Hi Pete, I know this is paper D but just did A on Thurs. I found it extremely hard and super mechanical with so many features, embodiments to cover. Can you still past paper A with 2 of the 3 embodiments included. If you wording in the spec with the specific embodiment 3, can you claw back some marks as technically, that subject matter is not completely lost.
My claim includes sheet 2a comprise one end 3a which is not fixed to substrate. This covers embodiments 1 and 2 as description and figures states and shows this. Description of embodiment 3 does not state one end of sheet 3a is fixed or not fixed to substrate but figure show 3a is fixed to substrate but I know figures are non limiting examples of embodiments.
Description where the device requires no wires (embodiment 2) and no adhesive (embodiment 3) is clearly stated in description and so inclusion would exclude such embodiments.
It's not clear if one 3a not fixed to substrate would be an unnecessary limitation or exclude embodiment 3 as text of embodiment does not explicitly state 3a is fixed/attached or not fixed/attached to substrate. It just says sheet 2a attaches to substrate.
In all embodiments sheet 2a attaches to substrate but one end 3a of sheet 2a is not fixed on substrate 1. Embodiment 3 states sheet 2a attach to substrate and is silent about the one end 3a. It probably include both options of one end 3a being fixed and not fixed on the substrate right There's no language in the spec that says one end of 3a is fixed to substrate 1 for embodiment 3 to work (or similar)
Including one end 3a of first sheet 2a that is not fixed to substrate in C1 is an unnecessary limitation as the claim with this limitation still includes a workable embodiment 3 i.e. description is silent whether 3a is fixed or not fixed on substrate so embod 3 covers both options. But it is a limitation as embodiment 3 can also work when 3a is fixed to substrate.
It's like if you limit claim to copper, it would still work with the embodiments but it can be worked around when someone decides to use zinc. So its rather a limitation than an exclusion of embodiment 3.
_en%20v1_2%20border%2050perc.png)
Hi Pete, I know this is paper D but just did A on Thurs. I found it extremely hard and super mechanical with so many features, embodiments to cover. Can you still past paper A with 2 of the 3 embodiments included. If you wording in the spec with the specific embodiment 3, can you claw back some marks as technically, that subject matter is not completely lost.
ReplyDeleteMy claim includes sheet 2a comprise one end 3a which is not fixed to substrate. This covers embodiments 1 and 2 as description and figures states and shows this. Description of embodiment 3 does not state one end of sheet 3a is fixed or not fixed to substrate but figure show 3a is fixed to substrate but I know figures are non limiting examples of embodiments.
ReplyDeleteDescription where the device requires no wires (embodiment 2) and no adhesive (embodiment 3) is clearly stated in description and so inclusion would exclude such embodiments.
It's not clear if one 3a not fixed to substrate would be an unnecessary limitation or exclude embodiment 3 as text of embodiment does not explicitly state 3a is fixed/attached or not fixed/attached to substrate. It just says sheet 2a attaches to substrate.
In all embodiments sheet 2a attaches to substrate but one end 3a of sheet 2a is not fixed on substrate 1.
DeleteEmbodiment 3 states sheet 2a attach to substrate and is silent about the one end 3a. It probably include both options of one end 3a being fixed and not fixed on the substrate right
There's no language in the spec that says one end of 3a is fixed to substrate 1 for embodiment 3 to work (or similar)
Including one end 3a of first sheet 2a that is not fixed to substrate in C1 is an unnecessary limitation as the claim with this limitation still includes a workable embodiment 3 i.e. description is silent whether 3a is fixed or not fixed on substrate so embod 3 covers both options. But it is a limitation as embodiment 3 can also work when 3a is fixed to substrate.
ReplyDeleteIt's like if you limit claim to copper, it would still work with the embodiments but it can be worked around when someone decides to use zinc. So its rather a limitation than an exclusion of embodiment 3.
There is a separate post for A. I have also copied over all the comments. see here: saltedpatent.blogspot.com/2023/03/eqe-9-mar-2022-exam-no-copy-sorry.html
ReplyDelete