the process to make cords. I can't remember exactly, but because A4 did not disclose a thin metal (instead disclosed a chemically-stable fibre", I wanted a problem that was about choosing a specific checmially-stable fiobre. Yes, I see that the OTP is not great. I agree. But A4 was just so close, with hindsight and more time, I would have thought differently. I'm just hoping for some points. Not all points.
ReplyDeleteEqually a strong novelty attack should also attract very good and close to full marks too.
ReplyDeleteAs someone said above, it a valid and strong attack to take out C3.
Then why is there such a clear and strong novelty Art 54(2) EPC attack for C3.
ReplyDeleteIf you see it, you have to use it. More marks are given for novelty than A123(2) attacks.
Fingers crossed! I'm sure you will get marks for it. I guess because I did A5 novelty for claim 1, A5+A4 was the obvious choice for me for claim 2 and sort of the natural progression.
ReplyDeleteThanks above! Yes, sorry my bad: there should be one N attack + one IS attack for C4 and one added matter + two N attacks for C3 :)
ReplyDeleteI did exactly the same. A4 basically included all the method steps of claim 2, with the sole difference that "organic" was missing for the inner core and that it does not disclose that the outer layer was metal. I thought about an IS attack, but I did not recognise which hint would have had a skilled person toward using a metal for the outer layer. Similarly, A5 was not a good starting point for me, as it had least features in common with the claimed solution (specifically, did not use a solvent). So I went for and novelty attack based on A4. Similarly, I attacked 1 on A5+A4. Not sure whether my understanding was right, but I hope this would still attract some marks. Curious to see other people's impressions in this regard.
ReplyDelete@SLJ I think you are not citing the correct part of the guidelines. That for a method for producing "X". Please see the guidelines for independent claims of different categories linked, the whole product is not assume to be described if it does not form part of the method (e.g number of thin bars of claim 1 does not have anything to do with the method).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_8.htm
Hi Rea,
ReplyDeleteI think GL F-IV 3.8 and F-IV 4.13.3 do not contradict each other in this case.
F-IV 3.8 states that a claim containing a reference to another claim is not necessarily (!) a dependent claim -- which means that it may well be a dependent claim, depending on the specific case.
F-IV 4.13.3 states that the wording "method for manufacturing a product" contains the features of the product since the method implicitly includes the step of providing the product.
Claim 2 of the C paper is the same as "method for manufacturing a product of claim 1". Thus claim 2 includes all the features of product of claim 1.
I'm very confused by these arguments. yes, the added matter attack can be easily overcome by combining 3+4, sure. But at that point, your novelty attacks on claim 3 aren't worth anything. So there's no point. We probably all agree, really, but afaik, no previous paper c has ever required or rewarded additional attacks for a claim without effective date, and I can't see that changing.
ReplyDeleteFirstly I agree with Kasper, there is no bladder in A6 and in particular it does not have to be made of rubber,
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Claim 3 is independent, right? Making the changes to exclude essential parts and put them in claim 4 illegal under 123(3), doesn't it?
I would agree. It seems that you really have to stretch the meanings to get A6 to fit with attack on C3. There is a more straightforward attack using A3 1st embodiment as Art54(2) so this attack is already very strong.
DeleteThe German version of A1 [0018], L23-26 reads
Delete" Wie bei allen Bällen, die aus Segmenten oder Teilstücken (7) zusammengenäht werden, wird eine z. B. aus vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk hergestellte Gummiblase (6) bereitgestellt, die die Luftdichtheit gewährleistet. Die Blase (6)...."
For the "z.B. = zum Beispiel" (=e.g.) it is not clear (at least in the German version) if it only refers to the "vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk" only (vulcanized natural caoutchouc) or to the complete term "aus vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk hergestellte Gummiblase" . This is not unambigously derivable in the German version. This would mean that bladders of other materials are also possible as the "z.B." is not limiting to rubber. In particular, as the following sentence continues with "Die Blase..." (genus).
In the English version the sentence reads "As with all balls which are sewn from segments or panels (7), a rubber bladder (6), made from e.g. vulcanized natural caoutchouc,..." Here it is clear that the "e.g." refers to the material out of which a rubber bladder may be made. (This is also in the FR version the case)
In Brief:
EN - rubber bladder made from e.g. natural caoutchouc
FR - vessie en caoutchouc vulcanisé (6), fabriquée par exemple en caoutchouc naturel,
DE - eine z. B. aus vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk hergestellte Gummiblase(6)
bereitgestellt.
To have it more clear in the DE version the sentence should have read
" eine Gummiblase (6), hergestellt aus z.B. vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk"
But this was not the case.
Thus at least in the German version it is not unambigously derivable that the bladder is out of rubber.
The current Claim 3 is indeed independent and was in the original filed application, together with claim 4 as one claim, therefore 123(2) ist not suitable to attack claim 3, but 123(3) as these two claims are not described as two independent options that can be ripped apart and put in two different claims.
Delete@Pettifogger Well explained, i think what you are saying is completely true. In the German version it is not clear if vulcanized natural caoutchouc makes a bladder a rubber bladder or if it is just one example of how to get to a rubber bladder due to the different usage of the "e.g.". There should not be such differences due to the used language in exams like this. This pretty much leads to a different exam for different candidates.
DeleteWhat about Claim 6 relating to a method of using information (goal or not by the device accoring to claim 5) to optimize betting odds simply for business purposes. The device according to claim 5 is merely a simple detector for information within claim 6 (goal or not, however the last say is still with the referee, therfore it is even unreliable information, as it could have been offsides). Now using given (the information can just be obtained faster, it is not new information, because its still the referee who is in charge of giving a goal) information to optimize (do) business is not a patentable invention under Art. 52 (2)c. There is no other method step involved or described in the patent that is carried out to do so to claify what claim6 six actually means. Therefore, claim 6 relates to a method that is not patentable under art. 52(2)c, regardless of where the information is from.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all A6 does not explicitly disclose rubber nor a bladder.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, this is not implicitly given. A3 states that ball without bladders are standard around 2011. That means that standard balls as in A6 could be made out of vuwuseeler gen 2 balls (maybe without the antennas) with an additional outer layer according to A6. In the end you get a football without any bladder that fulfills the requirement of being an ordinary ball according to A3. A Person skilled in the art does therefore not necessarily end up with a rubber bladder just by reading a ball has an outer layer made of multiple pieces sewn together by a hybrid cord. Also, the person skilled in the art distinguishes between latex, butyl or rubber bladders (source in german, https://ball-one.de/fussbaelle/der-unterschied-zwischen-einer-blase-aus-latex-butyl-und-gummi-sr).
Finally, A1[18] states that a rubber bladder can be made out of natural rubber. It does not disclose that synthetic material can also form bladders that qualify as rubber bladders. However, there are multiple synthetic materials (elastomers) that could also be used to form bladders, but do not qualify as rubber bladders (see latex or butyl, or epdm, etc. see wiki).
Likely I am wrong, but I have attacked claim 2 for novelty: currently, A4 included all the method steps of the claim, only differing in that the outer layer was made of metal. However, as to a method, I believe that - as far as the used material is chemically-resistant - it is not necessary that it is necessarily made of metal. I was lead to this reasoning as I could not retrieve any pointer leading to a proper reasoning leading the skilled person to choose a "thin metal" as the chemically-resistant material in the method of A4. Any impressions in this regard?
ReplyDeletechemically-resistant was not defined. therefore could be anything like acid proof, base proof, solvent proof, etc and there are so many solvents, acids, bases etc. also any material to some degree chemically-resistant to anything. many metals are not acid resistant, still metal qualify as chemically-resistant towards solvents. i think it is really difficult to argue novelty here
DeleteImo prefered attack for C3 is Art. 123(2).
ReplyDeleteNovelty attack for C3 with the 1st ball of A3 also works but may not be the optimal solution. Still I would expect at least a few marks when using Novelty attack.
For C4 it was probably expected to have a Novelty attack based on A6 Art.54(3), which makes kind of sense if your argumentation line is strong OR alternatively IS attack 1stball(A3)+A2.
Not sure how the marking is applied if one misses one or the other of these attacks. If you have all one probably gets more remarks as someone who has only 3 or 2. On the other hand, I guess marking also strongly depends on your arguments. So if one eg has only C3 Art.123(2) and C4 IS, and well founded grounds this may attract enough marks as well.
I agree with @Eivind. We don't know what has been in claim 3 in the application as filed, since it only says it is split. It may have had all the features of claim 3 and claim 4, when the support is in the original claim 3. Maybe they expect this to be discussed in the answer and expect both attacks, but I think novelty attack is stronger, since it is only a guess what is added matter sjm.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree and it also seems there is agreement that A3 2nd embodiment is seen as a good (alternative or even better) CPA for claim 5.
ReplyDeleteTo me. It doesn't feel like Paper C this year is tightly drafted. There are multiple solutions to a lot of the claims this year. Is this the way Paper C is going.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to check the client's letter in C2, so that I missed the ASM attack to claim 3...I didn't thought to check the second letter as the first one had no particular information.... What do you think about? Could I loose more point or only those of the ASM attack?
ReplyDeleteIn C2 I didn't read the client's letter so that I missed the ASM attack...I didn't thought about, as the first one had no particular information... what do you think about? Will I loose many points or only those of the ASM attack? Then I did a novelty attack against claim 3 using the first VB of A3...
ReplyDeleteASM doesn't carry too many marks. Probably 5 or 6 marks at most.
ReplyDeletehas anyone noticed this
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_3_8.htm
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/d/f_iv_3_8.htm
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/f/f_iv_3_8.htm
it has to be decided on an individual level whether the features of the ball are indeed incorporated in claim 5.
the system of A3 2011 directly refers to the transceiver system of A3 2010 stating it is "otherwise identical" so that its features (e.g., wavelength) are incorporated by reference.
2011 should be the closest prior art, because it discloses three transceivers that are portable. The ball does not impose the gist of the invention to claim 5 but the portable transceivers do.
The now distinguishing featues are more than three features of the ball which would lead to more than two partial problems. When considering that the features of the system are explicitly and implicitly disclosed in A3 2011 and it is merely suitable for a ball according to claim 4 and as mentioned in the Guidelines above, then a simple novelty attack would suffice ...
I started with A3 2nd embodiment + A2 and A5 as Inventive step attack on claim 5.
DeleteI chose A3 2nd embodiment for reason that it is the only document that discloses the same purpose as claim 5, which is a portal goal device system, and this mirrors with the purpose claim 5 of the AAF.
I don't think it is incorporated as reference as I would hope that it would be made explicitly more clearer. But I do agree that A3 2nd embodiment is the closest prior art for claim 5.
I think there is an error in claim 1 - I don't remember the exact wording but it is "for a ball for a game ball". This is just weird language and it looked like it was an error.
ReplyDeletePlease stop passing false information. This is definitely not the case. Providing marks for wrong attacks mean, going back to the marking scheme of "use of information" and "argumentation". This is not done any more. There are only marks for individual claims. If you don't believe, check the examiner's report for 2015 and then compare the examiner's report for the papers don't attract marks. I got zero marks for 3 claims in 2021 C because I had chosen the wrong attacks for claims 2, 5 and 6, which is the reason I am sitting this C paper in 2022. So if you are making such statements to feel other candidates better for the mean time, you can of course do it. There will always be people to believe it, but as a patent attorney you need to back it with the information. One way is to show the source: where in EPI council meetings was this discussed and was it adapted by the Examining Committee?
ReplyDeleteFor C5 - I did A3 2nd embodiment + A2 and A5.
ReplyDeleteLike many here, the 2nd embodiment appears to be the CPA as it is the only document that teaches a portal system and C5 main purpose is clearly directed to this. But DP solution has me worried. Are there any marks for this as the the reason for choosing it as CPA seems so valid (and a lot of people have already commented on this here).
I hope so. I too did A3 2nd embodiment as CPA with A2 for the same reason as you, I.e. A2 2nd embodiment is only doc that teaches portal system.
DeleteI don't understand why some people keep saying that A3 2nd embodiment should be the CPA for claim 5...? First, the ball of A3 2nd embodiment is bladderless but claim 5 comprises a ball of claim 4 that has a bladder; this means that we need at least a document hinting at adding a bladder into a bladderless ball. which document then? Secondly, the ball of claim 4 has segments stitched together by the hybrid yarn, forming a structural antenna to allow electronic detection of the ball, but the ball of A3 2nd embodiment is "seamless" and has simply antenna coils glued to its surface of casing. If one refers to A2 or A5 which discloses mainly yarns, these yarns may at most be glued to a ball, which will not lead to the ball of claim 4 at all. Or do I miss something here? Can one really arrive at claim 5 by starting from A3 2nd embodiment?
Deleteand it doesn't make sense to keep saying A3 2nd embodiment should be CPA because it is only doc that teaches portal system... A3 1st embodiment discloses ultrahigh-frequency transceivers integrated with two goal posts and crossbar of a so-called "smart goal" to provide an arrangement for electronic goal detection. The problem with this arrangement is that its transceivers are not portable and fixed to only one goal opening. However, a skilled person would learn from A3 2nd embodiment to improve them, so that they can be easily carried and installed in other places. Accordingly, the skilled person arrives at the subject matter of claim 5. Isn't this the whole meaning of the "problem-solution-approach" and the EQE then??
DeleteA3 2nd embodiment is not an unreasonable document to consider CPA for claim 5. You could argue the purpose of claim 5 is to provide a portal system (this is what claim 5 is for) and A3 2nd embodiment teaches this. A3 2nd embodiment could be combined with A2 - there is a further statement stating that A3 1st and 2nd embodiments have many similar components together. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to have A3 2nd embodiment as your CPA for these reasons.
DeleteA3 1st embodiment might fit better for EQE but I can totally see A3 2nd embodiment being selected as CPA too. I think marks would be given if one of these two were selected as CPA.
DeleteI do feel curious how many marks would be given if one chooses a seemingly reasonable CPA but cannot arrive at the claimed subject matter with good arguments in the end...can one still obtain half of the marks? (Sorry for double posting but I think my question fits better within this thread..)
DeleteI don't think A3 1st and 2nd embodiments have many similar components together.. clearly, A3 1st has a ball with a bladder and segments stitched together by metal yarn. But A3 2nd has a bladderless and seamless ball without segments and metal wire coils are only glued on the surface of ball. How can one arrive at the ball of claim 4 by starting with A3 2nd ball? except that one replaces the whole A3 2nd ball with the A3 1st ball first (but no hint of this! because the 2nd ball has been developed with aim of replacing the 1st ball!) and then replaces the metal yarn of A3 1st ball with a hybrid yarn in A2 or A5... then why not just start from A3 1st embodiment? A3 1st embodiment with the ball and goal system has more structural & functional components in common with claim 5 and requires minimum modification steps to arrive at claim 5. Thus, A3 1st embodiment would be the most promising starting point.
DeleteNo hint of replacing A3 2nd ball with A3 1st ball, but only the other way around. I think it won't work to start with A3 2nd bladderless and seamless ball and argue for replacing A3 2nd ball with the A3 1st ball, as A3 2nd embodiment even "teaches away" from the A3 1st ball (see the Ref below). So it would be actually a disaster to start from A3 2nd ball. Ref: "the first ball caused a lot of trouble...Many of these first balls were returned to the manufacturer ... as the metal yarn had broken and the seams joining segments had ripped...The manufacturer started a product recall and replaced all the balls with a modified second version. The second ball had a seamless casing with the passive electronic circuit formed by antenna coils glued to its inner surface. The seamless casing made it possible to have a bladderless construction.."
DeleteA3 2nd embodiment + A2 could work - difference is still hybrid barn. There are valid reasons for selecting A3 2nd embodiment as the CPA.
DeleteI think A3 2nd embodiment is a credible alternative attack for claim 5 as CPA. In real life, this would probably be a further attack starting from A3 2nd embodiment. It is established case law that CPA can change and as long as there are reasons for selecting the document as CPA, I don't see how they cannot consider A3 2nd embodiment as an alternative attack.
Delete@Anonymous25 March 2022 at 12:59: Apart from comprising a portable goal system, claim 5 also equally comprises a ball of claim 4 with a bladder and segements stitched togehter with a yarn. In contrast, A3 2nd has a bladderless and seamless ball. Where is the baldder in A3 2nd embodiment, and where are the segments to be sewn by yarn in A3 2nd embodiment?? If you are only able to bring such grounds, I don't think the opposition proceedings can succeed.
DeleteThe second difference is taught in A5 " a matrix of synthetic caoutchouc" which is a rubber bladder.
DeleteI'm just saying that A3 2nd embodiment could be reasonable CPA for C5 as is viewed as credible alternative attack to C5, which should be awarded some amount of marks for it.
I would agree with Anon @ 13.24 - A3 2nd embodiment is a reasonable CPA document for claim 5 with a valid reason to start from there. It's not completely out of the blue. I can understand it if someone selected A4 as CPA or A6 selected as CPA, that would be a non-starter.
Delete@Anonymous25 March 2022 at 13:24: the matrix of synthetic caoutchouc in A5 is used for bicycle tires, isn't it...no teaching or hint to be used for a ball. Further, A3 2nd ball is seamless without segments and the metal coils were gluded on the ball surface. So a skilled person still needs a hint or a motivation "not" to glue the yarn in A2 or A5 onto the ball surface, but instead to use them for stitching segments of a ball... still very difficult to arrive at claim 5 by starting from A3 2nd...
DeleteThe bicycle in A5 is there for CPA considerations and no one is saying that A5 is CPA for C5. A passage in A3, there is now a clear trend towards returning to classical constructions with 20 white hexagon and 12 black pentagon leather panels and a bladder, as it has never been disputed that sewn balls provide optimum control and flight stability. So skilled person would consider adding rubber bladder to the ball and this rubber bladder material is taught in A5.
Delete@Anonymous25 March 2022 at 14:37: the passage in A3 you mentioned appears on a magazine in 2022, but A1 has been filed in 2019. Secondly, it is also difficult to prove that the clear trend toweards returning to classical balls has already started before the filing date of A1. Thirdly, even if "it has never been disputed that sewn balls provide optimum control and flight stability", a skilled person still needs a strong motivation to add a bladder into the A3 2nd ball. Remember, the A3 2nd ball has been developed in order to replace the A3 1st ball with a bladder, why would a skilled person go back to the former ball that has been deemed as a worse solution then?? Even if a skilled person would really go back to the inferior 1st model ball and consider to add bladder into the A3 2nd ball, why would the skilled person use the material of rubber (the passage you refer to only mentions a bladder, not the rubber material) and why would the skilled person consult A5?? A5 is related to a remote field (bicycle, not a ball), so it is unlikely for a skilled person to look into A5. Further, A5 did not teach or even hint that the material can be applied to a ball at all.
DeleteThe problem here is that both A3 1st embodiment and A3 2nd embodiment could be seen as valid CPA for claim 5, so obviously if you go down the route of A3 2nd embodiment as CPA - and may find that arguments are a little more tricky but you are already quite a bit way through it and its probably too late to change during the exam and re-do the attack.
Deleteits clear that Examiner would consider all cases providing there are valid reasons to do so as changing your answer mid-way through is much worse (given the lack of time available). See their mark scheme last year and passage below. So I still maintain that it is reasonable A3 2nd embodiment could be seen as CPA based on the features of claim 5. At least marks for CPA and features, TE, OTP should be given. Argumentations of combining art may be a little tricky but still possible with A2 as the combining art.
For inventive step attacks the candidate's answers were given marks within the structure of the problem-solution approach (Guidelines G-VII.5), even if an answer did not follow it. The problem-solution approach requires identification of the closest prior art for each inventive step attack. A substantiated argumentation of the choice includes a reason why a document is chosen as the closest prior art.
Alternatively to the attacks set out in the “possible solution”, marks were awarded depending on the argumentation provided, in particular for motivating why and how certain modifications would be made. Also, if an attack for an antecedent claim was based on the wrong documents, the continuation of that attack in a dependent claim was considered dependent upon the merits.
@Anonymous25 March 2022 at 15:28: if a skilled person has to overcome so many hurdles to obtain claim 5, I think claim 5 does involve an inventive step ;-)
Delete@Anonymous 25 March 2022 at 16:41
DeleteRegarding switching CPA, I think one should still change the answer mid-way if one finds out the CPA is wrong...and this is actually now doable and can be done quickly thanks to the E-format!
I also don't have much time left after claim 4..but I just copied my answer for claim 4 and only need to say somewhere inbetween that, apart from those arguements shown for claim 4, claim 5 has an extra difference of the portable sensors, but this feature has no synergy effect with the hybrid yarn so they should be treated differently..etc. For claim 6, it is also very quick to copy and paste from claim 5, and one just needs to say that the extra difference is non-technical and contributes no inventive step, and blah blah. It took for me maybe 10 mins to finish claim 6 just before the last min of the exam end.
I fully welcome eEQE, as claims 5 and 6 can be done really quickly thanks to the electronic features of eEQE! (but of course, one needs to build a nice inventive-step argument based on claim 4 first...) I personlly think that the online format is much more advantagous than the tranditional one!
This is actually not true. The marks provided for C 2021 were for each claims. I got zero marks for claims with wrong attacks. The marking scheme has been changed from the "use of information" and "argumentation" to right attacks.
ReplyDeleteand it doesn't make sense to keep saying A3 2nd embodiment should be CPA because it is only doc that teaches portal system... A3 1st embodiment discloses ultrahigh-frequency transceivers integrated with two goal posts and crossbar of a so-called "smart goal" to provide an arrangement for electronic goal detection. The problem with this arrangement is that its transceivers are not portable and fixed to only one goal opening. However, a skilled person would learn from A3 2nd embodiment to improve them, so that they can be easily carried and installed in other places. Accordingly, the skilled person arrives at the subject matter of claim 5. Isn't this the whole meaning of the "problem-solution-approach" and the EQE then??
ReplyDeleteIt has been clear that Examiners will consider alternative attack if good reasons are given. I think A3 2nd embodiment do have good reasons to be selected as CPA and so I think it would be considered as a reasonable alternative attack so it would attract marks.
DeleteI do feel curious how many marks would be given if one chooses a seemingly reasonable CPA but cannot arrive at the claimed subject matter with good arguments in the end...can one still obtain half of the marks?
DeleteLast year's mark schemes, as long as CPA reasons are given, they would award marks accordingly for CPA marks and features disclosed along with difference, technical effects, OTP and argumentations for combining art if valid reasons are given. So even if you did start from A3 2nd embodiment (and they were looking for A3 1st embodiment), you can still obtain a significant portion of marks providing you follow the problem solution approach.
DeleteFor inventive step attacks the candidate's answers were given marks within the structure of the problem-solution approach (Guidelines G-VII.5), even if an answer did not follow it. The problem-solution approach requires identification of the closest prior art for each inventive step attack. A substantiated argumentation of the choice includes a reason why a document is chosen as the closest prior art.
I agree it is impossible to arrive at claim 5 by starting from A3 2nd, and A3 2nd ball even teaches a skilled person *away* from claim 5... A3 2nd embodiment aims to replace A3 1st ball. It is the main reason why A3 2nd ball has been introduced, isn't it?! In view of A3 2nd, a skilled person would be tought away from A3 1st ball and would never arrive at the ball of claim 4.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. A3 2nd embodiment is actually closer to C5 purely in terms of claim language in C5, - it is the document that teaches a portal system and this is exactly the purpose of C5 - so I can definitely see why A3 2nd embodiment is selected as CPA.
Delete@Anonymous25 March 2022 at 13:02: in terms of claim language, Claim 5 is directed to an arrangement for goal detection, comprising the ball according to claim 4, and further comprising at least three ultrahigh-frequency electromagnetic wave sending and receiving units. That is, the arrangement "equally" comprises a ball and ultrahigh-frequency sensors, so the importance of the ball is the same with those sensors in claim 5. A3 1st emb. discloses a very similar ball to claim 4 and non-carried sensors. A3 2nd emb. discloses a ball teaching away from claim 4 and portable sensors. Maybe both A3 1st and A3 2nd can be CPA, but by starting from A3 2nd emb., a skilled person would never arrive at claim 5, as A3 2nd emb. teaches away from using a ball with bladder and segements sewn by any yarn either metal or hybrid.
DeleteI would expect marks to be given for starting A3 2nd embodiment and as you said, it could be seen as the CPA for C5 (albeit probably not full marks available for C5) The hybrid yarn is taught in A2 so A3 2nd embodiment could be combined with A2 (just like with A3 1st embodiment with A2). A5 teaches rubber bladder and can be combined with A3 2nd embodiment. There is a nice passage in A3 (in the summary) that suggests balls should integrate synthetic material so this would motivate the PSA to look at A5. Its a reasonable alternative attack to collect a portion of marks.
Delete@Anonymous25 March 2022 at 13:39: the matrix of synthetic caoutchouc in A5 is used for bicycle tires. Whole A5 is directed to bicycle, not ball, i.e. no teaching or hint to be used for a ball. Further, A2 teaches hybrid yarn. OK, but A3 2nd ball is seamless without segments and the metal coils were gluded on the ball surface. So a skilled person having a hybrid yarn still needs a motivation "not" to glue the hybrid yarn onto the ball surface, but instead the skilled person has to use them for stitching segments of a ball together (where is the hint??) Further, where are the segments in A3 2nd ball to be sewn by any yarn?? imo, it is not a reasonable alternative attack by starting from A3 2nd ball at all.
DeleteI'm not saying the attack was perfect, I'm saying that I can see A3 2nd embodiment being selected as a CPA and the reasons for it are valid, so it is reasonable that A2 2nd embodiment with A2 should be considered as an alternative attack. I doubt you get full marks on it but A2 teaches a hybrid barn. There is a paragraph in A2 that means the teaches identical systems between 1st and 2nd embodiments. Further - A3 2nd embodiments mentions the problem that experts investigated that and found out that after a certain period of use the antenna coils became detached from the ball’s casing and started to move freely inside the ball, which changed the ball's electromagnetic properties. A2 does teaches EPO yarn can be used for various applications - epo® yarn, it can be sufficient to use our epo® yarn to sew the different parts of the material together. I think A3 2nd embodiment could be combined with A2. I still think its a reasonable alternative attack to make.
DeleteIt would be extremely harsh to give zero marks for C5 if someone started from A3 2nd embodiment as CPA.
DeleteMaybe I am completely wrong and missed something, but starting from A3 2nd, one has only to replace the ball. Starting from A3 1st, one has to replace the ball AND the transceivers to portable. Therefore A3 2nd is CPA.
DeleteI still think its not unreasonable for A3 2nd embodiment to be CPA for claim 5 on basis that it is a portal system and also it discloses transceivers. As others mentioned, it seems a valid reason for selecting this as CPA for claim 5.
DeleteI think 3 attacks on C3 is insane and not enough time is given to do all these attacks. I hope you can attract all the available marks given for ASM + one of the novelty attacks (A3 1st embodiment or A6 - Art 54(3)). It seems that there are too many attacks for this claim. If you only do one novelty attack - would that only be worth 5 or 6 marks? It seems to little given I took a while doing the novelty attack and to do 2 novelty attacks is quite a bit of work. Hopefully, full marks for novelty can still be given if only 1 attack is used.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a bit baffled as to why A6 could be considered as a novelty attack - it doesn't seem to me that it discloses a rubber bladder at all.
Yeah - I would agree with this. Not sufficient time given to do all these attacks (not to mention some here suggest A6 is also attackable against claim 4). It seems too much and definitely overkill for just 1 claim in Paper C. One strong attack per claim has been the mantra in recent papers.
DeleteI agree with your analysis for Claim 6, but my argument was based on Art52(2)c). Since the subject is "playing games" which is not regarded as patentable inventions.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone do as me?
Thanks,
@Anonymous 25 March 2022 at 14:37: I think you actually made a common mistake of using **hindsight knowledge** when saying "So skilled person would consider adding rubber bladder to the ball and this rubber bladder material is taught in A5". The reasoning is as follows: First, there is no clear teaching of implementing a rubber bladder into the A3 2nd ball (as someone said above, A3 2nd ball may even teach away from a bladder ball). Second, A5 is a distant field (bicycle vs football), thus no reason for skilled person to look at A5. Even if a skilled person reads A5, still no teaching in A5 to use the material of A5 (synthetic caoutchouc or rubber) to make a football, let alone a football bladder. Finally, there are also suitability and compatibility issues: Is the material of A5 really suitable for making a football bladder?? If the material of A5 is somehow used onto the A3 2nd ball, is this modification still compatible with other components of the A3 2nd ball? all in all, without the hindsight provided by A1, one actually would not arrive at claim 5 in view of A3 2nd ball + A5, I think.
ReplyDeleteA3 1st embodiment is an integrated system and teaches away from a portal system which is the purpose of claim 5. So to me, A3 2nd embodiment does feel like the CPA for c5, or you can understand why it can be considered as CPA for C5.
Delete@Anonymous 27 March 2022 at 14:19:
DeleteClaim 5 is directed to "an arrangement for goal detection, comprising the ball according to claim 4, and further comprising at least three ultrahigh-frequency electromagnetic wave sending and receiving units." So, the arrangement "equally" comprises a ball and ultrahigh-frequency sensors, i.e. the importance of the ball is the same with those sensors in claim 5.
A3 1st embodiment discloses integrated sensors: this does NOT teach away portable sensors, but only needs to be improved. Which prior art says that the integrated sensors are preferred or much better than portable ones, so the integrated sensors can NOT be replaced or improved by changing them into portable ones???
Instead, there is a clear "teaching away" message in A3 2nd embodiment to teach away a ball with bladder and segments to be sewn (i.e. the ball of claim 4): "the first ball caused a lot of trouble...Many of these first balls were returned to the manufacturer ... as the metal yarn had broken and the seams joining segments had ripped...The manufacturer started a product recall and replaced all the balls with a modified second version. The second ball had a seamless casing with the passive electronic circuit formed by antenna coils glued to its inner surface. The seamless casing made it possible to have a bladderless construction..."
However, it is unclear what effective date these statements (the first ball caused a lot of trouble...Many of these first balls were returned to the manufacturer ... as the metal yarn had broken and the seams joining segments had ripped...The manufacturer started a product recall and replaced all the balls with a modified second version. The second ball had a seamless casing with the passive electronic circuit formed by antenna coils glued to its inner surface. The seamless casing made it possible to have a bladderless construction) have. Is it known now and part of the interview or is it common knowledge available since the product recall. Also there is no clear date for this recall. Somewhen in the past should not be enough, I guess
DeleteHi, I think it is clear from A3 when the recall for first ball and replacement with the second ball happened. A3 cleraly said it happened some months after the first ball has been launched! So, according to A3, the statements (the first ball caused a lot ...The manufacturer started a product recall and replaced all the balls with a modified second version.. The second ball...) as well as the date for the recall should have happened before the A1 filing date for sure!
DeleteThere are pros and cons for selecting A3 1st embodiment as CPA or A3 2nd embodiment as CPA for claim 5. I can see the arguments for selecting one or the other here.
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be remembered is that this is done under exam condirions and candidates won't have long to really think about everything. Given the circumstances, A3 1st or 2nd embodiment have reasons as the CPA for claim 5. I don't think you can select the wrong CPA between A3 1st and 2nd embodiments so marks and features should be awarded for both. Where there may a difference is the marks available for argumentation that follows, which is a bit easier with A3 1st embodiment
ReplyDeleteA6 used against C4 and C3 seems to require an awful lot of analysis and claim/term language extrapolation. It's almost to the point that I've never seen something like this in Paper C. Bormally, it does not require this amount of effort to use a novelty attack. I don't think 3 attacks for C3 is the intention.
ReplyDeleteA6 can't be Art 56(3) EPC because it does not clearly disclose a rubber bladder. I don't think candidates are expected to use A6 against C4 or C3 and also, there's really no time to do this and IS attacks.
DeleteIt clearly does disclose a rubber bladder, see the respective arguments above.
DeleteI remain very unconvinced that A6 could be used for novelty. It could be implied that A6 discloses a bladder but NOT a rubber bladder. It is evident in A3 2nd embodiment that NOT all balls have a rubber bladder. Therefore, I don't think A6 can be used as Art 56(3) EPC. You really need to stretch the meaning to make it fit as a rubber bladder - I don't think that's possible.
DeleteAlso - There are far too many attacks for claims C3 and C4 if you include A6 given the time available. A6 against C3 and C4 along with IS for C4 and ASM + Art 54(2) A3 1st embodiment for C3.
DeleteI really don't feel that they are looking for another "weak" novelty attack against C3 and C4. It's too much.
For Claim 2 - A5 is the CPA as it is the only document that discloses a method of manufacturing a hybrid yarn. This reason alone is sufficient for it to be considered as the closest prior art as A4 is a method of manufacturing a hybrid core, which is not a hybrid yarn but it is in a similar field.
ReplyDeleteA5 makes it clear in my view that yarn and core are different. Reinforced layer can made of hybrid yarn or core. So yes, A5 is the only document that discloses a method of manufacturing a hybrid yarn.
DeleteI would agree - A5 is the only doc that actually discloses a method of making a hybrid yarn - cord is a different feature from yarn (nothing says they are the same thing) and A5 even suggests that the reinforcement layer can be made of yarn or cord but cord is preferred in some applications. So yes, A5 is CPA to claim 2 on the basis that it is the only document that discloses a method for manufacturing a hybrid yarn.
ReplyDeleteI just been told that if you said A2 is not prior A54(2) in C1 but say it is prior art due to products therein being available before 2012 in C2 you will not score any points. Is this true????????????
ReplyDeleteYou should only lose point in the part in the "effective dates of the Annexes" not in your argumentation.
DeleteIf you stated that A2 is published after filing date of A1 and therefore not prior art in C1, and in C2 argue for the products in A2 being prior art they cannot block you from getting points based on one sentence stated in C1. That would be really unfair.
This is the biggest problem with the split. Candidates really should be allowed to make changes to their notice of opposition until the end of the entire exam. There are things which you may spot and change. Overloading candidates at the start and making them feel rushed to try and get something down for part 1 is ridiculous pressure. In part 2, there is a bit more thinking time but no changes are allowed. You don't submit 1 part and then another part later. It's silly. Have 2 separate patent to oppose. One in Part 1 and a separate one in part 2.
DeleteThe products disclosed in A3 had nothing to do with the claims of C1.
DeleteI would find it unfair if we were expected to provide effective dates of all these products in C1, just because we could since we had a copy of A3, but without knowing if these effective dates would be relevant at all.
but you still need to write whether it had anything to do with claims 1 or 2 otherwise you will not get given the marks if you wrote it in part 2. The split has been incredibly unfair on candidates taking paper C over the past two years. The split is not fit for purpose!
Delete@Anonymous 12.23,
DeleteWhere did you hear that? Matter of fact is that A3 is not a 54(2), however it discloses evidence that can be used as 54(2) (prior use).
As long as you have correct argumentation when using A3 you're cool. They will not see like "okay he did a good attack with A3" and then "oh.. but he did not say its prior use in C1, lets give his perfect attack 0 points then!".
The whole of paper C is an absolute mess ever since this split. The rule of not allowing one to change answers etc is really prohibiting. Candidates may discover after later analysis that some of their earlier attacks may not be right and therefore they can change this in the past. The current system of C1 and C2 is set up to confuse and overload candidates at the start by providing all prior art documents but hiding bits and bobs, making it difficult to understand and get a grip on the exam.
ReplyDelete@trying to keep head above water - I'm afraid that I do not if that is true but they have said that they will not mark something that is already in C1 and C2.
What do you mean by "they will not mark something that is already in C1 and C2." ?
DeleteThis year Paper C is truly painful. I hope they give candidates the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeletenot in this case as it can easily be overcome. So expecting another novelty attack (probably not 2 though - A6 seems a bit of a stretch for Art 54(3) on claim 3.
ReplyDeleteI know many have said that this year's paper was slightly better than last year but for me, the split really does not work with this paper. They need to reconsider Paper C. It can't go on like this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's better than last year. It was a bloody difficult paper.
DeleteIt's a very difficult paper. Once again, lots to do in C1 and not sufficient time given.
DeleteBut how could we know whether original claim 3 was in a two-part from with the characterizing part = granted claim 4? That situation would trigger an 123(2)-problem. However, if original claim 3 introduced the subject matter of granted claim 4 as "optionally" or "preferably" or "such as" or "or", no 123(2)-problem would arise. Although highly irrelevant for EQE, what would be more likely in real life? :-)
ReplyDeleteI just looked at my answer paper, which I printed out but did not review until now. Several of my answers have the wrong sentences in them - I think due to a repeated copy and paste error? As I am a pretty good typist, I did not look at the screen that often... will I be able to gain points if it is clear that the copy paste error consistently delivered the wrong sentence? Has anyone else had this problem?
ReplyDeleteHi Gianna, I experienced this same issue during the exam. Rather than the system copying the text I had highlighted (when in copy mode), I found that when I pasted the material, it kept pasting the previous text I had copied and pasted hence it was not correctly copying the currently highlighted text. I changed back and forth from annotated mode to view mode to see if this would correct it but to no avail. Eventually I had to close down all tabs and re-open them to get the function working again - the system is ridiculous!!
DeleteI think I will file a complaint about this. So the EQE knows about it and will need to pay attention to it when marking.
DeleteI know it is formally too late to file a complaint but they cannot ignore it, can they?
DeleteI just want to ask here on blog, if A3 is containing disclosure on products for sale but it is itself published after the effective filing date of claims that are only in part 2 of exam, how will be marked if I say in part 1 it is not prior art Art54(2) for the claims, and then say in part 2 it is prior art Art 54(2) for the claims? I am worried that many people said effective dates and prior art analysis is only marked in part 1. It is not so fair with the 2 parts - I cannot know what claims are coming in part 2 !
ReplyDeleteI don't know the answer. But seriously... you should not be worry about that, as the part for ALL effective dates and prior art analysis usually counts for (at most) 16 points.. and the analysis for A3 may thus count for only 2-4 points..? Considering that one just needs 50 pts to pass the exam, I think you can enjoy a happy easter holiday ;-)
DeleteI failed last year and am hoping this year will be different. But I think we just cannot know how they mark the papers considering the 2 parts. That is a blackbox for me and I won't enjoy the holidays till I know my fate!
ReplyDeleteMe too. I am very worried about it. I got 3 attacks according to DP but if they are as harsh as everyone says they are, I will get pretty much next to nothing for the other claims.
DeleteI think the two part split makes it extremely harder and introduces mistakes especially for the general info bit. There were also some IT issues with the wiseflow so hoping they will account for it.
Good day to you all. I am a first sitting candidate and I just got a letter from EQE saying they can only confirm I took the exams but cannot give me a grade now until in June! I am so very worried about this, and I thinking it is because I failed or because something is preventing them tell me my points - I thinking somethin with this AI invigilation, I mean they heard or saw soemthing and they need further discussions or something for that. Any of you got this letter as well? Or in last year wait for investigation to finish? Please give me this feedback, also if anyone filed a appeal already when getting this letter. Thank you so much.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. Everyone got this email. This is only a confirmation that you took the exam, i.e. successfully submitted your paper. I sat the C paper for the second time. Last year we also received such a confirmation email. I guess from now on they start to correct the papers. It is normal that we get the results in June or July.
DeleteI have not received a letter as yet. Now I am getting worried!
ReplyDeleteHas anyone got a reply yet to a complaint e-mail to the EQE helpdesk, apart from just the receipt confirmation? I have had nothing so far, and am worried that they do not take the technical issues I had into account with marking.
ReplyDeleteNot yet, I was wondering the same thing!
ReplyDeleteIf someone got results already today, please post, as I so far have not received anything. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the results will come end of next week
Deletecome on, thermal treatment is different to treatment with solvents, a person skilled in the art knows the difference and can spot the differences easily. Also thermal treatment is known from A5 and A1 states: This method of dissolving an intermediate layer has proven to be the most precise way of controlling the dimension of the void. Therefore thermal treatment was tested and leads to different results.
ReplyDelete"A1 only used the best solvent, but the claim covers [other] other solvents too and sets no boundary on the amount of residue that may be left. The claim only requires some void appearing."
ReplyDeleteThat is not the whole truth, because you can easily reverse these arguments saying: thermal treatment is known in the state of the art A5, however, A1 specifys they can control the dimensions of the void to a better degree using a solvent method without saying which solvent up to that point (A1,0015). they do not say which other methods they tested but thermal treatment is obviously known. it is also known that solvents can leave residue (a4) as well as thermal treatment can do. however, A1 still makes the statement that the solvent method gives a better control over the void. we have to believe the statement. so A1 explicitly says the void (with or without residue) after solvent treatment is distinguishable from a void after thermal treatment at least for the inventors in A1 and therefore also for the person skilled in the art.
In view of the heavy debates regarding Claim 5 above, could some of you please share: if one got wrong CPA (for example, starting from A3 2nd ball) but has delivered good arguments based on Problem-Solution-Approach, did one still get some points?? I just want to know whether it's really true that EPO would consider (and even accept) different answers and also award points if a candidate chose the wrong prior art but has demonstrated how to apply the problem-solution-approach very well! thanks in advance!
ReplyDeleteI passed, so this discussion shows you don't need to be 100% right to pass. You just need to get a few points (for an answer that has some reason).
ReplyDeleteMy answer was not correct, but I was awarded 16 points for my attack. So, you can be wrong, and still pass as long as you show good reasoning.
ReplyDeleteWhoever decided its OK to use a statement from the "patent to be attacked A1" itself as "common general knowledge" and/or to combine the patent A1 itself with a 54(3) document and/or to use any statement without an indicated date as prove against novelty of any claim of the patent A1 and/or phrasing the "common general knowledge" completely different in french (no rubber just coutchouk) <-> english (normal version?!?) <-> and german (rubber strictly connected to coutchouk) should explain how solution makes a good european patent attourney
ReplyDeleteI came back here a year later to let everyone know i passed. This is what the EQE does to you. It makes you randomly remember things when you wake up.
ReplyDeleteThis appeal wrt C 2022 was not successful:
ReplyDeleteD 0037/22 () of 24.2.2023
3. In accordance with Article 24(4) REE and the consistent case law of the DBA, which followed decision D 1/92 (OJ EPO 1993, 357) and D 6/92 (OJ EPO 1993, 361), decisions of the Examination Board may, as a rule, only be reviewed for the purposes of establishing that they do not infringe the REE, the provisions relating to its application or higher-ranking law. It is not the function of the DBA to reconsider the entire examination procedure on the merits. This is because the Examination Committee and the Examination Board have some latitude of evaluation subject to only limited judicial review by the DBA. Accordingly, the Examination Board's value judgement on the number of marks that an examination paper deserves is not subject to review by the DBA. […]
4. The board understands from the appellant's submissions and arguments that she believes that an objective evaluation of her answer paper to Paper C should have led to her answer paper to Paper C being awarded a higher grade (at least a COMPENSABLE FAIL). The appellant's requests and submissions with regard to Paper C have to be evaluated and judged against the above principles and case law.
[…]
6/8/17. In view of the above considerations, the board fails to see any infringement of law or an unreasonable exercise of discretion in the marking of the part of the answer paper on the general part of Paper C / claim 2 / claim 4.
Conclusion
18. In light of the above considerations, the board does not see that the decision of the Examination Board infringes any applicable provision of the REE, the IPREE or any higher-ranking law. Therefore, neither the main request nor the first or second auxiliary request of the appellant is allowable. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed.
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d220037eu1.html
From that "decision":
ReplyDelete"Therefore, in the case at hand, the appellant could only claim unequal treatment if she could convince the board that she had waived an attack on novelty against claim 4 due to the allegedly unclear statements in paragraph [0011] of document A6 and paragraph [0018] of document A1 in the German version."
Firstly, how would you even prove, why you didn't write anything. Candidates cannot be expected to state for every omitted attack, why they did not do it.
Come on, there is no time to put for every annex, why you did not consider the attacks. That actually means attacking novelty with A2 could require candidates to also state why not novelty from A2-Ax. Even worse for inventive step attacks, why not novelty and why not any other combination for IS.
Secondly, the above cited paragraph means in other words:
It was OK to treat this candidate unevenly because the candidate had no proof.