Our attempt - Paper C 2025 IR thermometer
Paper C of 2025 discussed measuring body temperature using an IR sensor. The paper presented the candidates with several interesting legal and substantive issues.
Part 1. F
Added matter
Claim 3 is an intermediate generalization of the examples presented in the application as filed. Claim 3 has an optional feature.
The client wants us to attack 'a possible fallback'. The obvious fallback would claim 3 wherein the added matter feature is removed and the optional feature is now required.
Effective dates
Claims 1, 2, and amended claim 3 get the priority date.
List of evidence
A2, A3, and A5 are art. 54(2) prior art for claims 1, 2, and amended claim 3
A4 is 54(3) prior art for claims 1, 2, and amended claim 3
Prior art attacks
Claim 1 is not novel over A4. Since this is a novelty 54(3) attack, we will need an auxiliary attack.
Some of us went for a novelty attack based on A3; others preferred an inventive step starting from A3, combining it with either common general knowledge or with A5.
The key feature in Claim 1 is: the thermometer system further comprising electronic means (17) for compensating for the influence of environmental effects.
One can argue that A3 discloses this feature in the form of sanitisation unit 230. The argument would be that viruses or bacteria (A3, para 3) are an example of environmental effects. They are compensated for by sanitisation unit 230, which is an electric unit. Claim 1 is not limited to 'compensating for the influence of environmental effects on the temperature calculation' . It was the proprietor's own choice to formulate Claim 1 too broadly, and so it must expect novelty attacks in this regard.
In case one considers this a stretch, another approach would be to say that taking into account ambient temperature is implicit. Here, the argument is that without such compensation, the thermometer of A3 would not work, and thus it must have the feature.
Nevertheless, the counterarguments are that 1) 'environmental effects' must be read in the context of A1, para 8, and therefore must mean effects related to the detected IR radiation, 2) the boards have created a high bar for implicit disclosure, which is not met here. In this case the novelty attack based on A3 fails, and one has to go for an inventive step attack. This attack might start from A3and combine either with common general knowledge or A5.
Claim 2. Inventive step with closest prior art A3 and combining with A2. If you choose an inventive step attack for Claim 1, this would become a partial problems attack, also using CGK or A5.
Claim 3: Added matter (see above). An inventive step attack based on A3+A2 (and CGK/A5) may be used for amended claim 3. There is a legal subtlety here in that A2 discloses the feature of claim 3 in the form of two lists. Normally under the two-list doctrine having to select from two lists may make a claim novel. However, in this case, only one selection in one list is needed, as the other list happens to be identical to the claimed list.
Part 2
Added matter
There are two possible added matter attack on Claim 7.
Claim 7 was amended to include an undisclosed disclaimer to make the claim novel over 54(3) prior art A4. This is allowed, but one should not respect various limitations.
For the first added matter attack, consider that the disclaimer introduced in claim 7 reads: "the switching between the first and second operating mode does not involve mechanical actuation of a push-button". However, the prior right A4 contains "the user presses the mechanical push-button 14". In other words, A4 has the species 'mechanical push-button', but the disclaimer has the genus 'push-button'. There are push-buttons that are not mechanical push-buttons, e.g., push buttons based on the capacitive effect. Such buttons can still be pushed mechanically even though they are not mechanical push buttons. By removing more than needed, the proprietor cannot use the special exception for undisclosed disclaimer anymore, and so this makes Claim 7 added matter.
Although this seems a valid attack, probably it was not required.
Another approach is to say that a disclaimer that becomes relevant for inventive step (as this one does, see below) adds subject matter. See headnote 2.3 of G1/03. I am guessing that either this approach or the inventive step attack below would be accepted.
Effective dates
Claims 4 and 6 get the priority date. Claim 5 gets the filing date. Claim 7 also gets the priority date, unless one considers it added matter, in which case it gets no date.
List of Evidence
A2, A3, and A5 are 54(2) for all claims; A4 is 54(3) for claims 4, 6, and 7 and 54(2) for claim 5.
The EARIX 3.2 ear thermometer was publicly available before the priority date and thus is 54(2) for all claims. Evidence for the public availability comes from A6, first comment, and from the priority document of A4. A6 further contains evidence of the features of the EARIX 3.2 ear thermometer.
Attack under art 53(c)
One might consider an attack on claims 4 and 6 under article 53(c) as a diagnostic method. Claims 4 seems to go out of their way to make clear that all steps are performed on the human or animal body. Nevertheless, the diagnosis step, which is required for a diagnostic method seems absent. A1 para 1 makes clear that merely determining fever is not sufficient for a diagnosis, as the fever may be in response to various disorders. Relevant here is T1255/06, which, believe it or not, discussed this very question in the context of infrared thermometers.
Prior art attacks
Claim 4: Inventive step A5+A6
Claim 5: Inventive step A4+A6. One could also continue the attack of claim 4, leading to an inventive step attack A5+A4+A6, but it seems A5 is not needed if one has A4, so A4+A6 seems the stronger option.
Claim 6: Inventive step A5+A6
Claim 7: Inventive step A5.
One tricky feature in claim 7: wherein the thermometer system provides at least two different operating modes, the first operating mode being adapted to sense the radiation emitted from the eardrum and the second operating mode comprising output of a sound.
This seems to bait you into trying A4, which has a first mode for temperature sensing and a second mode for playing audio. However, A5 also has this feature. It has two modes for temperature sensing, the first of which uses the eardrum. In both modes sound can be played in the form of an alarm. Claim 7 is however not limited to only playing sound in the second mode, so this feature is disclosed in A5.
The upshot is that A5 discloses all features of Claim 7 except for the disclaimer. This makes claim 7 novel over A5. However, an undisclosed disclaimer added to restore novelty over a prior right cannot play a role in inventive step. This means that the only novel feature of claim 7 cannot be used to argue claim 7 inventive over A5. (See, Guideslines H-V, 4.2.1, "the evaluation of inventive step has to be carried out disregarding the undisclosed disclaimer")
This makes claim 7 not inventive in light of A5.
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.
Sander, Nyske, with feedback from Joeri
I wasn't sure in the exam so I thought that the undisclosed disclaimer in claim 7 would not be limiting on claim 7 if the novelty attack came from an A.54(2) document. i.e. attacking claim 7 with A5 under A.54(2), the disclaimer would not be an allowable amendment, thus would be non-limiting. Is this not the correct approach?
ReplyDeleteSorry I just saw your reference to Guideslines H-V, 4.2.1. Thank you for the model answer.
DeleteI also argued that the undisclosed disclaimer (G 1/03, G 1/16) was not allowed, as it would lead to novelty over Annex 5 as 54(2) prior art. Why would this not be the correct reasoning?
DeleteYou cannot render a claim novel over prior art according to A54(2) by an undisclosed disclaimer in my opinion.
DeleteGL: "The undisclosed disclaimer (which inevitably quantitatively reduces the original technical teaching) may not qualitatively change the original technical teaching in the sense that the applicant's or patent proprietor's position with regard to other requirements for patentability is improved." Inventive step is mentioned as an example: "in particular"
Therefore, a novelty attack with A5 seems to be justified.
The “other” refers to “other than novelty.”
DeleteAgree that undisclosed disclaimer G 1/16 cannot be used for 54(2). But It can for 54(3), unless “other”.
Thank you for the solution.
ReplyDeleteI find that for claims 1-3 the inventive step attacks are all but clear. With regard to claim 1, when combining A3 with A5 to introduce the feature of compensating for environmental effects A5 discloses the ambient temperature inclusion only in relation to the forehead measurement. Further, I was always under the understanding that in exam mode we don't have general knowledge and unless it's written it's not there. Or thus seems to me that a combination of A3 and A5 would mix embodiments of ear and forehead measurements.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, when adding the further disclosure of A2 I struggled to find pointers towards such a combination. A skilled person should envision how combinations should work, and a combination of A3 and A5 when considering the cap would lead a skilled person to put a sterilizing cap as described in A3 ontop of the cap of A5 or replacing the one of A5 and have 2 caps, one for sterilizing and one for forehead mode. Hence no need to seek a solution by going to A2. If a problem is formulated as to include the cold-mirror of A2 into said combination, wouldn't that have a pointer towards the solution?
I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment, but I struggled with above thoughts and actually find that claims 2 and 3, when not considering some other issues can also be argued to be inventive. In particular why would a skilled person after combining A3 and A5 still seek A2 and what pointer would be used.
Similarly, when starting from A3 alone, what would render the skilled person to seek A2 over a different solution comprising on the one hand a cap for sterilizing and on the other one for forehead measurements? I find no pointer towards needing a single cap or towards describing losing caps.
- A3[16] discloses forehead measurements
DeleteIt's not unusual that you can find a line to defend the claims. The exercise is to find the best attacks, not perfect attacks.
Thanks for posting your answer so quickly! Gives me comfort, will sleep well after initial big worries.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your answers.
ReplyDeleteIt may have to do with the fact that I had barely the time to read A5, but for claim 4 I felt that starting from the proved use of Earix 3.2 was closer than all the other documents? In the end A6 shows us that when Earix was used, one determines the body condition, and includes also the most relevant feature of the three temperature ranges.
For claim 7, was there anywhere in the paper mentioned the existence of capacitive push-buttons, or would this be external knowledge? Also, I did not think about reading the sliding cap of A5 as a push-button, but, on the other hand, two days ago we also learned that a push-button is an elongated key, so everything seems possible here...
I am glad to see at least one other person thought this!
DeleteI agree that starting from A6 seems reasonable. If you have a smartphone, then you are surely well familiar with non-mechanical push-buttons.
DeleteHow do we know whether Earix is an IR thermometer? Can we generalise that all ear thermometers have IR sensors? Maybe I missed something in A6...
Delete@AP I referred to the common knowledge admitted by A1 ([004]-[006]) discussing the general principle of functioning of the devices and the ranges emitted by the human body. I also argued that if the selection of the IR range was not considered implicit in Earix, its selection would not have been inventive, in view of said admitted common knowledge. There were similar arguments in past papers (I believe the 2023 one, the one on the yarns and football balls, where a A54(3) attack had to be substantiated with statements from the patent). For claim 4 we are talking anyway about inventive step, and to me the focus of the method seemed on the use of the three temperature ranges, rather than "only" signalling the fever as done in A5. The latter seemed the automation of a step the user would anyway do, if they are using a thermometer according to any cited reference. There were what seemed smaller gaps to bridge than starting from A5, even if you want to make the argument that IR is not implicit in Earix, also taking into account that the discussion of the advantages in A6 is post -published and not admitted as common knowledge (they are the impressions of the reviewer and the users), differently than the general statements at the introduction of A1.
Delete@sander curious to know what was your thought process that led you to choose A5 instead of A6 as the CPA for the method claims in the second part! Thanks!
DeleteFor claim 4 diagnostic method, do you mean the patentability issue resulting from Art. 53(c) rather than 54(3)?
ReplyDeleteI did both. First, the Art. 53(c) attack based on G-II, 4.2.1.3, and then I stated, "Furthermore, claim 4 is not inventive over A5 and ERAIX." Do you know if the examiners will evaluate only one or both of the attacks?
DeleteThank you for sharing your answers so quickly!
In my solution I did both as well. Normally, paper C is graded positively--any time you do something right you get marks, you are not penalized for doing things wrong. So I'd expect that the only downside of doing an unexpected attack is that you lose time over it. (barring some exceptions that don't apply here)
DeleteLooks like many possible attacks !
ReplyDeleteWoot, I closely followed these solutions while messing up here and there, especially the claim 1 art54(3) attack where I mapped all features, said all is disclosed then failed to conclude, because I regarded A4 not to be prior art and the jp pub (which incidentally publishes before the filing date in dec2020) not to be usable as Art54(3)…. But then again somebody pointed out that there are guidelines for that so jp prio date becomes a4 effective date… sigh.
ReplyDeleteFor claim 7 I used added matter attack based on a negative definition not derivable from the disclosure as filed, no inv step.
For the environmental compensation both the app and a5 at the beginning confirmed that it is common general knowledge to compensate, so I used a3 plus common general knowledge for claim1 ..if I recall correctly now. Brain refuses to store this and tries to purge this experience from my life.
With this I think I followed 70-90% of the solutions for all exams, if I am right 25%, should be able to compensate any comp fails. Glad it is over.
Thanks deltapatents crew for providing solutions and suffering with us.
Sorry about the misses, but if you get 75% then you're doing ok. (besides, we have made errors in the past in our solution; so perhaps, it's not you, it's us).
DeleteI do think an a.123(2) attack for claim 7, based on the fact that the disclaimer is not disclosed is probably wrong; assuming you didn't also talk about A4.
Thank you for posting your unswers so quickly. I went for the inventive step attack on Claim 1 because in claim 1 it referred to means (17) which was the temperature control sensor according to the description. However, I found this paper a bit odd since the terms where not so well defined and a lot was let to interpretation....which considering the time constraints is quite unfair...
ReplyDeleteTotally agree
DeleteAgree...no definitions!
DeleteThanks for posting on the same day! I don't understand why claim 7 is simply not novel in view of A5 (including disclaimer). The sound in A5 is clearly not triggered by a push button but by the temperature exceeding 37,5. And it is indicated that the sound can happen in both eardrum and forehead configurations, ie when the cap is retracted (no push button involved).
ReplyDelete*not retracted
DeleteClaim 7 reads: "wherein the switching between the first and second operating mode does not involve mechanical actuation of a push-button." In A5, switching between in-ear and forehead mode is triggered by 'mode selector switch 27', which you press down on (para 11). Perhaps you can salvage it by a creative interpretation of the modes, I think claim 7 + disclaimer is novel over A5.
DeleteTo me the relevant paragraph of A5 with respect to claim 7 is paragraph 14, not 11, since the subject-matter is about a sound.
DeleteThis has quite an important consequence because if claim 7 is not novel over A5, then the undisclosed disclaimer is allowable and claim 7 is ok wrt 123(2). But not new in view of A5... Is that right?
DeleteNowhere in the Annexes there is a link that establishes that a push-button and a switch are the same, no? Also looking online for definitions of push button: a mechanical device used to control an electrical circuit in which the operator manually presses a button to actuate an internal switching mechanism" in this case it was manually pressed either. For someone with zero background in electronics it would be hard to make the link.
DeleteTotally agree...
ReplyDeleteI completely failed! Very disappointed after 2 hours of exam, I was not able to find the attack and was still struggling to understand the prior art. No obvious pointer and too much interprétation. It drive me crazy :( Thanks a lot !
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to hear it. Paper C is an overwhelming amount of information in too little time.
DeleteI argued that claim 1 lacked novelty over A3 based on the fact that the electronic means in A1 is a temperature sensor. Hence the electronic means imo are just any means that are suitable for the purpose and electronic in some ways. I think applying a stricter limitation as one would usually for computer elements does not make sense here since the only example in A1 is a sensor. A3 has a processor and A4[10] teaches that environmental effects can be compensated by software so a processor is a suitable electronic mean. But in hindsight - probably not what was expected. :(
ReplyDeleteprobably not expected no. sorry
DeleteThe D, A and B 2025 papers were available on the EQE Compendium already quickly after the exam. But where is C 2025?
ReplyDeleteI found that the time for part 1 is a huge problem.
ReplyDeleteReading and understanding 6 documents needs about more than the half of available time for me.
After that, I have not enough time to write down all needed attacks.
It's for me not the first time, it's the 3th time.
Every year the same procedure as last year.
Everytime for part 2, I have much better result, than in part 1.
For me, it is clear, that reading a little bit more information, gives enough time for part 2.
I hope, this year, I will get the points. If not, it was the last time for me.
How about a novelty attack on claim 1 using A5? Although it is “mounted”, one can always remove it. It is only “mounted” to not be lost. But it can be removed, so it is “releasably attached”.
ReplyDeleteIn A5, if I remember well, the IR sensor is not located on the extremity which is the farthest from the patient.
Deletesame here. can be releasable attached should not restrict the calim.
DeleteBut A5 does say the IR sensor can be moved along the sensor cylinder, so I went for single selection of the position of the sensor over this disclosure A5 and hence claim 1 not novel over A5.
DeleteWent for the same option: claim 1 is not novel Cover A5.
DeleteI'm partial to creative readings of claims! If one tries to sneak in more protection by only half defining the features you need, then you should not complain if you are called out on it in opposition.
DeleteHaving said that interpreting 'releasably attached' as you suggest would mean that *everything* is releasably attached, you just need to apply an industrial grade laser to it. So I don't think that interpretation will fly.
I tend to agree that a novelty attack based on A5 is a stretch but "releasably" is not synomous with "detachably". Something can 'release' while still being 'attached'. For example, the top of a milk jug releases when unscrewed but is still attached via the plastic.
DeleteAt least in the German version it was stated that claim 3 is not included in the priority (!) document. I concluded that the claim was therefore only included in the application as filed . So I thought that there is no added matter attack on claim 3.
ReplyDeleteWas the English version different? Did it clearly say that claim 3 is missing in the application as filed?
The German version had: Die Patentakte ergab weiter, dass Anspruch 3 während der Prüfung hinzugefügt wurde und in der ursprünglich eingereichten Anmeldung nicht enthalten war.
DeleteRegarding claim 4 and the A53c attack:
ReplyDeleteIn the guidelines G-II-4.1.2.3 it is stated that "the identification of the underlying disease is not required (see T 125/02)."
So one could argue that a fever is already a pathology and it is irrelevant from which infection it stems.
It seems a bit off that a single t-decision is required to solve this issue correctly and in contrast to wahr the guidelines may suggest.
Fair point. I don't have a satisfactory answer. In any case the claims sits close to the edge of what is allowed. Question is only on which side of the edge. Reading A1[1], and T1255/06 I'd say that fever is not enough for a pathology. Also, if this was expected then you could do two claims in like 5 minutes. That can't be the intention.
DeleteIndeed, I agree that it is a question of on which side of the edge, but also for another reason IMO. Even if the fever were considered a pathology, it can be argued that the examination phase involving the collection of data (G1/04 step 1) is not performed on the body: "by obtaining an IR sensor signal using a thermometer ..." is not quite the same as "by using a thermometer to obtain an IR sensor signal" - the latter is clearly practiced on the body, the former not really, as it can be read that the signal is just obtained = received (using the thermometer specifies where the signal comes from)
DeleteSee also GL G-II 4.3.2.1:
Delete"...this criterion is fulfilled if the performance of the method step in question necessitates the presence of the body. Direct physical contact with the body is not required." So at least this requirement should be out of question.
I have spent so much time on this attack, it would be a catastrophe to get no pouts at all.. :(
The relevant claim in t1255/06 was quite different to claim 4. Claim 4 explicitly comprises the step: ""assigning the measured temperature value to...the third temperature range...corresponds to an alarming body condition requiring medical attention"
DeleteIt's not just about the measurement in this case but more leaning in the assignment in this case. I hope there are points available for this attack.
For claim 7, i think we can also argue for impermissible extension in the following way:
ReplyDeleteA1 explicitly describes the following in [0021] and [0024]:
[0022]: Further, a mechanical ON/OFF power switch 12 and a touch-sensitive display 15 are provided on the main body's rear surface. When the thermometer is activated via the ON/OFF power switch 12, the control circuit 11 selects "in-ear mode" by default.
[0024] : The proximity sensor 20 detects a distance between the flat surface 32 and an object surface and transmits the distance value to the control circuit 11 via a wireless connection. When the distance
detected is below a threshold because the flat surface 32 is close to the forehead of a
person, the control circuit switches the thermometer system to forehead mode. The
mode switching by the proximity sensor 35 " allows for an automated selection of the
correct mode "without requiring mechanical elements".
That is, A1 only refers to switching "with or without mechanical element "between in-ear mode and forehead mode".
However, in claim 7, the first mode is about temperature measurement and the second mode is sound output, i.e. not switching between in-ear mode and forehead mode, but between temperature measurement mode and sound output mode. Thus, added subject-matter...
That is what I argued
Deletebut the disclaimer was added to create novelty over a prior right. In that case lack of disclosure in A1 is irrelevant.
DeleteI also went to novelty attack for claim 1 in view of A5. I think we can consider it like a range regarding the cylinder as any of point 1 (most distant from patient) to point 2 (closest to patient) in the cylinder. This end point 1 is disclosed. Thus, is also discloses end point that is farthest from the patient as well.
ReplyDeleteIf the disclosure had been, the sensor can be located at any point in the range from 0 to 1. Then yes, you are right. But since the disclosure was merely 'other positions may be envisaged', I don't think you can stretch that that to mean the other endpoint.
DeleteBut it said the suitable point is only available within the length of the cylinder. Therefore, it is equal to saying any suitable point between 0 (farthest) to 1 (closest). Limiting the location of the sensor within the any suitable position would include the end point of the farthest point. Or at least it should be able to do inventive step attack solely based on A5. Isn’t it?
DeleteClaim 7 is not novel over A5. Discloses all the features. Sound output is in all modes, and switching from ear to forehead requires sliding the cap - so no button is pressed
ReplyDeleteSliding the cap actuates a button, so it would be novelty destroying without the disclaimer.
DeleteIf I remember correctly, in claim 7, the second mode was sounding of the alarm not the switching to forehead mode. This was disclosed in paragraph 14 of A5.
DeleteI only had 3 minutes to find and write and attack on claim 7 so I might be wrong here.
I think there is some confusion between 2 different embodiments in A5: 1) where the two modes are ear and forehead and 2) where the two modes are sound/no sound. The second embodiment does not involve any button whatsoever and is novelty destroying for Claim7 even with the disclaimer.
DeleteThank you for posting it so fast!
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything except for claim 7.
If I remember correctly, in claim 7, the second mode was sounding of the alarm not the switching to forehead mode. This was disclosed in paragraph 14 of A5. No buttons needed to pushed to switch into the alarm sounding mode.
I only had 3 minutes to find and write and attack on claim 7 so I might be wrong here.
Regarding claim 4, I think the exam committee expected 2 attacks:art.53(c) and art.56 in case the patentee amended it by adding an undisclosed disclaimer. Contrary to what you wrote, fever was defined as critical body condition in paragraph 1 of A1. So the steps of G1/04 are all satisfied.
My thinking on part 2 was that the prior use described in A6 seemed to more emphatically fit the purpose of the method claims, at it seemed to be focussed on determining body state and had the 3 different states. While A5 has the embodiment which sounds the alarm above the threshold, I wouldn’t say determining the body state was the purpose of the document and obviously didn’t have the 3 different states, with a5 more generally focussing on the multi modal aspect. Admittedly there was a suggestion that A6pu was marketed as a “complete solution” which would suggest we can’t use as CPA, but I’ve had purpose drilled into me so far I would’ve kicked myself if it turned out to be A6pu after all.
ReplyDeleteRegarding A6 and prior use I felt like a detective, having to read all comments of the blog to realise that the device was available to the public since at least 8 years...it took up quite of time. I wonder is this necessary for the exam? Can they just give us the dates? Or was it just a bad joke?
DeleteI heard this only after the exam, but you could also have noted that the earix was disclosed in A4, para 3. Then the client letter would tell you that A4'3 prio was identical. And so 8 july 2019 the earix 3.2 was available.
DeleteMost of claim terms are not disclosed in description. Last year and this year Paper C were extremly hard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I am quite disappointed. The difficulty of this exam was not substantial, rather it derived from the length of the paper, no clear definitions, different possible interpretations, and not enough time...Compared to past exams this was different and due to lack of definitions penalized people which were not familiar with the technical field. In my opinion this is not fair, exams levels and conditions should be consistent over the years to give everybody a fair chance.
DeleteWhich features did you all use from Earix for claims 4-6? I argued that the only differences were non-technical and thus not inventive in view of A5/A4/A5 alone... I did note that Earix also disclosed the non-technical steps though.
ReplyDeleteI did the exam very quickly while doing some real world patent work too and initially missed the referrence to EARIX in A4, which made A6 unavailable (and would have been an interesting novelty for Paper C).
DeleteI had no real problems attacking claims 4 and 5 just using Comvik and the fact that A5 already did provide a warning when entering the zone 3 threshold.
At claim 6, I found out that I must have been doing something wrong. I really couldn't see how to argue that age-dependent thresholds were obvious. That made it clear to me that there must have been a reason to accept A6 as prior art.
That's somewhat comforting to hear! I didn't find anything technical with claim 6 apart from the non-volatile storing of age, which A5 conveniently had. The step of determining thresholds based on the age input I argued to be non-technical and a strp that can be performed mentally. Claim 6 does not state that the determining step is performed by the processor. So, I thought Earix was a red herring that wasn't actually needed, to disguise the non-technical steps (but glad I did mention it)
DeleteThis was the first time I had sat Paper C in the new two-part format, and I can't say I am a fan. I found myself running out of time for the first part, and finishing very early in the second. I would have much preferred to spread the time between the two parts as I desired, as in the past, but I can understand why that isn't ideal from a screen-time perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, here are the answers I submitted, as far as I can recall:
C1
Claim 3 added matter attack
Claim 1 not novel over A4 (54(3))
Claim 2 not inventive over A3+A5 or A3+A2 (partial problem - I ran out of time half way through though)
Had I had time, I would have continued with claim 3 not being inventive for similar reasons as claim 2.
C2
Claim 7 adds matter
Claim 4 not inventive over A5+A6
Claim 5 not invnetive over A4+A6 (as A4 is full prior art against claim 5)
Claim 6 not invnetive over A5+A6 (the photogaph in A6 showing each range having a different coloured light)
Claim 7 not inventive over A5+A3 (I argued that A3 implictly disclosed a forehead measureing mode that was activated by removing the plug)
Since I had a lot of time remaining at that point, I also added an excluded subject matter objection to claims 4-6 as diagnostic methods. I wasn't convinced that classifying a temperature as being too high counts as a diagnosis, but I'd have still at least have tried to run this IRL.
Also, I addd some argument that some of the features of claim 6 were non-technical user preferences/presentation of information (i.e., the use of three colours)
DeleteDear Sanders and Joeri,
ReplyDeleteI attack claim 4 with A6+A5.
It seems to me the best option to start from A6 as it was already a IR ear Thermometer having almost all features of claim 4.
Would be any possibility for that attack.
I struggle a lot with this paper as they were almost no problems in prior art.
Thanks you for your swift attempt of solution and comments and all support that you provide to candidates during this years.
Regards. Noelia
Honestly, when comparing C2023, C2024 and C2025 with the C2017-corkscrew or C2014-Razor I have no words. I cannot understand how the requirements to pass paper C have changed so dramatically.
DeleteIn this paper :
ReplyDeleteUndisclosed Disclaimer
Added subject matter
Prior use
partial problems
A54, A56
COMVIK
A53(c)
presentation of info
..............OVERWHELIMING
Seems legit, one should be familiar with these concepts in practice.
Deletepractice makes you learn over time, but this is in testing !
DeleteThat is not all. A word count reveals the following:
Deletewith one counting tool:
2025 C1: 5629
2024 C1: 3829
2023 C1: 5111
2022 C1: 5020
2021 C1: 5352
with another tool
C1_2025_EN.pdf words 6381 chars 31716
C1_2024_EN.pdf words 4370 chars 21631
C1_2023_EN.pdf words 5731 chars 28773
C1_2022_EN.pdf words 5421 chars 27297
C1_2021_EN.pdf words 6007 chars 29617
so also the amount of reading material in C1 alone was even more than the 2021 exam after which it was decided to not provide all prior art documents at once but to split them between C1 and C2.
So for all the people running out of time even with preparation, including me, it is no wonder we run out of time given the ever increasing amount of reading material.
John Doe7
In the end the only prior art document missing in C1 was A6 which was just 2 pg...I totally run out of time in C1
DeleteAnd in C2 I had time at the end to revise my answer. I would also prefer just 6 hrs straight and do my own time management. Or split the reading/analysis/writing more evenly between C1 and C2
DeleteAnd in C2 I had time at the end to revise my answer. I would also prefer just 6 hrs straight and do my own time management. Or split the reading/analysis/writing more evenly between C1 and C2
DeleteJohn Doe7
You are not supposed to read every single word. You just need to identify key features to draw conclusions on possible attacks.
DeleteI looked at my answers today and dear god... almost every word is spelled wrong due to keyboard speeding.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this will impact grading? I wish I would have been more thorough, but time pressure didn't allow it. I really don't like the feeling of handing in something sloppy...
I would guess that if it is made clear that nothing else could have been intended by your wording, you ought not be penalized for it. But what do I know...
DeleteTypos are ok and are not punished. I did the EQE last year and since B became really hectic at the end, I decided not to correct any typos. My answer is hilarious to read :'D But absolutely no effect on the marking!
DeleteArt 123(2) vs Art 54/56 Attack
ReplyDelete@Sander van Rijnswou
You write "Claim 7: Inventive step A5".
Is the attack (1) under Art 123(2) due to non-allowed undisclosed disclaimer in view of A5; or (2) under Art. 54/56 in view of A5 ?
In my opinion, it should be under Art.123(2).
What is with Claim 1 and 2 not inventive over A5+A3, wherin A5 is closest prior art? Is this a possible combination?
ReplyDeleteFor claim 1 I did the same, and I think there's a reasonable argument for it, since A5 is directed to a dual mode thermometer with compensation ability which is same as claim 1. The only problem is the non-removable cap and the mention of that being important, but I argued that the skilled person would understand that the feature is not essential faced with the OTP.
DeleteFor claim 2 I think it's difficult to argue for anything other than A3 as prior art though, since claim 2 is directed at a self-sanitising thermometer
I would say that Claim 7 is not novel over A5.
ReplyDeleteNowhere in the Annexes there is a link that establishes that a push-button and a switch are the same, no? Just because they are both "pressed" it doesn't mean that they are the same, or that a switch isn't the genus of a push button. Also looking online for definitions of push button: a mechanical device used to control an electrical circuit in which the operator manually presses a button to actuate an internal switching mechanism" in this case it was manually pressed either. For someone with zero background in electronics it would be hard to make the link.
How would you assess the overall complexity of this years papers A-D?
ReplyDeleteI think that A and D were quite in the usual range, although not exactly easy. B was complex but at least there was a very clear hint towards what was expected.
I think C was a lot harder than in the last years - the legal complexity was high asand so was the amount of pages and information to understand. Also I found that there were no clear pointers towards what was expected.
Overall this may have been one of the hardest EQEs ever in my opinion due to B AND C being very difficult.
Agreed that B was at least unusual.
DeleteI agree with your assessment
DeleteI agree to most.
DeleteD I also found usual. I actually really liked the questions in D1. They were very interesting and relevant.
A I would actually argue was on the easier side. There were no real complexities with multiple embodiment s and prior art.
B was longer than usual but the solution was straightforward. I wonder whether this is though the best to test candidates as it tests quick reading skill over having to critically analyze the paper. Fair to say that although not particularly difficult, not a fan of this year's B.
C was on the difficult side but fair. Let's see if the grading agrees with me. I missed definitions and description relating similar terms to each other. I also found the inventive step attacks to have fewer pointers. As such, I think C may have actually really tested for practice where things are not black and white.
I wouldn't say EQE 2025 was more difficult than other years. Every year may have a single particularly difficult exam or something unexpected.
John Doe7
Yes but in real practice you have definitely more time to write a notice of opposition
DeleteFor sure. The time pressure in D1, B and C1was nuts for me. In all I was writing till the last minute, and feel if I missed things it was mostly due to time pressure than because of not knowing.
DeleteJohn Doe7
D was okay in my view. I spent most of my preparation time on D-1, and it was worth it. The complexity was quite similar to previous years and aligned with the expected EPC/PCT ratio.
DeleteD-2 was quite long but manageable, as it essentially covered two unrelated topics.
Paper A went badly for me. I finished very quickly, and because it was so simple, I used the remaining time to completely mess up what had been a good answer. Thats quite frustrating. In my view, A was not complex compared to previous years.
B was quite long. I wrote until the very last second and was fortunate to have chosen the right approach. To some extent, I think success requires not just knowledge but also a bit of luck in recognizing the right path at the right moment. On another day, I might not have spotted the solution quickly enough.
C was also a rush, as I replaced in both parts (C1 and C2) one time the closest state-of-the-art midway through the problem-solving process. I have to admit, it was similar to my experience with Paper B—given the limited time, a certain amount of luck is needed to recognize the right solution at the right moment. Compared to the past several years' Paper C exams, this one was definitely more complex.
Absolutely agree, A,B and C are to a degree luck dependent. Do you see the right things at the right time and do you see the solution the exam is pushing/pointing you towards.
DeleteJohn Doe7
I have to say that the own EQE always seems a bit more difficult than the practice ones. I found that it was more difficult to do the exams than the practice ones - it is different when you know that it's the real thing! I did some very stupid mistakes that would never have happened during practice.
DeleteAdditionally, the perceived difficulty of B and C also largely depends on the topic. For example, ast year's B was hectic but the invention was easy to immediately understand for a chemist. This year's B... not so much. And if your background is in electrical engineering, your experience will have been exactly the opposite.
Hi, I have a question on claim 4.
ReplyDeleteClaim 4 is a method for determining a body condition of a patient.
A body condition is defined as the severity of a FEVER, A1 [0028] line 5
A fever is defined as in increase in body core temperature above a normal range.
A5 is only disclosing a method for separating between normal temp and fever, ie no determination of the severity of a fever. A5 [0014]
As A5 therefore is not a method for determining a body condition of a fever, how could it be used as a starting point for an IS attack against such a method?
I spent a lot of time chosing between A5 and A6 as starting point, and could not go for A5 for this reason.
Misprint above =)
DeleteIt should be "As A5 therefore is not a method for determining a body condition," and not "As A5 therefore is not a method for determining a body condition of a fever,"
I’m with you on this. I used A6 as CPA for two or three claims of part 2. It seemed like the manual, which gives you details of how to operate the device (method steps) was closer and had a similar effect
DeleteAdditionally to my post above, A5 is also not giving any pointers to a determination of a body condition - as defined - as no indication of the severity of of a fever, only the presence of a fever, is disclosed.
DeleteIn combination with the Implementing provisions to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination, OJ EPO 2024 A25 where (3) Candidates must accept the facts given in the examination paper and limit themselves to those facts,
I cannot see a way to not use this definition as a fact.
In hindsight, I realize that A5 is the sought after solution in this exam and that this definition might not be defined as originally planned, but this definition of the determination of a body condition now completely rules out A5 as a CPA in my eyes.
Could someone shed some light on how to think here?
I also used A6 as starting point. If I am wrong, do you think we lose all marks?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is you might not score much / anything for the independent claim but you might for the dependent claim. In the past few years at least the examiner's comments have stated, "if an attack for an antecedent claim has not been awarded marks, the continuation of that attack in a dependent claim was still taken into account depending on its merits."
DeleteI used EARIX as to argue novelty vs C4 and then starting point for inventive step against C6. So even if I don't get marks for C4 I'm hoping I'll get something for EARIX + A5 against C6.
Hi everyone, I have started a PETITION to urge the EPO to offer the EQE twice a year, thereby minimizing the negative psychological impact on our mental health when we fail one part of the exam (and thereby the whole exam!hence forced to wait one complete year to retake - as if lifetime is endless).
ReplyDeletePlease I urge you to sign the reasonable (vernünftig, raisonnable) petition and to share it with colleagues, friends, trainees, and whoever you think can accelerate taking a decision by the EPO.
Thank you DeltaPatents for allowing us to share our concerns about the exam. While many companies in this domain are very much profit and business focused, you are humain and quality focused. Thanks from the heart.
Petition:
https://chng.it/V29hwhJQ8n
Zu Anspruch 5 (+4)
ReplyDeleteM. E. soll A5 der nächstliegende Stand der Technik sein, da A5 die Zuordnung des Temperaturmesswerts zu einem dritten Temperaturbereich offenbart.
A4 offenbart den Verfahrensschritt der Zuordnung des Anspruchs 4 nicht.
Wenn man von A5 ausgeht, kann COMVIK verwendet werden, die auch in C2 2023 und 2024 geprüft wurde. Die Merkmale bzgl. der Farben in Anspruch 5 betreffen nur ästhetische Formschöpfung (Art. 52 Abs. 2 b) EPÜ; RL G-II 3.4) nach Nutzerpräferenz (Abs. [28] der A1; auch Abs. [11] der A4) und können bei Bestimmung des nächstliegenden Stands der Technik nicht berücksichtigt werden.
Wenn man von A4 ausgeht, offenbart A4[11] bereits die Farben. Es besteht daher keine Notwendigkeit, COMVIK zu verwenden.
Zwar führt die Kombination von A4 +A6 auch zu dem Gegenstand des Anspruchs 5. Jedoch offenbart A4 nicht die Kernmerkmale des Anspruchs 5(+4) "Zuordnung des Temperaturmesswerts zu verschiedenen Temperaturbereichen".
Die Merkmale bezgl. "separat vorhandenen Gerät" sind keine Kernmerkmale des Anspruchs 5(+4), da nur Abs.[30] der A1 erwähnt: "In einer alternativen Ausführungsform sind die vorstehend beschriebenen Anzeigeoptionen in einem Remote-Gerät wie einem Mobiltelefon implementiert, mit dem der Steuerschaltkreis 11 über eine geeignete drahtlose Verbindung verbunden ist." Diese Merkmale betreffen nur eine alternative Anzeigeoption und haben keine besondere Wirkung.
Ich habe zu cl5(cl4) einen Art 56 COMVIK Angriff mit A4 + A6 gemacht.
DeleteDas überbleibende Unterscheidungsmerkmal welches eine nicht technische Wiekung hatte war: „A4 offenbart nicht, dass der ermittelte Körperzustand durch Anzeigen verschiedener
Farben angegeben werden kann, die jeweils mit einem der drei verschiedenen
Temperaturbereiche assoziiert werden.“
Alle anderen Merkmale waren in A4 oder A6 zu finden.