Paper A Electricity/Mechanics 2016 - our main claim

Here it is. Our attempt at the main independent claim of A E/M 2016.


Claim 1. A siphon comprising a housing; the housing comprising:
· a reservoir,
· an inlet opening, and
· an outlet opening;
· the housing being arranged such that liquid can flow from the inlet opening to the outlet opening via the reservoir and fill the reservoir up to an overflow level of the reservoir;
characterised in that the housing further comprises a wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening; and
the wall extending at least to the overflow level to prevent gas from flowing from the outlet opening to the inlet opening.

The main problem in this exam seems to lie in covering 4 embodiments which fall into two groups (Figs.2 and 3 versus Figs.4 and 5). This makes it difficult to define the position of the openings and puts the pressure on a correct definition of the wall. This is particularly relevant since also in the traditional siphon of Fig.1 the wall of the tube plays a role in preventing gas entering.


We may post some dependent claims at a later moment.


Looking forward to your comments,


All blog threads allow anyone to add comments and already have a lot of valuable, interesting and sometimes surprising discussions between many candidates who posted their comments as well as tutors resulted from those.Any remarks, (different) opinions and questions as are welcome! Please post your contribution as comments to this blog, so everybody can paticipate in and benefit from the discussion/ explanation.


Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 02-03-2016 14:56"), whereas using your real name or even a pseudonym (nick-name) is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation.

Jelle, Nico, Sander

Comments

  1. Ok I am relieved...
    I formulated the last features a bit more complicated..with the wall being configured to contact the fluid when the reservoir is filled to the overflow level (+exact same effect of gass-flow-blocking)..but I guess it's similar

    On the other hand, I didnt expect this "fallback" into whalt felt like a pre-2010 A-paper...Also, I found it confusing that the only admitted at the very end, that the embodiments of Figs 4/5 with the additional reservoir-sidewalls comprised a similar tubular wall as in Fig. 3...thanks for not puuting this inforamtion where it belonged by hiding it deep in the valve-embodiments ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really could not draft a single independent claim, without excluding the conventional siphon. So, starting from the problem of providing a compact siphon, I drafted 2 independent claims as two alternatives to the same problem. In the first case, the siphon is compact in height; in the second case, the siphon is compact in depth. Does anybody else have 2 independent claims?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I didn't mention the gas-blocking effect...too concerned to fall in a "result to be achieved" claim. All the rest is similar to the one of DP. Wondering if I'll bump into a clarity issue

    ReplyDelete
  4. No two part form for your claim?

    Thinking back on it, my claim is probably overly functional (I stated that the wall is "arranged to prevent, together with the reservoir, gas flowing...", rather than just stating it extended to the overflow level), and maybe has a couple unnecessary features (the inlet being above the overflow level, the overflow level being defined by a side wall). Hopefully, I've picked up enough elsewhere to make up for that though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you draft the characterizing part similar to para. [012] of A2016, namely: "the wall is arranged in the housing such that, if the reservoir is filled up to the overflow level, the wall is exposed on one side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening, whereas the wall is exposed on the other side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening"

    be unclear or so? What do you think? I mean, the technical effect to prevent gas from flowing from the outlet opening to the inlet opening should be implicit in this case...of course, you can be picky...

    And would you consider a definition of the overflow level by a side wall (can be a housing side wall or another side wall arranged in the housing) as an unnecessary feature? I mean, a side wall is always present in a housing - how could this be restricting.

    Anyways, I hope everyone made a good job on the exam.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid that it is not clear enough how it is ensured that the gas cannot flow from one side of the wall to the other side. So, preventing will probably need to be mentioned; in our claim we also indicate how that is done (extending to the overflow level).
      There may be different ways to define the overflow level (e.g. reservoir which extends to an overflow level). Some definitions may include te walls. Some easy definitions (e.g. the outlet opening determines an overflow level) will not cover all embodiments.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Jelle for your solution.


      during the exam, I was wondering whether the U-bend tube could be considered as a housing.
      Then, I decided to introduce the side wall in addition of the wall extending at least to the overflow level.

      another question:was it possible to draft a claim 1 without refering to the reservoir, but just to the overflow level?

      Thanks for your points of view.

      Delete
  6. By defining the overflow level in relation to the liquid in the housing and the wall as extending at least to the overflow level, aren't you protecting the siphon only where there is liquid inside? I mean, no liquid in the housing = no overflow level = extension of the wall at least to the overflow level is an undefined, unclear feature, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks for your point of view.
      may we consider that the person skilled in the field of siphons is able to reconize an overflow level without watter?

      Delete
    2. It's defined as the level to which liquid *can* flow, so the liquid is not required for the level to exist. It's implicit that the level is defined when the siphon is in the orientation it would be when in use.

      Delete
  7. Thanks for the post! I agree in general with your solution. Unfortunately I forgot the decisive feature:

    - characterised in that the housing further comprises a wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening;

    This feature is neither in my independent claim nor in my dependent claims. But I included the second part of the characterizing section in the independent claim. Thus my independent claim is not inventive. According to old examiner's reports 25 points are substracted for a non-inventive main claim. Is it still possible to pass? I think my dependent claims are well structured and my introduction is also decent. I hope for at least 20+20+5...

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Marco: "can" is the decisive word. The claim does not say that water actually flows.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've got problems with the "characterized in that".
    In my opinion, a one part claim should be drafted since the "closest prior art" is not really one. Even if it seems to be "obvious", it is not a disclosed prior art.

    More than that, I think there is a case law concerning such prior arts

    What do you think about that ? I found this very confusing anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi,
    I share your impression @anonymous 7:36 pm.

    I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:

    1.) The client referred in its letter to two embodiments of the siphon, that are known to him. The classic siphon (lets say, type A) which was made available to the public and the enhanced siphon (A+) with a housing surrounding the siphon. A+ is considered as obvious by the client, however it was not made available to the public yet.

    Therefore I decided to substantially delimit claim 1 over A+ and to select the features accordingly, bearing in mind that a claim directed to A+ would be novel but obvious. However, I completely ignored A+ when writing the introduction of the description as well as when arranging the features in one- or two-part form as A+ is no prior art yet. Therefore, I ended up with a one-part form claim as even the housing would already be a distinguishing feature (which I usually put into the characterizing part, if a two-part form is chosen, no matter how obvious this feature may be) over A and A+ is not known yet.

    This would leave a two-part claim clumsy and hard to read. Therefore, I also preferred to choose one-part form. However, the solution proposed above is two-part form.

    Could you let me have your thoughts on the pro's and cons to choose two-part form in this specific case?

    2.) Do you think a claim is unclear, if it is completely similar to the claim stated above with one difference: The feature "a wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening" is missing and replaced by the feature "the housing further comprises a wall, said wall extending at least to the overflow level and being configured to prevent gas from flowing from the outlet opening to the inlet opening."

    Cheers Christian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Christian,

      you did not replace the feature regarding the inner and the outer side - you just missed it. That's exactly my problem (see my post from March 03, 2016 6:23 pm). We claimed A+ (novel based on housing but not inventive). I made the mistake of using the one-part form (as you did), otherwise I would have realized my mistake earlier...

      Delete
    2. Honestly I'm not sure that I can give you answers :)

      What I thought during the test is that the feature "the housing further comprises a wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening" had not to be in the characterized section because, technicalyy, there is no disclosed prior art with a housing. And invetiveness may only, as i believe, be judged on a disclosed prior art. So there is not really any proof in the text that a housing is so obvious, it is just a judgment of the client.

      Honestly, based on EU case law, I would not understand why the housing may be considered as a disclosed prior art (I have to retrieve it)

      This is why I find the 2016 A test very confusing compared to those of past years.

      Concerning your point 2, I think I wrote this kind of claim, but i'm beginning to forget !

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous,

      I agree that the housing should not be considered prior art (hint: "never put on the market"). You are right that it is "only" the client who considers the housing obvious. Considering the exam situation this is a very strong hint, in particular since there is another feature disclosed (regarding the two sides of the wall) distinguishing A+ from the actual invention. For me it seems "obvious" and "clear" that the exam committee exactly wanted to test whether or not we spot the difference. In this case I would, however, not mind to be wrong...

      Delete
    4. Thank you for your feedback! I am not sure if the feature that "the wall is exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening" is strictly necessary and without the claim is not inventive. If you consider A+ as disclosing a wall that extends to the overflow level (i.e. the sidewall of the siphon pipe in the "knee"-section) I think one could even take the viewpoint that this wall of A+ also touches on one side the inner gas and on the other side the outer gas. Or does this sound ridiculous?

      Delete
    5. Guys, I just woke up with another thing in mind (sry, this part A is spinning my head): Isnt the feature "the wall is exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening" though of course disclosed in every embodiment of the invention still rather delimiting and not contributing a useful technical effect? Couldnt you work arround sich a claim by designing lets say a doubled wall, both stretching to the overflow level (in easiest case being parallel to each other and having just a minor (for instance air..) gap in between. In this case, each wall is only in touch with gas from one side of the siphon (inner or outer). If you use three walls, the middle one wouldnt be in touch with any of the inner or outer sides... and you would end up with a further enhanced isolation of unpleasing smells...
      Does this sound reasonable to you or am I probably already on the way of drafting another invention? :o

      Delete
    6. What I was talking about yesterday :

      In T 654/92 the board stated that the expression "background art" in the English version of R. 27(1)(b) EPC 1973 was to be interpreted as referring to prior art within the meaning of Art. 54(2) EPC 1973 The practice of starting out from art known to the applicant but not public at the claimed priority date was inconsistent with the requirements of the EPC. Any such art had to be ignored in an assessment of inventive step.

      Delete
    7. See also :

      It is the consistent view of the boards of appeal that in-house knowledge or matter which cannot be identified as forming part of the state of the art within the meaning of Art. 54(2) EPC is irrelevant for substantive patentability (T 1247/06, see also T 654/92, T 1001/98, T 671/08).

      http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_c_1_4.htm

      Delete
    8. @ Christian March 04, 2016 5:34 am

      Your reasoning seems correct. Considering the exam situation it is, nevertheless, creative. We are talking abut the EQE world (and not the real world)! I still think that they wanted us to include the functional feature regarding the two sides.

      Delete
    9. to ManuelMarch 04, 2016 8:29 am

      I think you're right. However, in the EQE world, the subject is always touchy compared to real world. For this reason there MUST not be any ambiguous matter in the subject. Regarding constent case law, I think that the paragraph describing inner prior art is ambiguous IF the functional feature regarding the two sides had to be written in claim 1.

      Delete
    10. Thank you for your feedback.

      I am still struggling with the idea that the feature of the wall, having two sides, one exposed to the inlet and one exposed to the outlet, is essential. As stated above, this feature could be easily overcome with an arrangement having more than one wall, which could still be compact. The fact, that this arrangement could be worked arround by omitting this feature, is for me another indicator that this feature should not be necessary to clarify claim 1 as it would unduely delimit claim 1. Last but not least, I am wondering for any arguments that show that a claim, not having said feature, would be less inventive than a claim having said feature, i.e. which technical effect does the wall with the two sides contribute, if the wall is already configured to prevent gas flow between inlet and outlet when the housing is filled up to the overflow level?

      With regard to the embodiment A as closest prior art I completely share your viewpoint.

      Delete
    11. I think if you don't have that, then the top wall of the "U-bend" would be a "wall configured to prevent gas flow between inlet and outlet when the housing is filled up to the overflow level".

      Delete
    12. But couldn't one consider then the top wall of the "U-bend" even as having two sides, which are separated by the liquid and/or by the different inclination at the left and the right side of its lowest point? If so, even the feature with the two sides would be disclosed...

      I am really struggling with this A-exam to see a clear cut claim 1... :/

      Delete
    13. @Christian

      A colleague and me also reached this conclusion that the feature of the "two sides" is also disclosed by a "u-bend" of the conventional siphon. The same applies to the feature "wall extending at least to the overflow level" since the wall of the "u-bend" also does that in our opinion.

      We finally concluded that maybe a wording that defines the wall with regard to its position in the housing and more structural would be better. So we thought that the distinguishing feature (without the "two sides, two gases"-stuff above) could be something like:
      "wall arranged in the housing and having a first end connected with an inner surface of the housing and having a second end which is a free end, the wall extending away from the inner surface of the housing such that the free end of the wall reaches at least the overflow level, when the reservoir is filled up to the overflow level"

      After all, I went with a very broad and not inventive claim since they will definitely use the client's arguments regarding the intermediate solution (siphon + housing) against me and my broad claim will then cover the intermediate solution.

      Let's hope for more luck next year.

      Delete
    14. My claim had the wall "enclosed by the housing", which I think avoids the U-bend as prior art (though if the "U-bend in a housing" is considered obvious, it may fall down) - the top wall of the housing is not "enclosed", since it is on the surface of the housing.

      Xentres - your claim requires the reservoir to be filled, so does not cover the siphon as sold. It's probably what I would have drafted in real life, but I'd been advised by several colleagues that paper A was quite often a matter of not adding matter over the invention disclosure, so to use the words of the paper as much as possible. I think you also need to include the feature of blocking gas when the reservoir is full, to avoid covering e.g. a housing with just the reservoir side wall of Figure 4.

      Delete
    15. @Michael
      I only brought a fast example of our "idea" with the free end which definetely would need more fine tuning.
      The basic concept behind this idea is that there is the U-bend in the client's "u-bend in a housing" has no free end but extends entirely form one surface to another surface and forms a closed flow path in the housing.

      As i said, my claim includes the housing, reservoir, and "wall enclosed by the housing and arranged in the housing such that it prevents gas from flowing from the outlet to the inlet when the housing is filled up to the overflow level". It is thus two broad.

      But as I said above, this will definetly not be considered inventive - the part about the client's "U-bend in a housing" being obvious just smells like a trap.

      During studying at home, I nearly always hit the model claim (or equivalent versions) of the examiner reports. Guess you can never really prepare for the actual exam situation.




      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hallo,
    First of all, thanks, Delta, for providing a place for discussion.

    I was wondering, if the feature of your claim 1 that "wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening" EXCLUDES the embodiement of Fig. 2c.
    In the embodiement of Fig 2c, the wall 260 is indeed exposed to the gas from the outlet. On the other side, however, it is exposed only to the gas evaporating from the liquid! It is the inlet tube 280 that is exposed to the gas from the inlet.

    The arrangements in short:
    Claim 1: Gas(Outlet) - wall 260 - Gas(Inlet)
    Fig. 2c: Gas(Outlet) - wall 260 - Gas(Evaporated) - tube 280 - Gas(Inlet)

    What do you think about this reasoning?
    Any comments would be helpful.

    cheers
    Zissou

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Zissou,
      a agree with your resonning.
      Fig 2C + [016] fisrt sentence: the float prevents a gas flow. Then the inlet gas does not reach the wall 260.

      Delete
    2. Very, very interesting thought. So, how do we balance [012] vs. [016]? Considering that [012] refers explicitly to wall 260 I still think that the exam commitee wanted us to include the functional features regarding the two sides of the wall in the independent claim. But maybe they read this blog, realize the loophole and substract less then 25 points if the questionable feature is missing... *crossingfingers*

      Delete
    3. Fig. 2c actually depcits: Gas(Outlet) - wall 260 - Gas(Evaporated) - tube 280/ - tube 280 OR float 271 - Gas(Inlet). It could be well argued that according to Fig. 2c there is still a gab between tube 280 and the overflow leve so that gas from the inlet still reaches the inner side of the wall 260 (additionally to the evaporated gas) when the valve is open. [016] is, however, silent on the exact length of the tube 280. In the interest of the client it makes also sense to protect an embodiment, wherein the tube 280 extends to the overflow level (as shown in other embodiments).

      Delete
    4. In my opinion, the length of the tube is not relevant because the valve prevents (per definition) that the evaporated gas exits through the tube. Thus, there cannot be any kind of gap, as a gap would automatically allow gas flow in both directions.

      Delete
  13. I also agree to Zissou that the embodiment of Fig.2c would be excluded by the feature
    "wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening"

    However, you would derive at a non-inventive claim by cancelling this feature.
    Maybe, the EPO made a mistake?? :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was also facing that issue.
    I decided to not incorporate this feature as I was afraid of cancelling the embodiment of Fig.2c even though I had doubts if such a claim would be inventive. However, as no real prior art was disclosed (internal/not on the market), I chose the "broader" option.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As pointed out, one should be claiming the siphon without the water therein. Clearly, in Fig. 2c, when water is not present, the sides of the wall 260 are exposed to both the gases.

    However, it seems that the embodiment of Fig. 2c would work also without the wall 260. In that case, the wall of the tube 280 would not extend to the overflow level. Notably, the examination committee did not show such an embodiment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thought, and you almost got me.
      But without water, the feature in question would be trivial/useless for all embodiements, because in that case the wall would be exposed to both gases (from inlet and from outlet) on each side.

      I wonder what the people from Delta Patents think of this issue.

      Delete
    2. Define "useless" in view of prior art.

      Delete
    3. I do get your point that you want to use said feature to distinguish the claim from the prior art. But for that any wall that is in contact with gas on both sides would have been sufficient. Said feature (OutletGas|InletGas) does not add any more information. It will only add information if it is used together with water.
      Thus, the feature is (in my opinion) at best useless, if not misleading or even unclear.

      Delete
    4. The feature in question is one of several features related to the wall(position and function). Thus, (in my opinion) it further specifies the claim.

      Delete
    5. Without liquid, each side of the wall is exposed to a mix of gases as the liquid in combination with the wall prevents gas flowing from the outlet to the inlet.

      Delete
  16. Dear All,
    When reviewing this paper with no pressure and no time limit, my claims set is as follows:

    Claim1:
    A housing for a siphon, comprising:
    - a wall,
    - an outlet opening on the wall,
    - a reservoir,
    - the outlet opening and the reservoir defining an overflow level.

    Claim2:
    The housing of claim1:
    -further comprising an inlet opening,
    -the housing being arranged such that liquid can flow from the inlet opening to the outlet opening via the

    reservoir.

    [comment1: first we I have solved the problem of space]

    Claim3:
    The housing of any of previous claims:
    -the reservoir comprising a wall exposed on an inner side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening

    and exposed on an outer side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening.

    [comment2: second I have solved the problem of gaz]
    [comment3: all the internal walls can be seen as belonging to the reservoir]

    Claim4:
    The housing of claim3:
    the wall of the reservoir being a side wall.


    Claim5:
    The housing of claim3:
    The wall of the reservoir being a the tubular wall.

    Claim6:
    The housing of claim5:
    The tubular wall extending beyond the inlet opening in an inlet tube.


    Claim7:
    The housing of any previous claims:
    The outlet opening being arranged in the bottom of the housing or in the housing side wall.

    Claim8:
    The housing of any previous claims:
    further comprising a valve.

    Claim9:
    The housing of claim8:
    The valve comprising a float, located in the reservoir, and serving as the valve body.

    claim10:
    The housing of claim9:
    the valve comprising a guide.

    claim11:
    The housing of claim10:
    the guide of the valve being the side wall of the reservoir.

    Claim12:
    The housing of any of claims 8 to 11:
    the valve comprising a valve seat.

    Claim13:
    The housing of claim 12:
    The valve seat locating at the end of the inlet tube.

    claim14:
    The housing of claim 5 and any of claim 12 to claim 13:
    The valve seat extending to the overflow level.

    Claim15:
    A siphon comprising a housing according to any of claims 1 to 14.


    luis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least in the past, in A paper, you have lost quite a few points if
      some of the following were not correct: claimed object, clarity, and novelty.
      In the 2015 and 2016 papers there has been also an issue related to inventive
      step.

      Looking at your solution, there seems to be problems with at least the claimed
      object, clarity, and inventive step. The claim seems to cover the obvious solution
      of the paper, Fig. 1c, at least if the housing therein has a floor.
      Most likely, you are expected to claim a siphon, since the client is making
      siphons [001]. A housing (suitable) for a siphon is something else.

      As for clarity, is your housing or the siphon therein comprising the things?
      Moreover, the claim seems unclear in how it would solve any problem, if it was
      used with a siphon (e.g. of prior art). How would e.g. the reservoir be connected
      to the siphon (i.e. the tube) used with the housing? In my opinion at least an
      expression related to the tube(s) ending within the housing should, somehow, be
      added. See, e.g. the comment of Xentres of March 04.

      Delete
    2. At least in the past, in A paper, you have lost quite a few points if
      some of the following were not correct: claimed object, clarity, and novelty.
      In the 2015 and 2016 papers there has been also an issue related to inventive
      step.

      Looking at your solution, there seems to be problems with at least the claimed
      object, clarity, and inventive step. The claim seems to cover the obvious solution
      of the paper, Fig. 1c, at least if the housing therein has a floor.
      Most likely, you are expected to claim a siphon, since the client is making
      siphons [001]. A housing (suitable) for a siphon is something else.

      As for clarity, is your housing or the siphon therein comprising the things?
      Moreover, the claim seems unclear in how it would solve any problem, if it was
      used with a siphon (e.g. of prior art). How would e.g. the reservoir be connected
      to the siphon (i.e. the tube) used with the housing? In my opinion at least an
      expression related to the tube(s) ending within the housing should, somehow, be
      added. See, e.g. the comment of Xentres of March 04.

      Delete
    3. Cheers Peter,

      The feature: "an outlet opening on the [housing] wall"
      is absent from Fig.1c.
      This feature enables the definition of the overflow level at different levels. Hence the inventiveness.

      The siphon is claimed later at claim 15.

      For the connection to siphon: you don't have to tell everything in the claims.

      luis

      Delete
    4. The hole of Fig. 1c, which seemingly is intended to be an inlet opening, can certainly be considered as an outlet opening.

      Delete
    5. You are a joker.
      Admit you loose

      Delete
    6. The top of the housing of Fig.1c is open and comprises no wall and no opening.
      The other housings are closed and may comprise openings.

      Delete
    7. for Peter,
      if inlet=oulet, it's not a housing for a siphon

      Delete
    8. In brief, to me it seems that you are claiming something that looks like a cup or a bottle. Of course, you could argue, that the opening of the cup is not "on the wall". It hard to see, how such a housing would solve the problem. All the best for your studies!

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To critisize the delta solution.

    Talking about is ambigous at least on fig.2C and fig.3C.
    I would delete "the reservoir" or I would talk about an overflow level of the housing.
    On fig.2C and fig.3C, the overflow level is defined both by the reservoir and the outlet opening.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To critisize the delta solution.

    Talking about an overflow level of "the reservoir" is ambigous at least on fig.2C and fig.3C.
    I would delete "the reservoir" or I would talk about an overflow level of the housing.
    On fig.2C and fig.3C, the overflow level is defined both by the reservoir and the outlet opening.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Results are in ! Pass rate for 2016 A is 56% (my calculation from the official results) - including me (with a claim quite similar to the above plus a few functional features) :)

      Delete
  20. Excluding zero marks, pass rate is rather 57%... hope a lof of the above posters made it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Having seen the examiner report, I still do believe that the features:
    (d1) if the reservoir is filled with liquid up to the overflow level,
    (d2) the wall is exposed on one side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and on the other side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening,

    exclude the embodiement of figure 2c, because the valve blocks the air flowing in from the outlet opening...

    (btw: I passed A, so for me its a discussion out of interest. But a few others may have been not that lucky...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi,
      congratulations for passing paper A

      I also agree with your point of view with respect to the feature (d2).

      Delete
    2. Feature d2 uses the word „side“. It is not specified that it is a wall side. Then, this side may refer to a housing side or to the siphon side as well.
      As it is apparent from figure 1C, the U-shaped tube 160 (or U-bend) comprises two sides, namely an outlet side exposed to the outlet gas, and an inlet side exposed to the inlet gas.
      Since the U-shaped tube is made of a tubular wall, the corresponding wall includes an inlet side exposed to the inlet gas ; and an outlet side exposed to the outlet gas.
      This U-bend tubular wall is exposed on one side to gas entering the housing from the inlet opening and on the other side to gas entering the housing from the outlet opening.
      Then, the feature d2 of claim 1 reads on figure 1C.
      Consequently, claim 1 reads on figure 1C.
      Claim 1 of the example solution (2.1 page 6 of the Examiner’s Report) seems to lack inventive step.
      Does anyone has another input?

      Delete
    3. I agree that EPO claim 1 excludes Fig. 2C emboidment. Dependent claim 9 makes it even more worse as it states "... by buoyancy against a valve seat into a closed position, in which it blocks the inlet opening, if the reservoir is filled with liquid". If the condition d1 is fullfiled then we are in the closed position and thus the wall is not exposed to any gas!!

      Delete
    4. In the Examiners' Report page 4, line 20, it is underlined that the inlet side of the wall 260 is not exposed to vacuum. True.
      The clients states there is gas evaporating from the liquide [016]. Then we deduce that the inlet side of the wall 260 in fig. 2C is exposed to said evaporated gas.

      Then I am surprised that the Examiners' Report considers that the inlet side is exposed to air having entered and entering via the inlet opening (p4, l 20-21). The client never refers to gas having entered via the inlet.

      Delete
    5. The model solution does not define that the overflow level is a lower edge of the outlet. In fact, the overflow level of the model solution could be considered to be somewhat lower than the outlet. Thus, it is at least possible to argue that the embodiment of Fig. 2C is not excluded, because if the reservoir if filled a bit less than in Fig. 2C, the wall is exposed to airs as in the model solution.

      Delete
    6. I disagree. The word "overflow" has meaning. If the lower edge of the outlet is higher than the "overflow level", then the "overflow level" is not the level at which the liquid overflows, but rather some arbitrarily determined level (in all embodiments). The reservoir also then does not "reach to an overflow level" -feature c1. And in any case, if there is air exchange across the valve, then the waterless urinal will smell bad.

      ~ Robert

      Delete
    7. Well, if the "overflow level" (whatever that is) is lower than a lower edge of the outlet, then the reservoir reaches also that level. Moreover, in Fig. 2c, the wall will prevent the smell even if the valve does not, if the reservoir is filled to that overflow level.

      Delete
  22. I have a doubt regarding the solution by the EPO. It looks to me, that the feature d2 also excludes embodiments in Figs. 4B and 5B, because d1 specifies that the reservoir is filled with water. I can't see gas from the inlet opening contacting the wall.

    Can you please help me understanding how should I read the model solution so that all embodiments are in?

    Insideout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi,
      With respect to figs. 4B and 5B, the tube forms the wall. Then the radial inner side of the tube is exposed to gas from the inlet.

      Delete
  23. I believe that EPO claim 1 lacks clarity under Art. 84 (83?)
    EPO solution states "a siphon (which would cover any siphon) .... the inlet and outlet openings being arranged such that liquid can flow from
    the inlet opening to the outlet opening via the reservoir". To me this claim is too broad. The inlet and outlet are not further limited to covcer the siphon of the invention. For example, the siphon of claim 1 is so braod that also covers a siphon for a water fountain. For the water fountain the inlet and outlet may have different meaning/relation as intended by the present claim 1.

    what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't agree with the examination committee conclusions in several points.
    Two of those are as follows.

    1)The only essential function of a siphon is to evacuate waste water, as said page 1, line 10 of the client letter.
    The other functions (storage,gaz) can normaly be absent from Claim 1.

    2)That the siphon of figure 100' has been kept confidential is nowhere to be read.
    "Not put in the market" does not mean "not disclose".
    Eliminating candidates with that siphon as prior art as it is said in their report is so pretentious.

    It looks like the exam just consists in trying to guest the model solution, not to think.
    There is no respect for people with different background or reflex who don't see things their way.

    It is the rare law exam i know where there is no respect for the intelligence of the candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We knew that "on the market" implies "disclosed"
      Now the exam commitee states that "not in the market" implies v"not disclosed"
      According to this one can conclude "disclosed" is equivalent to "in the market"
      which is obviously wrong.
      So people who failed the A-paper can get their paper reviewed through an appeal.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree.

      Does anybody know about someone that already lodged an appeal?

      Thanks in advance for your answer(s).

      Delete
  25. Anyone knows deadlines / fees for the appeal relating to paper A?

    Thank you,
    Marco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DEADLINE >>> 1 Month

      LEGAL BASIS >>> ARTICLE 24 REE - APPEALS
      ...(2) "Notice of appeal including the
      statement setting out the grounds for
      appeal must be filed in writing with the
      Secretariat within one month of the date
      of notification of the decision appealed
      against. Notice of appeal shall not be
      deemed to have been filed until the fee
      for appeal specified pursuant to Article
      17 has been paid within the period
      of one month specified above."

      FEE >>> 1.200 €

      LEGAL BASIS >>> RULE 9 IPREE - APPEAL FEE
      "Pursuant to Article 24(2) REE, the appeal
      fee shall amount to 600% of the
      basic fee."

      In view of that, is there anyone that has already filed (or is interested in filing jointly with others EQE students) an appeal for EQE 2016 Paper A?

      Nuno

      Delete

Post a Comment