A E/M 2014: hard nuts to crack?
The 2014 Paper A E/M concerned nutcrackers. As in most (if not all) past papers, a main issue appeared to be covering two structually different embodiments in a single independent claim.
In this year's paper, the structural differences appear to lie in the manner in which the nutcracker is operated: either by rotating the two plates with respect to each other (embodiment 1) or by sliding them with respect to each other (embodiment 2). However, fortunately, the client's letter does give various hints on which elements are structurally identical, and of those that differ, how they are nevertheless functionally similar (thereby allowing a more functional claiming of the elements).
Below are our preliminary thoughts. Of course, if your solution differs from this, don't panic, since the solution below is just one out of (what we expect to be) a range of possible solutions. And, caveat emptor, we have no more knowledge of the solution than any of the candidates, so we may have cracked some different nuts than was expected, or even failed to crack any nuts as planned.
Comments/discussions are highly welcome. Please give a name (you do not need to register and you can use a pseudonym) so as to enable us to reply by name.
Nico, Roel
Independent claim
A nutcracker, comprising:
Some thoughts and motivations: the last sentence of [022] of the client's letter suggests that 'stiff material' is an essential element, although one may argue that the term is unclear (we nevertheless decided to include it in the claim).
Also, the claim currently encompasses the rotation and sliding embodiments with the term 'relative movement', based on rotation being a form of relative movement (i.e., a circular movement). Another, maybe better option, may be to omit the entire "relative movement between the support elements" from the claim, but this, at least in our attempts, rendered the claim somewhat less clear.
Dependent claims
There appeared to be many options for claiming various improvements (e.g., adapted rods which prevent the nuts from slipping, handles attached to the plates which provide more leverage) as well as implementation options. However, the dependent claims should at least include separate claims specifically directed at the differences between both embodiment, namely by specifying the type of relative movement between the support elements, i.e., a rotational movement or a displacement.
Novelty over D1
In D1, the nut is not cracked by the space being restricted by a relative movement between the connecting elements (see [001] of D1, its connecting elements cannot move relative to each other), but rather by a relative movement of the levers (i.e., the levers being pushed together).
Inventive step, technical effect over D1
The nutcracker as claimed enables nuts of different sizes to be cracked (see [001] of the client's letter), which in D1 would require differently sized connecting elements (see [004] of D1).
Novelty over D2
In D2, the supporting elements are non-rotatably arranged with respect to the support elements. Also, the nut is not cracked by the space being restricted by a relative movement of the rods, but rather by a relative movement of the blocks (i.e., the blocks being pulled together).
Inventive step, technical effect over D2
The nutcracker as claimed reduces the strength needed to crack a nut and requires less skill to crack nuts without completely crushing them (see [023] of client's letter, the latter effect is explicitly mentioned, the former effect follows implicitly from the paragraph).
Closest prior art
Both D1 and D2 are from the same field, namely nutcrackers. However, D1 and D2 have different purposes which appears to make their purpose/effect the decisive criterion in determining the closest prior art (CPA). The purpose of the present invention is to enable nuts of different sizes to be cracked (see [001] of the client's letter). D2 has a similar effect (see [005] of D2) whereas D1 does not (see [004] of D1). Thus, D2 may be considered as the CPA.
Alternatively, one could argue that the leveraged cracking (see [023] of the client's letter) is still a more general purpose/effect, and thus that D1 needs to be considered to be the CPA. If time permitted, it may therefore have been safest to cast the claim in one-part form (typically a minor point deduction) and provide separate problem-solution approaches for both D1 and D2 as CPA.
In this year's paper, the structural differences appear to lie in the manner in which the nutcracker is operated: either by rotating the two plates with respect to each other (embodiment 1) or by sliding them with respect to each other (embodiment 2). However, fortunately, the client's letter does give various hints on which elements are structurally identical, and of those that differ, how they are nevertheless functionally similar (thereby allowing a more functional claiming of the elements).
Below are our preliminary thoughts. Of course, if your solution differs from this, don't panic, since the solution below is just one out of (what we expect to be) a range of possible solutions. And, caveat emptor, we have no more knowledge of the solution than any of the candidates, so we may have cracked some different nuts than was expected, or even failed to crack any nuts as planned.
Comments/discussions are highly welcome. Please give a name (you do not need to register and you can use a pseudonym) so as to enable us to reply by name.
Nico, Roel
Independent claim
A nutcracker, comprising:
- a first support element (1), a second support element (2) and three connecting elements (3-5; 3-6) for connecting the first support element to the second support element,
- the first support element, the second support element and the three connecting elements being made of a stiff material and defining a space for receiving a nut,
- the three connecting elements being rotatably attached to each of the support elements to enable movement of the first support element relative to the second support element,
- wherein said movement of the first support element relative to the second support element causes the space for the nut to be restricted by at least two of the connecting elements moving relative to each other so as to crack an inserted nut.
Some thoughts and motivations: the last sentence of [022] of the client's letter suggests that 'stiff material' is an essential element, although one may argue that the term is unclear (we nevertheless decided to include it in the claim).
Also, the claim currently encompasses the rotation and sliding embodiments with the term 'relative movement', based on rotation being a form of relative movement (i.e., a circular movement). Another, maybe better option, may be to omit the entire "relative movement between the support elements" from the claim, but this, at least in our attempts, rendered the claim somewhat less clear.
Dependent claims
There appeared to be many options for claiming various improvements (e.g., adapted rods which prevent the nuts from slipping, handles attached to the plates which provide more leverage) as well as implementation options. However, the dependent claims should at least include separate claims specifically directed at the differences between both embodiment, namely by specifying the type of relative movement between the support elements, i.e., a rotational movement or a displacement.
Novelty over D1
In D1, the nut is not cracked by the space being restricted by a relative movement between the connecting elements (see [001] of D1, its connecting elements cannot move relative to each other), but rather by a relative movement of the levers (i.e., the levers being pushed together).
Inventive step, technical effect over D1
The nutcracker as claimed enables nuts of different sizes to be cracked (see [001] of the client's letter), which in D1 would require differently sized connecting elements (see [004] of D1).
Novelty over D2
In D2, the supporting elements are non-rotatably arranged with respect to the support elements. Also, the nut is not cracked by the space being restricted by a relative movement of the rods, but rather by a relative movement of the blocks (i.e., the blocks being pulled together).
Inventive step, technical effect over D2
The nutcracker as claimed reduces the strength needed to crack a nut and requires less skill to crack nuts without completely crushing them (see [023] of client's letter, the latter effect is explicitly mentioned, the former effect follows implicitly from the paragraph).
Closest prior art
Both D1 and D2 are from the same field, namely nutcrackers. However, D1 and D2 have different purposes which appears to make their purpose/effect the decisive criterion in determining the closest prior art (CPA). The purpose of the present invention is to enable nuts of different sizes to be cracked (see [001] of the client's letter). D2 has a similar effect (see [005] of D2) whereas D1 does not (see [004] of D1). Thus, D2 may be considered as the CPA.
Alternatively, one could argue that the leveraged cracking (see [023] of the client's letter) is still a more general purpose/effect, and thus that D1 needs to be considered to be the CPA. If time permitted, it may therefore have been safest to cast the claim in one-part form (typically a minor point deduction) and provide separate problem-solution approaches for both D1 and D2 as CPA.
I think the claim also needs an explicit reference to the “different size” aspect, e.g. as "a nutcracker for cracking nuts of different sizes including large nuts, such as walnuts, and small nuts, such as hazelnuts" or a “the space being capable to receive a nut from a range of sizes including large nuts, such as walnuts, and small nuts, such as hazelnuts”.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think?
Note: I propose to also include the examples "walnuts" and "hazelnuts" in the claim as clarification/definition which size range is "large" and which is "small" - which terms could otherwise be considered ill-defined and not clear.
Rob
Hello Rob,
DeleteWell, in my opinion, the nutcracker as claimed should indeed have the technical effect that nuts of different sizes can be cracked in that this should follow at least implicitly out of the features as claimed.
You could indeed included this effect explicitly in the pre-amble of the claim by phrasing it as a "for" limitation in the pre-amble. However, you still need to define the claim features to achieve this effect (i.e., else it is a wish). Disadvantageously, you could run into clarity issues (i..e, the small/large).
Accordingly, even though I do not expect that such a "for" limitation was expected, it may not hurt you if it was properly phrased and the claim features indeed achieved the technical effect.
Hi, What is your opinion or pivoting in respect to the supporting elements instead of rotatable attached? Is pivoting equivalent to rotating?
ReplyDeleteYes, see [016]: "The hinge 23 allows the rod 3 to rotate by up to 180° about the pin 10 in the first plane." and [019]: This
Deletecauses a rotation of the rods 3, 4, 5 and 6 relative to the plates 1 and 2.
Thanks, the other thing that surprises me of your proposal is that you state that: In D2, the supporting elements are non-rotatably arranged with respect to the support elements. Was it not stated that the rods of D2 can also rotate?
DeleteI replied in the same lines as you, defining that the connecting elements are configured to pivot in respect to the supporting elements so that the space is reduced..." But hesitate whether I have novelty over D2, as one may also say that the rods of D2 "pivot" (rotate) in respect to the supporting elements.
Although D2 [001] states that the "rods can rotate in the through-holes without blocks 1 and 2 moving", I would not consider that these rods are "rotatably _attached_ to each of the support elements", nor that they are "rotatably attached to each of the support elements _to enable movement_ of the first support element relative to the second support element".
DeleteHowever, it could be considered to change our proposed claim wording to "the three connecting elements being rotatably attached to each of the support elements to enable movement of the first support element relative to the second support element by a rotation of the connecting elements relative to the first and second support elements" - see e.g. the wording in [004] and at the start of [019].
Note that in the first example (Fig. 1-6), the connecting elements are connected to the support elements by ball-joints, whereas they are connected by hinges in the second example (Fig. 7-11). These could be explicitly included in the claims via a generic term such as "attachment means [arranged to constrain the movement of the connecting elements relative to the support elements]" - e.g. [004] "within about 30 degrees from the vertical" & [015] "constrain the movement" + "through 180 degrees".
Hello,
ReplyDeleteMy independent claim is similar to the one proposed by Delta Patents but I didn't specify "at least two connecting elements moving relative to each other". Particularly, I wrote "the connecting elements moving relative to each other" since I thought that this wording did not prevent me of specifying in the dependent claims the case where two connecting elements and the case where three connecting elements move relative to each other. Do you think that the wording I used will be considered as a serious limitation that does not describe the second embodiment wherein only two connecting elements move relative to each other?
Hi Rob,
DeleteAny response to my question above? Thanks in advance.
Chris
I assume your intention was to address me (Roel) and not the Rob of the first posted comment? I think your solution can be correct, provided your wording does not require each of the connecting elts to rotate wrt to every other one - it does not in the second embodiment...
DeleteHi Roel,
DeleteThanks a lot for your response!
Yes, my intention was to address you..:) Sorry for the confusion..
I did not specify each of the connecting elements to rotate with relation to every other one.
My exact wording was "wherein said movement of the first support element relative to the second support element causes the space for the nut to be restricted by the connecting elements (3,4,5) moving relative to each other so as to crack an inserted nut".
However, do you think that the fact that I put in parentheses the three references 3,4,5 will be interpreted as each of the three connecting elements?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Chris
The EPO will not consider reference numbers to indicate any limitation of what is claimed - GL F-IV, 4.19: "Reference signs should not however be seen as limiting the extent of the matter protected by the claims; their sole function is to make claims easier to understand."
DeleteThanks a lot Roel!
DeleteOn this point:
DeleteHow come that in the second embodiment two (!) of the rods are movably relative to the remaining ones as explicitly recited in the Examiner's Report. Yet, the model solution as well as your suggestion boils down an "at least one" formulation. Where is the hint that I can generalize from all (emb 1) or two (emb 2) rods being used for relative movement to just one?
This really put me off the track when practising this paper because covering the alleged relative movments in the second embodiment with a straghtforward claim formulation appeared quite complex...
hi, what about the joints 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25 in claim 1? is the invention sufficiently disclosed without them?
ReplyDeleteHi, I expect that your question refers to whether the joints are essential features and thus should be included in the claim.
DeleteThe guidelines give the following guidance: "As a general rule, the technical effect or result produced by the feature will provide the key to answering the question of whether or not the feature contributes to solving the problem" (GL F IV 4.5.2).
I think case, I think it is indeed fair to consider the joints (and hinges of embodiment 2) as essential features. However, in our proposal, these are implicit claim features ("rotatably attached", which implies a "rotable attachment means" such as a pivot, joint, hinge, ...) and thus arguably included in the claim. However, it may indeed be better to explicitly include them (in which case you'd have to make sure that the feature covers both the joints of embodiment 1 as well as the hinges of embodiment 2).
Thanks a lot for your answer!
DeleteEven though the client says "stiff material' is an essential element, candidates are invited to go beyong this. What matters is to be novel over D1 and D2.
ReplyDeleteSo claim 1 should be broader and the features "stiff" could be an unnecessary limitation. The feature "stiff" is for a dependant claim.
Well, arguably, if the material is (very) flexible, you won't be able to crack a nut (i.e., the material would deform, leaving you unable to exhert a force onto the nut). Hence, in order to achieve the desired effect (_cracking_ of nuts of various sizes), the material should have at least a certain stiffness.
DeleteNormally, one could argue whether this needs to be explicity claimed, or whether such material properties are already implicitly defined by the claimed entity ("a cracker for nuts", which already implies the use of sufficiently stiff materials).
However, in this particular case, the phrasing of [022] of the client's letter, last sentence, is phrased such that I think it was expected of you to recognize the material being stiff as an essential feature and to include it in the claim. Of course, if you did not do so but included the feature in the dependent claims, this may reduce any possibly penalty points for omitting the feature from claim 1.
Maybe to add to your statement "candidates are invited to go beyong this", it's good to realize that statements of the client should be taken at face value, i.e., assumed to be true (even if you have own technical knowledge which suggests otherwise!).
DeleteSo if a client states that something _must_ be so, it is generally unwise to go against this statement.
Of course, this is a point where daily practice differs from the exam setting (in daily practice, you often go into discussion with a client and frequently discover that alternatives exist after all).
Without any hint that the feature 'stiff' could be non-essential (neither in the clients letter, nor in D1 or D2), how can you consider it to be so, despite the unambigous and clearly correct technical info that the client gave as to its essentiallity?
DeleteNovelty over D2
ReplyDeleteHi,
How to understand this: You say In D2, the supporting elements are non-rotatably arranged with respect to the support elements. But D2 [001] is explicit in that they can rotate?
I think is quite essential as any other limitation beyond the fact that the angle of the connecting rod changes is respect to the support elements would be redundant.
Furthermore, in my opinion stiffness in an unnecessary limitation when you have functionally defined that it has to be able to crack nuts.
In D2 [001], the rods are freely movable (rotatable and sliding; however, rotatable only if the nutcracker is not completely assembled) in the holes, but not attached to the support elements (blocks).
DeleteThanks for the replies
ReplyDeleteHi Delta Patents. I was wondering if you are aware of the changes the EPO is proposing to the EQEs from 2017, and if you know any more about them? The EPO website (http://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe.html) states the following under the heading 'Notices': "With effect from 2017, a single Paper A and a single Paper B will be set each year. As for current Paper C and the Pre-Examination, Papers A and B will be set in technical fields that are accessible to everyone". I haven't been able to find any official communications or notices to confirm this - can you? Any info you can find would be helpful!
ReplyDeleteThanks,
UKtrainee
Yes, that will happen. It is expected that a sample exam will be made by the committee.
DeleteIt does not play yet; EQE 2016 is still the current style.
We will adapt our methodology training and for our courses prepare sample papers such that candidates can prepare.