tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post209227344837416722..comments2024-02-29T16:27:16.015+01:00Comments on Salted Patent: EQE 2018 Papers A & BPete Pollardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02725722050785717803noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-39901017978577856972018-03-13T13:49:44.471+01:002018-03-13T13:49:44.471+01:00Hello Pete, I also chose D2 als CPA, PSA went very...Hello Pete, I also chose D2 als CPA, PSA went very well through. But I did not mention any range in claim 1 only the epoxy layer, do you think this will be enough for 50 points? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-78034786193815338622018-03-03T14:15:14.802+01:002018-03-03T14:15:14.802+01:00There were broader terms given in the paper, but t...There were broader terms given in the paper, but this is the product that the client wanted to produce. I had a broad method claim, but I ran out of time, so I wrote a quick VIG glazing claim which was narrower than yours. You have a broad product claim if I look at the features, so if it is considered new and inventive, you will get something for it. A broad glass plane claim might not be Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-88930046738102250572018-03-02T20:50:28.476+01:002018-03-02T20:50:28.476+01:00Pete don't you have any comment on this :(Pete don't you have any comment on this :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-6519037347403460652018-03-02T17:14:23.078+01:002018-03-02T17:14:23.078+01:00I think the convex shape was needed to achieve the...I think the convex shape was needed to achieve the good transparency (in combination with the monolithic structure). I have heard that people argued that the height was mot essential and not required to obtain the technical effect (better transparency when starting from D2. I can see that but still,insulating galzing is defined at the very beginning as keeping out cold and noise (any not just VIGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-79776126585026182782018-03-02T17:08:21.745+01:002018-03-02T17:08:21.745+01:00I found it difficult to figure out what was essent...I found it difficult to figure out what was essential, and what was optional for some of the features. I spent a lot of time thinking about convex.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-53242657098176901282018-03-02T16:54:13.159+01:002018-03-02T16:54:13.159+01:00they fine tune it based on how the paper was made ...they fine tune it based on how the paper was made in general, and your individual argumentationPete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-19662527764703336802018-03-02T16:49:26.992+01:002018-03-02T16:49:26.992+01:00I did claim a transparent substrate. I cant rememb...I did claim a transparent substrate. I cant remember where it was mentioned.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-80699678577742404032018-03-02T15:19:58.630+01:002018-03-02T15:19:58.630+01:00I am glad to hear that even you struggled with the...I am glad to hear that even you struggled with the time issue. After giving it some thorough thought, I found the product claim (glass pane comprising spacers/protrusions....) relatively straightforward. The method claim was a different matter! I included that the beam had to be perpendicular to the pane and that there had to be an obstacle transparent to and non-interacting with the laser (I do Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-33191105024800502212018-03-02T14:43:55.889+01:002018-03-02T14:43:55.889+01:00I limited method to convex, following reasoning of...I limited method to convex, following reasoning of client. I think it was mentioned at least twice that it was essential. <br />For the product, I was running out of time so I just claimed the VIG glazing.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-10536972977434376442018-03-02T14:34:04.893+01:002018-03-02T14:34:04.893+01:00Traditionally A EM gave 50 points for 1 indep clai...Traditionally A EM gave 50 points for 1 indep claim, and CH gave 70 for all indep claims. As I think you needed at least a method and a product claim, I guess it will be about 60. In the past, CH only gave 15 points for dependent claims, EM gave 40 points so I guess 25 now, and 15 for the introduction.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-91751292593012503722018-03-02T14:32:16.174+01:002018-03-02T14:32:16.174+01:00I am sure 100 um or more is not needed for the met...I am sure 100 um or more is not needed for the method claim <br /><br />I believe 100 micron or more are not necessary for the product <br /><br />I did not claim a glass pane (to avoid a non novel claim) and went directly for the VIG.Tobiasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-36663424606602246532018-03-02T14:04:18.446+01:002018-03-02T14:04:18.446+01:00I did have the missing feature in a dependent clai...I did have the missing feature in a dependent claim at least. In 2016 the examiner's report on E/M said zero points when not inventive, in 2015 E/M it was a 3 point deduction per issue. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-55782448104664064242018-03-02T12:04:36.764+01:002018-03-02T12:04:36.764+01:00An interesting comment on DP blog noted that sodiu...An interesting comment on DP blog noted that sodium chloride and quartz glass are transparent to the laser (see the obstacle element). <br /><br />Did any of you claimed that the glass pane was not in these glass materials ?<br /><br />I completely overlooked that one ! :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-73765946920160695242018-03-02T11:21:06.224+01:002018-03-02T11:21:06.224+01:00I also had the cover layer configured to soften an...I also had the cover layer configured to soften and flow. I thought both were needed.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-74011842487797127202018-03-02T10:47:50.305+01:002018-03-02T10:47:50.305+01:00If you put in SRI, does that mean that you did not...If you put in SRI, does that mean that you did not define a cover layer material? In any case, do you think there was enough support given to specify a cover layer material as being made from a material that melts when an overcurrent is generated? In my opinion, this "melting" Definition was always associated with the epoxy resin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-16648975786637630112018-03-02T10:46:35.079+01:002018-03-02T10:46:35.079+01:00Hi Pete,
What do you think about drafting an inde...Hi Pete,<br /><br />What do you think about drafting an independent product claim as a "VIG glazing comprising at least two glass panes wherein at least one glass pane has at least one monolithic protrusion having a regular cureved shape on at least one of its surfaces.". Could I get any mark for that independent product claim instead of drafting a product claim relating to "glass Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-44116018939904426902018-03-02T09:32:31.844+01:002018-03-02T09:32:31.844+01:00Hi Pete,
for paper A, what did you include in you...Hi Pete,<br /><br />for paper A, what did you include in your independent claims?<br /><br />method:<br />a) one protrusion or pluralitiy of protrusions<br />(i.e. with the repetition of the steps)<br />b) UV- and/or -IR laser<br />c) laser perpendicular to the pane<br />d) pulsed laser<br />e) height of 100um or more<br /><br />product:<br />f) protusion monolithic with the pane and of convex Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-56740906476637415042018-03-02T08:31:34.698+01:002018-03-02T08:31:34.698+01:00Hi Pete, how do you expect the Marks will be divid...Hi Pete, how do you expect the Marks will be divided for claims in paper A?<br />Thanks Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08060176308392853013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-54188204901543487232018-03-02T08:09:14.626+01:002018-03-02T08:09:14.626+01:00if it is not inventive, they typically deduct 6 ma...if it is not inventive, they typically deduct 6 marks on B. But it depends a lot on your argumentation. And they take into account how everybody made the paper. If a lot of people had the same claim, they may only deduct 3, or just allow it. If you had a dependent claim with the feature that should have been in claim 1, then you will get something for that.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-58910623573979429622018-03-02T06:16:38.798+01:002018-03-02T06:16:38.798+01:00I did have serious time issues, ending up with an ...I did have serious time issues, ending up with an independent claim which now turned out to be not inventive over D1+D2. In the previous years, sometimes a claim which was not inventive received zero marks, and sometimes only lost 3 marks per issue. What's your guess for this time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-84607569023036223292018-03-02T00:13:45.656+01:002018-03-02T00:13:45.656+01:00Forget the moisture gel - that was for the second ...Forget the moisture gel - that was for the second embodiment.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-74215011199701684392018-03-01T21:12:56.932+01:002018-03-01T21:12:56.932+01:00I was just checking the lengths of the papers:
The...I was just checking the lengths of the papers:<br />The A paper was 5 pages shorter than last year<br />The B paper was 6 pages longer, although 1 of the pages was the extra clean set of claims.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-3122641140961921452018-03-01T20:57:47.330+01:002018-03-01T20:57:47.330+01:00From the chemical papers that I did, it seems that...From the chemical papers that I did, it seems that the client does not mind abandoning options that do not work as well. So I followed the client's proposal and put SRI in claim 1 instead of quality. <br />I also added the cover layer configured to soften and flow. <br />I used D2 as the CPA because it does have a cover layer, it is easier to modify to get the invention - replace the glass Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-7529340598922660152018-03-01T19:03:19.755+01:002018-03-01T19:03:19.755+01:00Deltapatents now has comments online; they say D3 ...Deltapatents now has comments online; they say D3 is closest and that the epoxy should be in the claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-38202326730051743552018-03-01T17:56:26.399+01:002018-03-01T17:56:26.399+01:00In any case, the first embodiment should not be cl...In any case, the first embodiment should not be claimed at all as it is not novel wrt D1. Why would they even have to add the 5% and 25 % Information if everything that's in table 1 could have been disregarded anyway? It would make no sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com