I think these papers were nicely balanced and they have clearly added extra guidance in each paper for those from the other field.
- A was about using lasers to create protrusions in glass. So this mainly mechanical (physics), with some slight chemistry style (instructions about what is essential). It was good paper, although I heard different views afterwards about the claim categories that should be used. It was 5 pages shorter than last year.
- A was about using lasers to create protrusions in glass. So this mainly mechanical (physics), with some slight chemistry style (instructions about what is essential). It was good paper, although I heard different views afterwards about the claim categories that should be used. It was 5 pages shorter than last year.
- B was a chemical paper, with a lot of electrical elements. I really liked this paper, even though it was longer than usual (a lot of information in the application and a lot in the prior art - it was 5 pages longer than in 2017).
I thought it was a good mix, and shows the advantages of mixing the technical fields. I have had cases like this in real-life with electrical and chemical elements, and you need to understand how to claim in both areas and to be able to judge novelty and inventive step.
They also provided an extra set of clean claims this year from the client so you could choose to work from the claims as filed or the claims as proposed by the client. Everybody I talked to had a different answer for claim 1, so it should be interesting to see what was actually expected.
In a few weeks you will get a copy of your answers. If you cut up the exam paper (with your childsafe scissors ,-), and glued or taped it into your answer, check carefully to see if any piece is missing. Or whether there are pages missing. It can happen that pages get stuck together, and then are missed during scanning. Or pieces fall off. If you notice anything, notify the EQE secretariat.
I thought it was a good mix, and shows the advantages of mixing the technical fields. I have had cases like this in real-life with electrical and chemical elements, and you need to understand how to claim in both areas and to be able to judge novelty and inventive step.
They also provided an extra set of clean claims this year from the client so you could choose to work from the claims as filed or the claims as proposed by the client. Everybody I talked to had a different answer for claim 1, so it should be interesting to see what was actually expected.
In a few weeks you will get a copy of your answers. If you cut up the exam paper (with your childsafe scissors ,-), and glued or taped it into your answer, check carefully to see if any piece is missing. Or whether there are pages missing. It can happen that pages get stuck together, and then are missed during scanning. Or pieces fall off. If you notice anything, notify the EQE secretariat.
what are your views on the feature selection for claim 1? When sitting the paper yesterday, I had the impression that there are at least 3 possible solutions. I opted for the cover layer plus the 10-20% Cu. But I could have selected and reasonably argued the reduced width bit, because it only appeared in one schematic figure in the prior art and was not described anywhere. Another possibility would have been to put the SRI into claim 1, but then again I thought that might just sound like a result-to-be-achieved. Also I was a bit in doubt about the layer without the epoxy, but I decided that from original claim 3 it was known to have a cover layer without specifying epoxy.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great blog. Could you please disclose what type of independent claims you wrote in paper A? I had method and product by process (still not sure if appropriate, usually not good for EQE but still went for it assuming even wrong will still got the points) Thanks
ReplyDeleteI also opted for the 10-20% Cu (in the pre-characterizing part) in combination with the cover layer made of epoxi resin as distinguishing feature...using D1 as CPA. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteFor A, I initially considered a product-by-process claim and then decided against it as, in my opinion, the product can be defined without and the p-b-p claim would limit the scope of protection unnecessarily. I chose a product claim (glass pane comprising a spacer on at least one of its two surfaces, the spacer being a convex protusion made of glass (I also mentioned the height without which the spacer would not do its job properly)--> characterising portion was that pane and protrusion (spacer) formed a monolithic structure), a process claim and a VIG glazing claim comprising at least two panes, at least one of which is a pane according to my first product Claim (& dependent claims).
ReplyDeleteFor B, I amended claim 1 to comprise the alloy definition AlCu with Cu 10-20 wt% and my characterizing portion was directed to the cover layer made of epoxy resin. In my opinion, D1 was the closest prior art which is reflected in my claim.
I had D3 as CPA (the only one actually having an extra layer in contact with the strip), and therefore the Cu percentage and the layer on (instead of under) the strip were in my characterizing portion.
ReplyDeleteI had the larger range 5-25% in the preamble and the cover layer with epoxy resin in the characterizing portion and chose D1 as CPA. Although the client discouraged to use Cu in 5% and 25% by weight there was no indication that those experiments were done with the cover layer. I do not see why the broader range could not be claimed based on the experiments disclosed in the application.
ReplyDeleteI took it as a hint from the client that he doesn't want protection for 5% and 25%, and also from the client's claim 1 he clearly wants the Q=60 which allows protection for highly sensitive components (and which will not work for 5% or 25%). And aren't we instructed to do exactly what the client wants?
ReplyDeleteYes, but he also wants the broadest possible protection...
ReplyDeleteBut we have to strike a Balance between having broad protection, claiming soemthing that is workable and falling under the same inventive concept. Claiming 5 and 25% does not provide you with a fuse that is able to protect the highly sensitive parts of the circuit (see Table 2)and the Explanation given by the Client in para (11) ( I think). Limiting to 10-10% and having the expoxy cover gives us a fuse that is a) novel over the Prior art and b) inventive in that it more reliably protects from reflow thereby protecting the very sensitive circuit parts. The effect the Client was looking for is observable over this entire range but not at 5 or 25.
DeleteExamples 6 and 10 in table 2 also show a noticeable improvement in SRI (>40) with respect to the embodiment without cover made of epoxy resin (Table) and the client does not specify for which embodiment he conducted the experiments, reason for which i went for the broader scope of protection.
DeleteAs far as I remember, a value over 60 had to be obtained in order to be able to protect the sensitive circuit parts. So just over 40 won't cut it. Also, the Client mentione dthat his furzher experiments were conducted on 5 and 25%. And at those values he saw other properties of the fuse that must absolutely be avoided (I think he said they made the fuse useless).
DeleteBut inventive step can also be defended with the minimal effect reached by the broader range: protecting at least low sensitivity electronic parts. If I remember well this effect is also not disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, the two embodiments disclosed in the application must work very differently (according to table 1 and table 2) and assuming with the info given in the paper that BOTH were found useless at 5% and 25% by the extra experiments conducted by the client without a precise indication that those experiments were performed also on the second embodiment with the cover of epoxy resin represents for me a point of unclarity (of the paper).
DeleteEven if the 5% and 25% examples were only further investigated wrt the embodiment that is not covered, the fact remains that 5% and 25% are also unsuitable for the covered version. Have a look at what the client wrote. The reasons he gives for considering 5 and 15% unsuitable would exist with and without the cover.
DeleteWell if it is assumed that the AlCu alloy of the fuse track in the fuse works independently from the cover of epoxy resin you are correct. From the tables I and II it appears they work synergistically in order to reach the desired effect and I would not simply assume the opposite.
DeleteBut at 5% and 25%, the applicant saw some other effect that just made the fuse completely useless. It had nothing to do with a potential synergy.
Delete5%: poor Quality alloy, fuse blow becomes unpredictable.
Delete25%: opper diffuses into substarte and fuse only blows at higher currents (higher than overload current).
So, these effects have nothing to do with the metal reflow.
I still think it is not totally clear that the experiments of the client relate to the 2nd embodiment. They could have done this better.
DeleteIn 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.
DeleteIf you do not take into account the client's hint, it is noted that no technical effect was associated with the broader range (see Table 2) in which only in the examples of 10, 15 and 20 a real improvement is shown, which is the basis for the inventive step argumentation. so, I chose 10-20 Cu.
ReplyDeletewhat about having or not having the epoxy in the claim?
ReplyDeletea cover without epoxy is not supported by the description (and as we know, for instance, a glass cover would work quite differently!).
DeleteA fuse without any cover at all does not achieve the results you want (Table 1), i.e. you cannot protect the highly sensitive cricuit parts but only those of a lower sensitivity (and that is already known from D1, which mentions a fuse w/o cover having the AlCu 15% alloy).
lack of support in the description would, in real life, be solved by adapting the description; should that then really be an issue? Original claim 3 had the cover layer, but didn't say that it must be epoxy. Prior art shows that glass wouldn't help, but certainly there are loads of other possible materials (e.g. polymers) which would in fact work. So why limit to epoxy?
DeleteThe EQE is not to be treated like a "real-life situation" as they keep repeating over and over again in the training material. You have to provide something that would lead to the grant of the patant here and now without further discussion etc. The applicant clearly hadn't disclosed other materials for a cover (including no other polymers) and he hadn't shown that they could work. Epoxy melts and fills the gap, which is what is needed.
Deletewell, if the original claim 3 (which had the cover layer, but not the epoxy) was actually considered as lacking support or essential features, then why did the letter from the EPO not bring forward an objection here? Art.84 issues were mentioned regarding claims 4 and 5, but not claim 3...
DeleteOk, let's check the inventive step argument. Your difference is a cover. what does the cover achieve? It leads to better protection from reflow and hence better protection of highly sensitive parts. How does it achieve that? By being made from epoxy which melts and flows in the gap. Having just any cover will never provide your solution.
DeleteI guess, the feature could be formulated as "a cover configured to soften and flow into a gap formed by ruptured fuse track" (see page 3, lines 6-10 in the description for support).
DeleteThis is an interesting point and I am looking Forward to finding out what the actual solution is. I read the paragarph on page 3. Epoxy resin is also clearly mentioned in this para. My interpretation of the "the cover material that softens and flows.." refers back to the epoxy cover mentioned a few sentences above.
DeleteDid anybody actually opt for the narrow shape as distinguishing feature instead of the cover? The preparation course by CEIPI was pretty clear about never never never write a claim which does not cover all embodiments. And when the cover is in the claim, the first embodiment is no longer covered by the claims.
ReplyDeleteThe first embodiment (w/o the narrowing) is known from D1. Narrowing was disclosed in one of the other prior art documents ( don't remember which one) as having the effect of controlling which current would be considered an overload current (same as in the application). I suppose you could say that a combination between these two documents would then be feasible. The narrow track does not improve the reflow problem as such. And, as far as I remember, the experiments showed no advantageous effects for the narrowed track specifically. What Problem is solved by having the narrow track as a distinguishing feature?
DeleteWhich other way could exist to still keep the first embodiment alive?
DeleteQuite frankly, I think the first embodiment is not novel wrt D1. If you narrow the track (to achieve the control over what is defined as the overload current), you just try to find a document that offers a solution to this "electrical current" problem (and we know that one of the other documents teaches that).
DeleteWhat was your choice of CPA and why? So far nobody seems to have picked D2, but some said D3 and others said D1.
ReplyDeleteD1. D1, D2 and D3 all concern the same field and all refer to the same purpose of preventing reflow thereby interrupting the conduction of the fuse irreversibly. D1 was the document that had the largest number of features in common with the invention. It already had the AlCu alloy with a 15% Cu Content (thereby taking away novelty of the 10-20% range). Thus, it already solves part of our problem (we only achieve the favourable effect with this precise alloy and the epoxy cover)but gives no Motivation to go any further. The epoxy-covered electrdes would not have been considered as they are directed to a totally different purpose, i.e. corrosion protection.
ReplyDeleteDeltapatents now has comments online; they say D3 is closest and that the epoxy should be in the claim.
ReplyDeleteFrom 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.
ReplyDeleteI also added the cover layer configured to soften and flow.
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 cover with epoxy. D3 requires two steps - put the expanding layer on top (would that even work?), and get rid of the moisture gel.
Forget the moisture gel - that was for the second embodiment.
DeleteIf 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.
DeleteI also had the cover layer configured to soften and flow. I thought both were needed.
DeleteHello 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?
DeleteI was just checking the lengths of the papers:
ReplyDeleteThe A paper was 5 pages shorter than last year
The B paper was 6 pages longer, although 1 of the pages was the extra clean set of claims.
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?
ReplyDeleteif 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Deletethey fine tune it based on how the paper was made in general, and your individual argumentation
DeleteHi Pete, how do you expect the Marks will be divided for claims in paper A?
ReplyDeleteThanks
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.
DeleteHi Pete,
ReplyDeletefor paper A, what did you include in your independent claims?
method:
a) one protrusion or pluralitiy of protrusions
(i.e. with the repetition of the steps)
b) UV- and/or -IR laser
c) laser perpendicular to the pane
d) pulsed laser
e) height of 100um or more
product:
f) protusion monolithic with the pane and of convex shape
e) height of 100um or more
g) VIG glazing
Thank you !
I am sure 100 um or more is not needed for the method claim
DeleteI believe 100 micron or more are not necessary for the product
I did not claim a glass pane (to avoid a non novel claim) and went directly for the VIG.
I limited method to convex, following reasoning of client. I think it was mentioned at least twice that it was essential.
DeleteFor the product, I was running out of time so I just claimed the VIG glazing.
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 not remember if I specified that it had to be positioned such that the protrusions generated had the height required but now I think it certainly should be included---> I took the height as an essential feature as somewhere in the client's letter it is stated that only protrusions having this characteristic would yield usable spacers/VIG glazing, i.e. the required sound-proofing and insulating qualities). I further specified that the glass had to be irradiated until its working temperature had been reached, followed by discontinuation of the irradiation while passing the air flow over the glass surface. In the independent claim, I did not inlcude a repetition step as my method is for "forming at least one protrusion on at least one of the two surfaces of the glass pane. I now think I made a mistake in not specifying that the laser had to be either IR or UV (especially in view of D1). However, I think pulsed and continuous wave can both be used as unsuitability from an ecomnomical point of view should not be paid any attention. In the future there may be a way to remedy this and the client clearly states that he thinks a longer Irradiation time is all it would take right now to use the CW laser.
DeleteMy VIG glazing claim is very sketchy (no time!!). I said something along the lines of "VIG glazing comprising at least two glass panes, of which at least one has at least one protrusion on at least one of its two surfaces." Obviously, having a VIG double glazing with a pane that has protrusions on both sides would not make sense, so this claim is less than could be expected...
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.
DeleteI 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 VIG). So, having any kind of insulating glass that cannot provide this (achieved by the height of the spacers), what purpose would that serve? I am very much looking forward to reading the examiners' report on all These "debatable" features.
DeleteHi Pete,
ReplyDeleteWhat 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 pane" or all marks related to the independent "glass pane" claim will be deducted from my solution? What do you think?
Pete don't you have any comment on this :(
DeleteThere 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 inventive, because it was already known for making patterns.
DeleteThey look per person at the total protection provided by your total claim set.
An interesting comment on DP blog noted that sodium chloride and quartz glass are transparent to the laser (see the obstacle element).
ReplyDeleteDid any of you claimed that the glass pane was not in these glass materials ?
I completely overlooked that one ! :(
I did claim a transparent substrate. I cant remember where it was mentioned.
Delete