tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post4741309541474143661..comments2024-02-29T16:27:16.015+01:00Comments on Salted Patent: EQE2018 Examiner Reports with expected solutionsPete Pollardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02725722050785717803noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-22924425325354024372018-08-09T02:17:13.091+02:002018-08-09T02:17:13.091+02:00eqe-appeal(a)gmx.neteqe-appeal(a)gmx.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-63870262752984796992018-08-09T02:14:48.045+02:002018-08-09T02:14:48.045+02:00Appealing C 2018 based on claim 3 obviousness usin...Appealing C 2018 based on claim 3 obviousness using A4 + A2 - if anyone wants to discuss: eqe-appealgmx.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-69110010854022543172018-08-07T13:43:22.198+02:002018-08-07T13:43:22.198+02:00You are close enough (3 points) to make it feasibl...You are close enough (3 points) to make it feasible - send me your email address and we can discuss offline: http://fireballpatents.com/home/contact-us Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-58632931068103183742018-08-06T16:10:27.881+02:002018-08-06T16:10:27.881+02:00Hi Pete,
In my claim set I had included 'a c...Hi Pete, <br /><br />In my claim set I had included 'a cover covering the fuse track, characterized in that the cover layer is made of epoxy resin and wherein the fuse has a standard reflow index of 5 or less. <br /><br />I received only 1 mark for my claim 1 and an overall total of 42 marks. Should I appeal this? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-19734756280059664552018-07-09T15:51:54.590+02:002018-07-09T15:51:54.590+02:00Thanks for pointing out the appeals - interesting ...Thanks for pointing out the appeals - interesting that with regard to closest prior art in the C Paper of 2017 that they agreed (based on the arguments in D 14/17). Also in the D 25/17, they accepted that "selling" may be ambiguous.<br /><br />Don't appeal to try and improve the system - the best way is to pass the exam and volunteer to help in making the exams. Appeal because you Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-46795405400427274982018-07-09T12:40:59.816+02:002018-07-09T12:40:59.816+02:00Have you requested accelerated proceedings?
This...Have you requested accelerated proceedings? <br /><br />This spring there were five decisions by the Appeal Board in favor of candidates for Paper C - 2017. See D 25/17, it is pretty interesting.<br /><br />I know that chances are small. Also, I doubt that some limited correction would be useful to me. Before I also hoped to improve the system by appealing. However, now I think that it will be Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-53266289778979684172018-07-08T23:59:31.844+02:002018-07-08T23:59:31.844+02:00Re appeal: I appealed last years decision on A, be...Re appeal: I appealed last years decision on A, because I got 0 points for my main claim although it was the solution of the examiners report. It was forwarded to the appeal board. I received a first response from the appeal board with pretty far-fetched case law why my claim is unclear and thus not novel (allegedly, it was unclear whether I claimed the dish washer composition comprising the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-75133223343834361252018-07-07T23:35:32.992+02:002018-07-07T23:35:32.992+02:00I saw the Examiners' solution very well and sp...I saw the Examiners' solution very well and spent between 40 and 50 minutes choosing between the two approaches. Of course, it was clear that "our" approach was riskier, but at the same time I did not see any likely non-resolvable issue with "our" claim, and the Examiners' claim 1 seemed to me too narrow to be useful. Importantly, the client did not refer to epoxy as Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-14494114768696683912018-07-07T21:10:53.315+02:002018-07-07T21:10:53.315+02:00I will have to check previous exams - I don't ...I will have to check previous exams - I don't recall improving the dependencies being awarded points before. This does not change the scope of protection, but does improve the strength of the claims as fall-back positions. In real life, I don't really spend much time on this (only if there is an error), but maybe there is a good reason to do it? I know there used to be some countries thatPete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-3890888376677980412018-07-07T14:56:11.831+02:002018-07-07T14:56:11.831+02:00I tend to disagree in part: F-IV, 4.7 actually all...I tend to disagree in part: F-IV, 4.7 actually allows using "about", despite that it sets some conditions. Indeed, it states "Particular attention is required whenever the word "about" ...[is] used. Such a word may be applied, for example, to a particular value (e.g. "about 200°C"), ...". However, I have not analyzed these conditions in the present case. <Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-14831244635548192232018-07-07T13:38:14.854+02:002018-07-07T13:38:14.854+02:00I put in SRI less than or equal to 5. I did not us...I put in SRI less than or equal to 5. I did not use about as that is inherently unclear before the EPO. The Examiners Report states that no range has been disclosed, but I don't agree. The range in quality was given and I used the tables as a way to convert. I assumed that was why they gave you the values in the tables. I don't agree with SRI being a result to be achieved - the tables Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-74486202656268002672018-07-07T11:48:54.098+02:002018-07-07T11:48:54.098+02:00I thought that I would pass, since my claim 1 seem...I thought that I would pass, since my claim 1 seems to be rather close to yours. Indeed, you wrote in comments to one of the previous posts that you put SRI in claim 1 instead of quality and added the cover layer configured to soften and flow. Also, it followed from your comments that you did not add epoxy. One difference between our claims may be in the AlCu feature: I added the range of 10-20%,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-36671082196686194622018-07-07T00:10:23.005+02:002018-07-07T00:10:23.005+02:00If the "cover layer made of epoxy resin"...If the "cover layer made of epoxy resin" had been in the claim, then I think it would have been clear. By putting just "cover layer" in a claim, this would tend to suggest that a broader protection is sought than just with "epoxy resin". And a broader claim may be supported by a single example if the skilled person can extend the teaching. <br />Unfortunately on the Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-53315854009892004652018-07-06T21:59:31.277+02:002018-07-06T21:59:31.277+02:00I did not mean that whole D3 is a part of the comm...I did not mean that whole D3 is a part of the common technical knowledge. Rather, I meant that the level of the skilled person must be somehow estimated, and in D3 finding a material by its expansion property is treated as common general knowledge. That is, while we have not received a handbook with a table of expansion coefficients for different materials as "A" publication from the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-70670674559430798722018-07-06T20:12:53.031+02:002018-07-06T20:12:53.031+02:00Intermediate generalisation is based on the techni...Intermediate generalisation is based on the technical disclosure of the application as filed - what does the skilled person understand using common general knowledge. D3 is a just An A.54(2) document, so you cannot use it to interpret the technical disclosure of the application.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-42837320282116684032018-07-06T18:57:30.980+02:002018-07-06T18:57:30.980+02:00I am not sure which part of the intermediate gener...I am not sure which part of the intermediate generalization test is not fulfilled. Is it possible to perform the test without deciding on the level of the skilled person?<br /><br />I had an argument that the level of skilled person in this art is clear from D3, par. 2, which states "The expansion layer 305 is formed of a material which greatly expands when subjected to heating", but Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-38357007646591622872018-07-06T18:28:59.775+02:002018-07-06T18:28:59.775+02:00I am not sure - cover layer is only mentioned as &...I am not sure - cover layer is only mentioned as "cover layer made of epoxy resin" in paragraphs [008], [009], [011], in the table 2. Based on that, it would be extension. But the claims are also part of the application as filed, and claim 3 is only directed to a cover layer. Claim 4 is dependent (mentions epoxy resin). If claim 4 had referred to claim 3, then that would be sufficient Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-77901948760072761302018-07-06T12:19:34.063+02:002018-07-06T12:19:34.063+02:00IMHO, for inherency they need the statement "...IMHO, for inherency they need the statement "ALL glasses soften and flow upon heating" to be the common general knowledge. This seems very unreasonable to me.<br /><br />The statement that "ALL glasses soften and flow upon heating" may also be factually incorrect. Firstly, some glasses harden rather than soften in certain temperature ranges (e.g. fused silica glass: https://Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-67476212778537655792018-07-06T10:38:20.711+02:002018-07-06T10:38:20.711+02:00It states in D2 that the glass ruptures due to the...It states in D2 that the glass ruptures due to the energy. The comment on p.11 of the Examiners Report seems to be reading too much into D2. I guess theoretically glass could soften and flow - according to Google at 1400 to 1600 degrees C. I have dealt with similar cases in practice, and this would normally be seen as a hindsight reasoning, although it would depend on the kind of temperatures Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1777415855032868397.post-34340982613209743682018-07-05T23:37:31.111+02:002018-07-05T23:37:31.111+02:00Hi Pete, what do you think of this statement for P...Hi Pete, what do you think of this statement for Paper B: <br /><br />"In the following example the definition by a functional feature even leads to a lack of inventive step: “the cover layer being configured to soften and flow”. In this regard the glass layer disclosed in D2 is inherently “configured to soften and flow”; in this case there is a lack of inventive step over the prior art D1 Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com