Our attempt at e-EQE Paper A 2022 - Making paper using stamper beating
Here's our attempt at this year's paper, which was literally... about paper. You can find our attempt the 'read more' and followed by some comments.
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
Our answer
Making paper from raw plant material
The invention relates to a stamper machine for stamper beating, to a method of making paper pulp using the stamper machine and to a paper sheet.
D1, referring to T. Barrett’s Encyclopedia of Papermaking “Paper through Time”, describes a traditional method of making paper pulp by stamper beating using cloth rags. The method comprises soaking, fermenting and bleaching cotton and linen cloth rags, followed by beating in vats fitted with hammers to separate the cellulose fibres into a pulp. This pulp is then poured onto screens. Once a thin layer of cellulose fibres is left on the screen, the layer is then pressed, dried, stripped from the screen, cut and flattened. The sheets are subsequently submitted to sizing to provide a smooth and impermeable writing or printing surface. For the sizing, vegetable paste (starch) or animal glue (gelatin) may be used. D1 further describes a stamper machine comprising a number of vats each fitted with a hammer consisting of a hammer head solidly attached at a fixed 90 degree angle to a hammer shaft. The face of the hammer may be fitted with iron or bronze nails designed to perform a specific task.D2, referring to the specification of the patent granted to Matthias Koops, Gentleman, of James Street, in the Parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, in the County of Middlesex, dated February 17, 1801, describes manufacturing paper from straw, hay, thistles, nettles, waste and refuse from hemp and flax, and different kinds of wood and bark. The method comprises dissolving 1.5 kg of quicklime in 20 litres of river water, grinding straw, hay, etc., soaking the ground material in the quicklime solution in a vessel and mixing for at least 5 days, preferably for 8 days, drawing off the water, transforming the material into paper pulp by the usual process of stamper beating. The pulp is formed into sheets with the aid of screens. The paper sheets are pressed, dried, and submitted to gelatin sizing by soaking the sheets in a 3% gelatin solution and drying.
and linen cloth rags, which require bleaching, and which method is therefore environmentally damaging.
It is an object of the invention to provide a method of making paper pulp from which paper sheets can be made which are smooth and strong and which does so in an easier and faster manner and more sustainably compared to methods which use bleaching.
This object is achieved by the method according to claim 7. According to this method, raw plant material is used to make the paper pulp. Such raw plant material, unlike cotton and linen cloth rags, does not require bleaching and is therefore more environmentally friendly and thereby more sustainable. In addition, raw plant material may be collected locally in the region, which further contributes to the sustainability.
The method comprises the steps of treating the raw plant material with quicklime and stamper beating. During the stamper beating, glue is added, by which the traditional sizing of produced paper sheets can be omitted in which the glue is later applied as a coating. As elucidated below, for that purpose, the stamper machine is modified so that an enhanced pulp circulation is achieved to homogeneously intermix the glue in the viscous pulp, which gives the cellulose fibres greater coherence and bonding properties. In particular, the the pulp is circulated so that over 90% of the pulp volume in the vat is swept/displaced with each stroke of the hammer, which can be verified by taking samples from the top layer and samples from the bottom of the vat and then measuring their viscosity; a difference in viscosity not greater than 1% gives the desired circulation.
1. A stamper machine for making paper pulp, comprising:
- a vat (1),
- a hammer fitted to the vat, wherein the hammer comprises:
- a hammer head (2),
- a hammer shaft (3) to which the hammer head is attached, and
- a hammer face (4),
wherein a head-to-shaft angle (alpha) of the hammer is set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees.
2. The stamper machine according to claim 1, wherein the head-to-shaft angle (alpha) is smaller than 70 degrees, and wherein the hammer shaft (3) has a 5-degree downslope in resting position.
3. The stamper machine according to claim 1, wherein the head-to-shaft angle (alpha) is between 82 and 70 degrees.
5. The stamper machine according to claim 4, wherein the nails are rounded nails or flat nails.
6. The stamper machine according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein the stamper machine comprises a number of vats (1) each fitted with a respective hammer.
7. A method of making paper pulp comprising:
- providing raw plant material,
- treating the raw plant material with quicklime,
- stamper beating the treated raw plant material using the stamper machine according to any one of claims 1 to 6 to obtain a paper pulp,
- pressing, drying and stripping the layer from the screen,
- cutting and flattening the layer to obtain a paper sheet.
8. A method of making a paper sheet, comprising:
- pressing, drying and stripping the layer from the screen,
- cutting and flattening the layer to obtain a paper sheet.]
9. The method according to claim 7 or 8, wherein the treating with quicklime comprises:
- grinding the raw plant material,
- soaking the ground plant material in a solution of quicklime and water,
- mixing the soaked ground plant material into a slurry for at least 5 days, preferably 6 to 8 days,
- drawing off the water.
10. The method according to any one of claims 7 to 9, wherein the glue is a gelatin solution.
11. The method according to any one of claims 7 to 10, wherein the raw plant material comprises flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures thereof.
12. The method according to any one of claims 7 to 11, wherein the screen is made of a linen fabric, a metal mesh or a wire cloth stretched on a wooden frame.
Lignin: [008] is somewhat ambiguous of whether it is inherent to raw plant material that it does not comprise lignin, or whether the invention uses raw plant material which specifically does not contain lignin (i.e., a specific type of raw plant material). In case of the latter interpretation, "does not contain lignin" should be added as an additional limitation to the method claim, i.e., "providing raw plant material, wherein the raw plant material does not contain lignin".
[NB: according to the model solution, it was indeed expected to include the limitation that the raw plant material does not contain lignin.]
Paper sheet: The paper sheet of the client containing pure cellulose fibres homogeneously intermixed with glue is already novel over D1 and D2 as both use sizing, which according to [016] of the client's application refers to the applying of a coating of glue. In D1 and D2's paper sheets, the glue is thus non-homogeneous intermixed with the pure cellulose fibres but applied as a coating. It therefore does not seem necessary to add further limitations to the paper sheet, such as the tensile strength.
[NB: in the model solution, the tensile strength is also included in the claim.]
Displacement/viscosity: According to the client's letter, enhanced pulp circulation is essential to achieve the desired paper strength and surface quality, see [023]. The enhanced pulp circulation is defined in terms of over 90% displacement of the pulp volume with each stroke of the hammer, and can be verified by taking samples and measuring that their viscosity throughout the vat does not differ by more than 1%.
Does the displacement/viscosity then need to be included in the product claim? The parameters/metrics described in [0023] to quantify sufficient circulation do not seem well suited as apparatus limitations as they refer to the paper pulp and may indeed depend on the characteristics of paper pulp (e.g., its viscosity), while the apparatus should be claimed without the paper pulp. The corresponding apparatus limitation is the slant/head-to-shaft angle, but it's not clear from the exam which angle satisfies the circulation requirements (and most probably slight deviations from 90 degrees will not). However, ultimately, we've chosen not to limit the apparatus claim beyond the non-90 degree angle, as any deviation from 90 degrees (D1) will be novel and have an improved circulation and therefore a positive effect. [NB: this was indeed the expected solution]
For the manufacturing method, it does seem necessary to limit the claim to ensure enhanced pulp circulation, as the method more directly pertains to manufacturing a paper sheet and otherwise the paper sheet does not have the desired strength and surface quality. In other words, we interpret the client's remark on the essentiality of the sufficient circulation as an essential feature on the use of the apparatus rather than on the apparatus itself. To ensure sufficient circulation, just referring to the product does not seem enough because, as mentioned above, it seems unlikely that small deviations from 90 degrees will achieve the intended circulation. So we need to limit the method claim. The question then remains whether to go for the 90% displacement or the 1% viscosity. Both seem reasonable possibilities. The 90% displacement can be nicely formulated as a method step ("comprising displacing over 90% of the pulp volume ..."), but has the disadvantage that according to GL F-IV 4.11 it appears to be necesssary to specify the measurement method (1% viscosity etc) then as well. The viscosity on the other hand is readily measurable, so we have chosen to include this limitation in the claim. [NB: both were accepted according to the model solution.]
Effective circulation: It is evident from the client's description that the glue is only homogenously mixed with the paper pulp during the stamper beating if the circulation is sufficient, see [0023]. However, the parameters/metrics described in [0023] to quantify sufficient circulation do not seem well suited as apparatus limitations as they refer to the paper pulp and may indeed depend on the characteristics of paper pulp (e.g., its viscosity), while the apparatus should be claimed without the paper pulp. The corresponding apparatus limitation is the slant/head-to-shaft angle, but it's not clear from the exam which angle satisfies the circulation requirements (and most probably slight deviations from 90 degrees will not). However, ultimately, we've chosen not to limit the apparatus claim beyond the non-90 degree angle, as any deviation from 90 degrees (D1) will be novel and have an improved circulation and therefore a positive effect. For the manufacturing method, however, it seems (more) essential to have the sufficient circulation, as the method more directly pertains to manufacturing a paper sheet and otherwise the paper sheet does not have the desired strength and surface quality. In other words, we interpret the client's remark on the essentiality of the sufficient circulation as an essential feature on the use of the apparatus rather than on the apparatus itself. As such, we've chosen to limited the method claim. Of the metrics/parameters mentioned in [0023], the viscosity is readily measurable so seemingly a good parameter; for the displacement-volume, it is not clear how that can be measured/if it is objectively measurable, so this metric/parameter seems less suitable.
[NB: according to the model solution, both viscosity and displacement volume could be used. The model solution also considers it unnecessary to refer back to the product claim.]
Other claim categories: in addition to the categories above, one could consider a claim on the paper pulp itself comprising pure cellulose fibres homogeneously intermixed with glue. We didn't add this claim for the mere reasons of the 15 claim limit and while a method of manufacturing pulp is suggested by the client ([009], first sentence), the pulp itself is not.
[NB: this claim was included in the model solution..]
Would you consider the slanted defintion equivalent to the off 90°, i.e. would it be ok to define slanted and provide the definition in the description as given in the client's letter?
ReplyDeleteI also used the term "slanted" and defined it in the description; I figured that since the client gives us this definition and we are no technical expert it should be OK to use it.
DeleteI want to know the same "a hammer head is positioned at a slant to the hammer shaft" as in the description.
DeleteIn my view the term "slant" is understood without any problem by the skilled person. The paper cites the usual definition of the term ("Positioning at a slant means a head-to-shaft angle (alpha) set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees."), so it can be used without problems.
DeleteIn stead of "slanted", you could also use "at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees".
I don´t think that the method for making pulp has to be restricted to the disclosed stamper machine.
DeleteNeither D1 nor D2 disclose or suggest a method wherein sizing occurs during beating in the vat.
As essential features of the method I used:
- the raw plant material that does not comprise lignin (the client says that they use only this kind of material);
- displacing over 90% of the pulp volume in the vat with each stroke of the hammer.
Considering the past B papers, I thought that referring to the stamper machin of the previous claim would be an unnecessary limitation.
what do you think about?
@Lisa: I did this also with a step of adding glue. I think there is no need to refer to the device.
DeleteGood :)
DeleteSurprised you didn't have a method of making paper sheet
ReplyDeleteI too seem to think they wanted an independent claim to paper sheet using stamping machine. Would this not attract marks?
DeleteSizing step is described as essential.
To a method of making paper as another independent claim. I too had that impression when reading the paper
DeleteHow sure are DP about these claims. I truly believe that another independent claim to a method of making paper should be included in the claim set.
DeleteIt seems to me that Dependent claim 8 is the method of making the paper sheet, so they seem to have included it. I also "split" this claim into two parts as in the above solution, as the method for obtaining the pulp seems inventive, and the method for forming the pulp into a paper sheet seems commercially useful.
DeleteI also added sizing into the independent claim as it mentioned that it was essential. Also - adding glue directly was not fit for purpose.
DeleteSo I added sizing step into independent claim as it was described as essential. BUT the paper is super confusing around these features. Did the EPO not checked them/read them again. It was not very clear around these areas at all.
We agree that there should be 'making paper sheet' claim, which is claim 8 in our attempt. It is a bit hidden, though, that it is about making paper sheets, so it may be nicer to make this a bit more explicit. The following claim should be technically equivalent, but emphasizes that it concerns making a paper sheet. Note that, like our claim 8 above, this claim is also a dependent claim and not an independent claim. The client does suggest to use multiple independent claims, but this claim can be, and therefore arguably should be, formulated as a dependent claim to avoid issues with R. 43(2) or in general conciseness.
Delete8. A method for making a paper sheet, comprising:
- using the method of claim 7 to make paper pulp,
- pouring the paper pulp onto a screen to obtain a layer of cellulose fibres intermixed with the glue on the screen,
- pressing, drying and stripping the layer from the screen,
- cutting and flattening the layer to obtain a paper sheet.
Thanks for your answers! Question about claim 7: why did you add the viscosity? Is the viscosity not already achieved by using the stamping machine from claims 1-6? Also, could you comment on why you didn't included the 5-degree downslope for angle less than 70 in the independent claim such that the claim is enabled over entire scope?
ReplyDeleteBased on your experience, how do you think the points will be divided between Machine, Method and Paper? Which one do you think will give the most points and which one the least? Based on experience.
ReplyDeleteHi Roel. I didn't put the alpha angle in the claims because the software wouldn't allow it. I decided to leave it out but now looking at your solutions, I should of written the wors alpha. I put brackets (1) etc for other features apart from angles. Will I lose marks for this.
ReplyDeleteI expect that missing only the 'alpha' as reference numeral is unlikely to result in a loss of marks (if you have all the others)
DeleteTo do the beating step, my understanding from D1 was that the hammer face has to comprise nails, does this not mean that the method step of stamper beating should be limiting to the embodiment of the hammer face having rounded or flat nails.
ReplyDeleteI thought the same. I think the skilled person would know that the nails were needed on the face from the functional wording of the claim though? So not missing an essential feature, but maybe a deduction for lack of clarity in view of not referencing dependent claim 4?
DeleteSame as you but if you do not have hammer in claim 1, how do you demonstrate an inventive step or unity of invention between your claim 1 and your method for manufacturing paper?
DeleteThanks for this suggested answer. It just supports my initial impression that this will be a terrible one to mark, because there seems to be a complete lack of clarity regarding what claim categories should be provided.
ReplyDeleteJust a few comments:
I suspect the model answer will require the "does not contain lignin", but it could go either way. I suspect no marks will be deducted either way, as both claims would be novel and inventive and cover what the client wants to do.
Regarding the stamper machine, it appears to me that the rounded nails or flat nails are actually essential. There is no technical effect associated with the change in angle of the hammer head without the ability to make a pulp. The pulp can only be made if the rounded or flat nails are present.
Finally, I now see that the viscosity difference would be the better technical feature to claim than the 90% volume, but I suspect both get to the same limitation and at least one of the two is essential, so would hope that the 90% volume limitation would not result in too significant a deduction of points.
I do not agree that excluding lignin should be essential. It's true that the client's commercial interests do not include lignin-containing materials and that lignin-containing materials lead to less durable paper with worse properties. However, there is no indication that the method would not work with the presence of lignin. Excluding any lignin seems to severely limit the scope of the claim since it could be circumvented simply by mixing in a tiny bit of wood with the other materials.
DeleteWith lignin, the resulting paper will not be durable and also less strong (because the wood paper known in the art would read in this part if the claim). Without that limitation, the problem to be solved would be something like "finding and alternative sizing method" or similar.
DeleteThat makes it risky in terms of inventive step. The client kinda hints at this being obvious (inventor thought that this could be done). If you include further limitations (which make it possible), I think it could be inventive still. But "alternative" makes me uneasy at the EQE..
PK647
I agree, with lignin it will be one of the cases where examiners suggest that a claim without it lacks inventive step. However, as DP point out above, I suspect that the paper means to imply that all raw plant material has no lignin.
DeleteI agree, based on the paper "raw plant material" would imply lack of lignin. In an abundance of cuation, I still added the limitation (at worst, it makes it redundant, which should not cost marks, or at least not many).
DeleteThe viscosity limitation in independent claim a strange one as I think this is already achieved by the novel stamping machine
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts were that the viscosity difference would change as a function of time - 1 minute vs 10 minutes of hammering, for example.
DeleteYes, I think so too. Hence, I did not use it in my claims
DeleteI agree with others here. I think an independent method claim to making the paper sheet should be in the claims set too. At least, this is my impression and it also appears to be indicated throughout the paper
ReplyDeleteYes agree here too. I had an independent claim to method of making paper
DeleteMe too.
DeleteDP. Is there any reason why you didn't think a method of making paper sheet is not an independent claim?
It is covered by the dependent claim 8?
DeleteThe independent claim of making paper will comprise all the steps of making pulp and is thus dependent?
DeleteI agree that such a method claim should be included (esp in view of Art.64(2)) but it should be formulated as a dependent claim. The method for making paper includes all steps of the method for making pulp; it just adds further steps.
DeleteYou shouldn't get heavily marked down anyway even if you do have a separate independent claim to method of making paper comprising the steps of making pulp.
DeleteShould be ok even if you had a separate independent claim to method of making paper as long as its dependent on the pulp making process. I think it's effectively the same thing as making it dependent on the pulp process claim.
DeleteMakes absolutely no difference to claim scope by making the paper being a dependent claim or an independent claim to a process of making paper including the steps of making pulp. Its the same thing...
DeleteAgree. It won't make any difference and should not be penalised.
DeleteA method for making paper cannot run under a claim heading of "a method for making pulp. Therefore I expect that making the paper making claims dependent from the pulp making claims will lose points for a lack of clarity.
DeleteBut a method of making a paper comprising the steps of making pulp + additional features. I don't see anything wrong with this claim. In the past, there are two methods in the paper so not sure why this would get penalised.
DeleteWe agree that there should be 'making paper sheet' claim, which is claim 8 in our attempt. It is a bit hidden, though, that it is about making paper sheets, so it may be nicer to make this a bit more explicit. The following claim should be technically equivalent, but emphasizes that it concerns making a paper sheet. Note that, like our claim 8 above, this claim is also a dependent claim and not an independent claim. The client does suggest to use multiple independent claims, but this claim can be, and therefore arguably should be, formulated as a dependent claim to avoid issues with R. 43(2) or in general conciseness.
Delete8. A method for making a paper sheet, comprising:
- using the method of claim 7 to make paper pulp,
- pouring the paper pulp onto a screen to obtain a layer of cellulose fibres intermixed with the glue on the screen,
- pressing, drying and stripping the layer from the screen,
- cutting and flattening the layer to obtain a paper sheet.
Thanks a lot for providing your answers!
ReplyDeleteRe effective circulation: I do not agree that the viscosity feature is essential for the method claim. Certainly not for A.83 since the method is just for producing pulp (not limited to pulp with the client's desired properties) and also not for A.56 (since the claim requires the use of the inventive apparatus it is necessarily also inventive). Thus, I don't really see a reason why it would have to be included. Also, while the client states that the effective circulation is essential to obtain the client's desired properties, he only states that the viscosity difference "should" be less than 1%.
I agree with you Rub. I don't see why viscosity less than 1% is seen as essential. Its just a way for them to verify. They could equally say viscosity is less than 2%.
DeleteI do wonder if "a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees" is narrow enough. This would cover, say, 89.4 degrees - would this be considered inventive?
ReplyDeleteI agree with DP's solution here. We know that the bigger the deviation from 90°,the bigger the effect. However, there is no threshold at which an effect suddenly starts to appear. It's true that at 89.4° the effect would probably be tiny; however, for inventive step there is no requirement that the effect has to be of a certain magnitude. The question is simply whether the skilled person would have any incentive to deviate from 90° in order to improve circulation (even if only by a tiny amount). As long as this is not the case, I don't think it's a problem that the claim scope encompasses 89.4° probably having a minute effect (plus, there was not really a good way to further limit the apparatus claim in my opinion)
DeleteI got the same apparatus claim but also added the 90% pulp volume as the description said that the angle ENSURES 90% of pulp volume. I hope I don't get penalised heavily for adding this limitation in.
ReplyDeleteGot this in too. Don't think you lose any marks
DeleteYep. I got this too as thought it was required.
DeleteSame here. I also do hope that not too many marks are lost. However, at the same time (regarding all the discussion on enabling in the other thread) I am very glad that DP also considers the 5° for <70° to be not essential.
DeleteSame here. Looks like lot of candidates did that.
DeleteI also added this 90% pulp volume in.
DeleteSame here ;-)
DeleteDitto
DeleteI'm also struggling to see why viscosity should be added to independent claim. This means that they need to verify every time they make the pulp which they surely won't do from an infringer perspective. I don't think viscosity is an essential feature.
ReplyDeleteIt is not necessary, in claim 1 (apparatus), to limit that the alpha angle is maintained when in use during the stamping operation? The whole purpose of a non-perpendicular angle between the hammer head and the shaft is that is arranged like this during the actual operation.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the angle is "fixed" IMO
DeleteI don't see the angle being "fixed" as essential. It was not presented as such and specifying that the angle is "fixed" is therefore an unnecessary limitation in my opinion. A stamper machine having a plurality of sub-90 degree settings could even potentially be beneficial. If the claim is limited to a fixed sub-90 angle then it would be very easy to circumvent the patent by providing a stamper machine with e.g. one 80 degree setting and one 70 degree setting.
Deletemixing for at least 5 days was indicated as being essential!
ReplyDeleteApart from that I thought the paper was totally unclear as to what is essential, respectively how the stamping machine needs to interact with the method for manufacturing the pulp. Simply adding the glue at the stamping step is already sufficient to make the the method claim novel and also inventive. The limitation that the stamper with slanted hammer needs to be used is only important for the production of a good quality paper... but not necessarily for the manufacturing of the pulp.
Did anyone else consider the feature of mixing the plant material with the quicklime for at least 5 days essential for the method claim? I know I included it but I don't remember why and don't have the paper yet to check (is the paper already available somewhere?)
ReplyDeleteFrom my reading 'for at least 5 days' was only essential with respect to a 'preferred' method of treating with quicklime.
DeleteI recited it only in a dependent claims with the rest of the "preferred" method of treating with quicklime.
DeleteThe Client stated that the method was taken from d1, and also laid out his preferred method. They differed with regards to when water was added. I included both methods by encompassing these alternatives in the method claim and since both stated mixing for 5 days I included also this feature. There was no indication that mixing of the plant material with quicklime and obtaining a pulp was at all possible without adding water anywhere. I hope that this will be seen as a necessary restriction without limiting the claim to the method preferred by the client. (Philipp)
DeleteClient said: In this method, it is essential that the mixing with quicklime lasts at least 5 days, preferably 6 to 8 days, otherwise the cellulose extraction will not be complete.
Delete"This method" with regards to his preferred method, or thisethod with regards to the method of treating with Quicklime as a whole? I interested it as regards the method as a whole
DeleteI read this sentense in the context of claimed invention, not as a whole in the field
DeleteClaimed method of making paper pulp begins with raw plant material, with a step of treating the raw plant material with quicklime. This step is required to extract the cellulose. In this method, it is essential that the mixing with quicklime lasts at least 5 days, preferably 6 to 8 days, otherwise the cellulose extraction will not be complete.
Agree with Ueli that the at least 5 days of mixing are essential and thus shall be part of the method claim
ReplyDeleteYes. I too took it as an essential feature and therefore must be added.
DeleteI'm not sure about adding glue and viscosity measurements into independent claim. I didn't see the clues in the paper to warrant adding them in.
I took it as an essential feature too.
DeleteClient said: Sizing strengthens the paper surface and prevents ink from bleeding into the fibres, ultimately yielding sharper print quality. This is essential for claimed technology
DeleteHence sizing by soaking the paper pulp with a glue solution in the method claim shall be essential
Concerning viscosity - this is not essential feature , just a test
DeleteThe enhanced pulp circulation can easily be verified by taking samples from the top layer and samples from the bottom of the vat and then measuring their viscosity. Differences in viscosity should not be greater than 1%.
I agree sizing is essential to the method, but the way sizing is carried out is not essential. Mixing the glue with the pulp during beating is preferred (in which case the 'deviating from 90 degrees' apparatus is essential), but traditional sizing could also be used (it's just not as good because it's cumbersome and takes a long time).
DeleteSo I had using the apparatus and applying a coating in the independent method claim and a dependent method claim to adding the glue during beating (and so by dependency this includes the essential apparatus).
I didn't have adding glue step in my independent method claim as I relied on novelty on the machine itself. Why do we need glue in independent method claim? What did I miss.
ReplyDeleteDo I still get marks for novelty of method claim.
Maybe you missread the paragraph:
DeleteDrawbacks from prior art and traditional stamper machines in paper quality can be diminished by sizing. Sizing refers to the application of a coating by soaking the sheets of paper in a glue solution, such as starch or gelatin, and then drying them. Sizing strengthens the paper surface and prevents ink from bleeding into the fibres, ultimately yielding sharper print quality. This is essential for claimed technology.
Hence sizing by soaking the paper pulp with a glue solution in the method claim shall be essential
@Mariya: Agreed, but does soaking the sheets of paper in a glue solution for a prolonged period of time (as stated in the clients letter) not lead to a homogenous mix of glue in the paper? Therefore the paper sheet should be claimed as a product by process claim.
DeleteWhy do we need adding glue and viscosity. Isn't it already novel by the fact that it's dependent on the machine. I didn't see why viscosity or adding glue is an essential feature also. I'm slightly confused about the paper. It was not clear at all.
ReplyDeleteIf someone can explain than that would be great. I also didn't spot why these should be added to method claim
DeleteHalo
I agree with you that neither of the two should be necessary. The viscosity feature was already discussed at length above. As regards the glue - I do think they intended the glue to be included in the method (at least that's what I did). But you're right - the claim is also novel and inventive without it since the method uses a novel and inventive apparatus. So it actually makes more sense to only introduce it in a dependent claim.
DeleteMy thinking was that without adding glue to the method claim, it may not be inventive over the process of D2, since there is essentially no difference to the final paper produced then - you have changed the angle but no technical effect arises so it is only an alternative process of producing paper - the modified angle could be obvious with this technical problem (D1 discusses somewhere that you can modify various aspects of the apparatus - e.g. hammer height), but certainly would not be obvious when the technical problem is to produce paper with much higher tensile strength as this is not suggested in either D1 or D2.
DeleteI also included a use of the apparatus claim for making paper pulp which had a broader scope - perhaps this is not inventive applying my logic above...
I agree with Anonymous above - without adding glue, there is no invention in the method - using this machine for the process in e.g. D2 would not result in an improved paper
DeleteI would say that the process including the machine is novel and inventive since it is the angle that allows volume pulp to increase and therefore allows homogenous mixing.
DeleteThe addition of glue is very unclear to me. If its left out, I imagine it would be seen as missing out an essential feature rather than novelty and inventive step. I
So I think only a couple of marks will be lost.
As for viscosity, I'm really unsure as to why this was added to independent claim. I didn't include this at all.
I agree that the stamper machine in the process is enough to make it novel and inventive.
DeleteThe glue is probably seen as an essential feature so probably about 5 marks lost if it's not included.
DeleteThe stamper machine makes the process claim novel and inventive so most marks would be awarded if you got that.
I don't see the glue or viscosity being essential for the process claim.
DeleteMe too here. I didn't put in glue or viscosity. The paper was not very clear at all around these features
DeleteIt sounds like the features of glue and viscosity is up for debate. Here is my thoughts
DeleteIf the claimed process has machine with deviating angle from 90 degrees then the process claim is novel and inventive.
Not having the glue or viscosity is at best an essential feature issue and so you should be able to pick up more than 50% of the marks on the process claim even if you leave out these features. Personally, I can see that you need the glue but not the viscosity.
I also left out the glue and viscosity. I am confident that claim is still novel and possibly inventive by the machine apparatus as above. I hope you're right that it is not penalised too much.
DeleteIm still unsure about adding glue but can see the points. However, I do not see the viscosity point at all. It is described as a way to verify the quality and that this should be less than 1%. To me, this is a dependent claim.
DeleteReading your comments above got me wondering whether there might be a problem with unity if the method isn't limited to the glue added during beating - after all, you can't get the inventive paper if you do the sizing separately. So both claims might not share the same general inventive concept. Comments welcome!
DeleteEven if glue should be in the process claim - I think if you missed out on the glue - it shouldn't lose you too many marks. The process claim should still be novel and inventive based on their dependency to the machine claims.
Deletethe viscosity feature is really confusing me. Why would this be an part of an independent claim. I really don't understand how it can be.
DeleteI too left out the glue and viscosity in the process claim. I had the rest of the DP proposal to the method claim. I think this is broader and is already novel and inventive by dependencies on the novel and inventive apparatus claim.
DeleteI don't understand why viscosity is in the independent claim either?
DeleteAccording to my understanding the method uses the inventive stamper in order to get a homogenous mixture between the cellulose and the glue. If you do not add the glue, you only have cellulose and nothing to mix. Thus: no technical effect.
DeleteI can see about glue but not sure you need viscosity.
Deleteviscosity shall not be an essential feature -it can be measured to check final result
DeleteDesign of the machine plus glue are essential features for the method claim
This design ensures that the pulp is circulated so that over 90% of the pulp volume in the vat is swept/displaced with each stroke of the
hammer.
This enhanced pulp circulation is essential to homogeneously intermix the glue in the viscous pulp, and thus to achieve the desired
paper strength and surface quality.
The enhanced pulp circulation can easily be verified by taking samples from the top layer and samples from the bottom of the vat and then measuring their viscosity. Differences in viscosity should not be greater than 1%.
I think its clear from the clients letter that a certain level of mixing is required for the method to actually work. It will not work with just any machine in any setup, it must be ensured that at 90% displacement takes part.
DeleteTherefore, for the method to actually work, i.e. be sufficiently disclosed, there needs to be some extra feature in that regard.
I found the viscosity thing to be very awkward and weird so I didnt include it either, but I have to agree that something like this needs to be in there probably.
Regarding a method without the glue in the pulp:
The method will be novel by employing a novel apparatus, but will it be inventive? The technical effect of the apparatus is the improved homogenization, which is only required if you hav the glue in the pulp and higher viscosity. But when you dont put the glue in the pulp, there is no problem with homogenization to be solved, so the machine does not solve any problem, so Id say its not inventive.
I disagree with DCF. I think there is an advantage provided by the apparatus when glue is not added during beating. D1 used the term 'homogenous', which I think in that context meant that the raw material and water needed to be well mixed. Through want of a better term, the raw material in the pulp needs to be well 'mashed up' to provide good pulp, and the apparatus helps with this.
DeleteD1 does not use the term homogenous. I see your point though, an apparatus that can homogenize super viscous pulp might also be able to better homogenize normal pulp, e.g. having a positive effect of shortening the time it needs to hammer the pulp.
DeleteHowever, I feel its a bit speculative and not really supported by the exam documents.
I can certainly see the point of the process having the novel and inventive apparatus features. It should still be novel and inventive based on this. Paper B are good examples of this when you can use similar arguments.
DeleteI think the missing glue feature would probably be seen as missing an essential feature so expect about 5 marks lost for not including it.
As for viscosity - it was very strange and I do not see why it needs to be added in at all.
With regards to the claims 4-6 above: I don't personally agree on having to include claims directed to the nails itself; I find these details to be irrelevant and we can't know for sure what type of nails are used. First of all, the nails were not described by the client's letter in any way or form, so we don't know if they used sharp/rounded/flat nails or no nails. D1 described a general setup used for cloth tags and textiles (!) and stated that 'the face of the hammer (4) may be fitted with iron or bronze nails designed to perform a specific task' and goes on to explain that sharp nails are designed to break down pieces of cloth rag into smaller bits and threads; rounded or flat nails are designed to beat and separate the cellulose fibers, and hammers without nails are designed to brush out the pulp by freeing it of flocs.
ReplyDeleteIn my reading, this all relates to a traditional method of making paper pulp by stamper beating using cloth rags obtained from discarded textiles and may or may not be applicable for raw natural fibers - we don't know.
What we know is that they don't use rags or cloths because of environmental reasons; therefore having sharp nails may not be applicable (after all, it's for breaking down pieces of cloth rag, we don't know if it's also used for breaking down raw natural fibers).
We also don't know of the number of vats fitted as in claim 6 above; the machine may or may not be fitted with a number of vats, this was not described in the client's letter. I find these claims to be a bit speculative and not based on the info provided by the client - rather is based on the info provided only in D1 without a mention/explanation provided in the client's letter that this is in fact what they use..
I totally agree with you.
DeleteWell, the nails are in the client's drawings, they look exactly like the rounded nails in D1, the client's letter said you'd need D1 to draft the claims, and they are required to make the pulp... To me it all pointed to the nails being essential for there to be a technical effect.
DeleteI agree, clients letter does not discloses the features from DP claims 4-6
DeleteAgree with you here. Claims 4-6 make no sense.
DeleteThe flat nails are essential to allowing the hammer to make pulp. Without a functional feature in the claim to that effect, or the structural feature which allows the hammer to create the pulp, the machine wouldn't work or have an technical advantage over the known machines.
DeleteAs such, not having a dependent claim to the nails is probably better than having them in a dependent claim - you can argue they are implicit. With a dependent claim, however, an essential feature of the claim is missing and the repercussive effect of the dependent claim implies that there is a technical effect even without round nails - there wasn't any teaching of such an effect in the paper... E.g. for the hammer without nails as described in D1, a larger volume is completely irrelevant. So the technical effect is not achieved across the whole scope of a claim without round nails.
I can't see how the scope of protection can be clear from a claim comprising the feature "wherein a head-to-shaft angle (alpha) of the hammer is set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees".
ReplyDeleteIt is clear when manufacturing machines inaccuracies are present, hence, it would be more the rule than the exception that stamper machines as disclosed in D1 would have an angle deviating somewhat from 90 degrees.
At least I can not get it to make logical sense, how the scope of protection is well defined by the feature of obviating from 90 degrees. Would a machine manufactured to have an angle of 90 degrees, but ending up with an angle of 89.9 degrees fall within the scope of such a claim?
I agree - deviates also could mean >90 degrees, which was in no way described in the client's letter. The only angle described that increased the head swept volume by 10 to 40% was the angle between 82 and 60 degrees; which is important as the head swept volume is necessary to ensure the effective circulation of the pulp in the vat and also, the homogeneous mixing of the pulp and the glue.
DeleteImho that's not a clarity issue but a novelty issue (aka deviating from 90° is not novel), but I seem to stand very alone with that opinion.
DeleteI agree, in my view the independent claim as suggested above lacks clarity and novelty over D1. Deviation is not clear. How much deviation? Does it mean standard deviation? Hence I included the exact angles provided.
DeleteAlso I wrote two independednt product claims - one with 60-70 degrees and 5 degree downslope and other with 70-82 degrees
DeleteThe claim as above seems new and clear to me. Deviation from 90 degrees is different to saying up to 89 degrees or above 91 degrees. The paper made clear that deviation is clear in the context of the paper, whether that's true in real life or not.
Delete@123 then what about T594/01 which says "above x" cannot hold if x is state of the art?
Delete@123 I see what you say. However, when referring to the guidelines G-VI, 8.1 regarding error margin in numerical values I would assess you would interpret D1's disclosure of 90 degrees to also encompass 89.5, which fall within the scope deviating from 90 degrees. The guidelines also states "The skilled person knows that numerical values relating to measurements are subject to measurement errors which place limits on their accuracy", hence, I do not think in this case you disregard whether it's true in real life or not.
DeleteI'm not saying this interpretation is correct, so any counter arguments is received with open arms.
I guess the difference is that in this exam paper, it was made to sound as if deviation from 90 degrees was enough to distinguish over the prior art. The alternative would be to include 82 degrees, but that would, in the context of the exam, be too narrow - so given the paper, I think it is the answer they wanted.
DeleteAlso, the better comparison would be the prior art saying it must be perpendicular, and the claim saying it is arranged so that it is at an angle - a disclaimer of sorts?
deviating from 90 degrees is not clear for me. How much deviation and can it be more than 90 degrees?
Deleteadditionally, they specifically say that effect can be obtained with 82-60 degrees (preferred 70 degrees), I thought that you cannot obtain the effect if you deviate from 90 degrees too much or too less
I agree the letter from the applicant definitely made it sound like a deviation from 90 degrees was enough to achieve a technical effect and be novel, but this is based on the applicant's POV, and not necessarily from a patent POV.
DeleteA disclaimer might actually have been a really nice solution, I think a disclaimer actively disclaiming 90 degrees would be better. Then I think you avoid a lot of issues with how the scope is delimited and any potential interpretation issues leading to novelty problems.
Client said:
DeletePositioning at a slant means a head-to-shaft angle (α) set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees. The effective circulation of the pulp thus achieved is due to the head swept volume increasing considerably the more the head-to-shaft angle (α) deviates from 90 degrees.
However angle (α) set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees seems not clear to me. Angle can be also 110o or 89o
Client said further:
Calculations show that head swept volume increases by 10% to 40% when the head-to-shaft angle (α) is set at between 82 and 60 degrees, as compared to an unslanted hammer head (2) set at 90 degrees to the hammer shaft (3).
Hence I think the clear term of the angle is between 82 and 60 degrees
Deviating from 90° is literally a disclaimer, so that wouldn't be a solution. It's completely identical to "any angle except 90°".
DeleteBut 90° is merely theoretical. No such thing as "exactly 90°" exists (even less anno 1800). Only 90° +- measurement precision.
Therefore any angle deviating from 90° is either not novel or at least unclear as the boundaries are undefined.
And the technical effect is not achieved at 89.999999999999°. That's a fact, whether it is stated in the paper or not. Imho the solution is to include the 90% swept volume as a functional feature together with the deviation from 90°.
What are your thoughts regarding the independent product claim drawn to the paper? I simply defined it as "Paper characterized by a tensile strength of above 1 900 N/m as measured by ISO..." or something similar. Since existing papers apparently have lower tensile strengths, the claim is novel. Since there previously was no known or obvious way to produce such paper it is also inventive. Plus, the parameter is clear (according to the letter) and the application teaches how such paper can be produced, so it is also enabled.
ReplyDeleteTo me this claim seemed broader in scope and less vague than the "homogeneously intermixed" feature.
I wrote a similar claim but with "rag paper sheet" (probably wasn't necessary to limit to rag paper) and grammage of 70 because i figured that the tensile strength depends on the grammage.
DeleteI agree. I also claimed this paper with grammage and tensile strength.
DeleteI think glue homogeneous mixed with cellulose is not clear. I think this claim to paper is also novel and inventive.
@ Charlie - rag paper sheets are papers sheet prepared from cloth rags (as per [3] of the client's letter & hence why it's called a rag paper), so they're already known; also, [25] stated: 'We manufacture paper sheets with a grammage of 70 g/m2. This is the grammage most commonly found in historical rag paper from the 17th and 18th centuries.'
DeleteThus, a claim directed to rag paper sheet with a grammage of 70 g/m2 is what's been described in the background thus I don't see the novelty of such a claim.. :/
Based on the paper, I also think that glue homogeneously mixed with cellulose fibre isn't clear, esp because it appeared to be disclosed only for a pulp.
DeleteI also think the parameter of tensile strength isn't a result to be achieved, and claiming it in that way gives the inventor the broadest possible protection and protection they should be entitled to.
i agree with 123 about the glue homogeneously mixed with cellulose fibre point.
DeleteI certainly don't understand why viscosity would be in the independent claim.
What about a product-by-process claim directed to the paper sheet? "A paper sheet obtained by the process of claim...". Of course in this case you need to have a claim directed to a method for making a paper sheet.
ReplyDeleteYes I included a product by process claim just like you mention with the grammage and tensile strength limitation
DeleteMe too. I also added this claim
DeleteI did a paper sheet obtainable by process XX and then included the grammage and tenstile strength. I was unsure about the homogenous mixing of glue as I thought the claim was more "results to be achieved" and certainly lacking clarity.
DeleteI reckon it's 40 marks for machine
ReplyDelete20 marks for process of paper
10 marks for Paper
15 marks for dependent claims
15 marks for specification.
Only 10 marks for the paper?
DeleteSounds about right. The main inventions are machine and making pulp process.
DeleteYes, but thinking about 2018 A exam marking for independent claims:
DeleteMethod for making protrusions on glass
sheet 25 marks
Glass pane 25 marks
Vacuum insulated glass 20 marks
So i would maybe expert same here, machine 25 marks, process 25 marks, paper 20 marks
But i agree with that the most logic point allocation is machine 40, process 20. As the paper really was vaguely disclosed in the paper. Not at all clear that it should be included tbh. But based on the horrible allocation in A2018 im confused.
DeleteI really can't see why 20 marks would be awarded to paper which as you've said, it was so unclear in the paper. I think the 40, 20 and 10 marks allocation would be more appropriate.
DeleteCoz Paper sheet is the most important to the client. As mentioned above, in 2018 a glass plane was assigned 25 marks for same reasoning.
DeleteBut in 2018 it seemed clear that they wanted a glass pane, there was a figure showing a glass pane!
DeleteThere was nothing in this paper indicating that paper sheets should be claimed.
I agree. Most of the client letter was directed at the process and the machine. FIgures to the machine was also included and the D1, D2 prior art documents were also mainly dedicated to the process and machine. So I think it is logical and sensible that candidates spent most of their time on machine and process claims and therefore, they would attract the most marks. In previous years (apart from 2018), you get more marks for the product/apparatus claims.
DeleteJust to answer SA queries - its actually the machine that is the most important invention because it is this that creates the desired paper pulp. Only using the paper pulp can a paper sheet of quality be made. Without the required pulp, there would be no paper sheet. So I would say the machine is the most important and desirable invention to protect.
DeleteI agree with anonymous, that the machine appears to be the most important invention, look at the drawing alone.
DeleteAnything above 10 points for paper is a scandal.
DeleteNot sure if scandal is the right word - I assume that something like 30 for machine, 10 for each method, and 20 for paper could work well. That doesn't consider a claim for the pulp, so maybe 20 marks split across a pulp claim, if present, and a paper sheet claim, would make more sense.
DeleteIt won't be an easy one to mark, that's for sure.
Impossible to give 20 for paper, candidates are expected to put most time on Machine + Method with regards to the quantity of the text in client letter + prior art. So would expect 55-60 for methods and 10 for paper
DeleteCorrection: 55-60 for methods and machine **
Deleteprobably 40 marks for the machine. There was a whole page dedicated to the machine.
Deletew.r.t claim 1, what about T594/01?
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with changing the feature "consisting" to "comprising" in claim 1 (stamper machine). Both the clients letter and the prior art is consistent with the wording "consisting". In addition, the nails are part of the face of the hammer, so they are not excluded by using "consisting". Am I wrong or did I miss something?
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but I think both versions work fine.
DeleteI agree, there was no indication that the consisting should be changed to comprising. The examiner's reports always go on about using the language from the paper, and in this case, that language was consisting not comprising.
DeleteI also agree, since we should stick to the language of the client letter the term "consisting" should not be replaced by "comprising". So it would simply not be fair to get punished when using this terminology.
DeleteI also replaced "consisting of" with "comprising". Examiner Reports often teach you also to consider 'faults' in the client's letter (For example, the present letter told that the device would not be patentable. Howver, I guess we agree that does not mean you don't have to avoid a device claim).
DeleteI think it makes no sense to claim anything with "consisting of" when it is not needed. However, in the present case, I assume there is no difference between the both terms.
But I guess the difference is that this is a case of using the language from the paper (both in D1 and the client letter), not a case of a clearly incorrect statement. In the present case, as it's a component of the overall apparatus, I would hope it wouldn't make too much of a difference.
DeleteAll the steps of claim 8 above are not related to pulping but to making paper from the pulp! I think claim 8 should be a claim to making paper which refers to pulping using methid of claim 7
ReplyDeleteAgree. Claim 8 as drafted above lacks clarity.
DeleteConcerning the paper and the paper pulp, wouldn't it be a typical case where the "product-by-process" could apply? In particular if one defines a first method for making paper pulp, and a second method for making paper, because the methods impart properties to the products which allow them to be differentiated from the prior art? The paper and paper pulp are also interrelated products (paper pulp is the intermediate product), thus allowing to claim both.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I had a product-by-process claim directed to the paper sheet obtained by the process of claim x. Without specifying further features. I then had a dependent claim for the grammage. I did not include a product-by-process claim for the pulp, because I was not sure if the features were visible in the end product.
DeleteThe clients letter said something like "We are confident that the product can be characterized by its properties".
DeleteI took that as a very strong hint NOT to do a pbp claim.
In reality, you are probably right, because I feel that neither an unclear allegedly "homogenous distribution" nor a numerical value for the tensile strength without defining a grammage to which that relates are useful limitations.
However, within the frame of the exam, there is no hint that the "homogenous distribution" would not be clear enough. And if that is a suitable feature to characterize the product, you have to use it.
@DCF: D2 states in paragraph [004], that the paper sheets are soaked in a gelatin solution. I interpreted this in that way, that this would also lead to a paper, which has a homogenous distribution of gelatine and went for a product by process claim for the paper.
DeleteI agree that to me, D2 appeared to already suggest a paper sheet with homogeneously mixed glue, and as such, that feature does not distinguish over prior art. But who knows what the examiners want to see... It just wasn't a very well drafted paper it seemed.
DeleteI thought the tenstile strength was a better bet on novelty. Like you said, in D2 I also think it is implied that it is homogenously distributed because it used gelatin glue solution, so technically it has been disclosed in D2, at least implicitly, and certainly can't see it being invnetive.
DeleteHi Nico, thanks a lot for the answer! Indeed, lignin-free is an ingerent attribute of a partucular plant material. (Wood has lignin), so I put " lignin-free" in the independent method claim. As I understood, for the client is important, that the paper will not get yellow with time, and as I understood the problem of getting yellow arises because of lignin. (D2 has wood in the list of possible materials.). I also thought that 5 hours are an essential feature for the independent method claim.
ReplyDeleteIrina
5 days, of course
ReplyDeleteHow many points do you think will be subtracted for including the limitation of the 5 degrees downslope in claim 1? I mean only the 5 degrees downslope of the shaft without the 70 degrees limitation on the hammer head.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting solution.
ReplyDeleteIm surprised that the paper claim has no dependent claim defining that the paper is made from the clients preferred lignin-free materials like straw, hay etc. This is absolutely essential to make the long-lasting archive-suitable paper which appears to be the clients core commercial interest.
Other than that the viscosity in the method appears to be an odd feature. But I dont know any better solution, either. I understand that probably not just every angle in the apparatus will be suitable for the method, but choosing an angle in an apparatus to yield a certain viscosity difference in a mixing step is really stretching the "functional" of this feature quite far I feel.
I was also very confused about the 5 degree down angle.
Since the angle of the hammer shaft is completely undefined, why define for alpha < 70? I also dont think the letter said that the downward angle is neccessary, just that the angle of the shaft must be "changed". From what to what remains unknown.
The letter said: [022] To achieve a head-to-shaft angle (α) smaller than 70 degrees, which is preferred, the shaft-to-horizontal angle also has to be modified. In our set-up, the hammer shaft (3) has a 5-degree downslope in resting position.
DeleteThus, in order to achieve a less than 70 degree head-to-shaft angle, you need to have a shaft-to-horizontal angle of 5 degrees downslope in a resting position. Thus, this is a necessary feature for head-to-shaft angles of <70 degrees.
They do not explicitly say that 5 degrees downslope is needed to have angles smaller than 70. They just say "the shaft-to-horizontal angle also has to be modified".
DeleteThe fact that they define "our set-up" with a 5 degree downslope and in the next paragraph they say "our design ensures 90% swept volume" (something like that) made me think that the 5 degree downslope is actually essentially. But it seems too limiting.
The best solution I can think of is with the "result to be achieved" formulation on the "90% swept volume" in claim 1.
Well, the shaft-to-horizontal angle has to be "modified", but starting from a totally undefined position.
DeleteAnd I interpreted "in our setup" as 5 degrees downward as being just one exemplary embodiment.
Furthermore, in the Figure of D1, the shaft is at an upward angle of maybe 40 degrees. between 40 degrees upward and 5 degrees downward there is a potential range for "modification" which might work just as well.
But maybe that's too speculative and one should stick to the only disclosed embodiment that definitely works?
I also thought that they do not explicitly say that 5 degrees downslope is needed to have angles smaller than 70. They just say "the shaft-to-horizontal angle also has to be modified".
DeleteSince they say that our set-up with a 5 degree downslope and in the next paragraph they say our design ensures 90% swept volume, I thought that the 5 degree downslope is essential independent from 70 degrees.
their steup also comprises 82 to 60 degrees, I understood that 5 degree downslope is always there.
Also looking to the figure showing angle, I thought it should be always there
I even took it a step further. Since they say "the shaft-to-horizontal angle also has to be modified", and 5 degree downslope is only a preferred solution, for angles below 70 degress I wrote something like "with a downslope degree above 0". This would be broader than only limiting to exactly 5 degrees, which would be super narrow and easy to design around by competitors. So by using a downslope degree above 0 for head-to-shaft angles under 70, one has to modify the shaft-to-horizontale angle as stated in the clients letter - so such a claim would give more adequate protection than the very narrow claim of "5 degrees" which seems a bit arbitrary, why should other degrees above and below 5 degrees not work too?
DeleteI would agree with DP solution apart from a few things below
ReplyDelete- For the machine claim - I also added that it is configured so that over 90% of pulp volume is disturbed at each strike of the hammer. I think that this would clearly highlight the technical advantage of the claim so included it. I hope I don't lose marks for adding this bit.
- For the process claim - DP solution has: during the stamper beating, adding glue to the vat of the stamper machine, wherein the head-to-shaft angle of the hammer is set such that a difference in viscosity between samples of the paper pulp at the top layer and samples at the bottom layer of the vat is not greater than 1%. Why would this be in the independent claim especially the viscosity?
- for the paper claim - I had a product by process claim with grammage and tensile strength above 1900. This should be novel and inventive over prior art docs. I got really confused about the intermix glue feature that you propose. I thought this was a feature of the pulp process.
I thought the paper was pointing towards a product by process claim especially the last paragraph. I did the same as you did for the paper claim. It seems a lot of people have also done this.
DeleteMe too but without adding the grammage or tensile strength. The tensile strength seemed to be more like an intrinsic property of the product that you obtain through the process. So I thought it was redundant to claim it explicitly. The grammage did not seem essential to me so I put in a dependent claim. In the indipendent claim I only had "A paper sheet obtained by the method of claim 7".
DeleteI also thought the intermixed glue was very clearly a feature of the pulp, with no indication of it also being a feature of the paper sheet.
DeleteIt was disclosed towards the end of the client letter that the paper sheet had cellulose fibres homogenously intermixed with glue, together with the advantage that the homogeneously intermixed glue gives the cellulose fibres greater coherence and bonding properties. I thought this was showing what they wanted the paper sheet to claim, none of the other paper sheets have this feature, as they all required sizing (i.e. coating the paper)
Delete@BJM: D2, paragraph [004] states, that the paper sheets are soaked in gelatin solution, and not coated.... I therefore presumed that defining the paper via the uniform contribution could not be consedered novel, since soakting would also lead to a uniform contribution of the gelatin.
DeleteAgreed with unknown. Soaking is different to coating...
DeleteIts clear that there are different solutions/claims and the EPO examiner would have to take them into account. The paper really wasn't at all clear this year. The machine claim seemed alright, but the process and paper sheet were not clear at all in my view and this leads to many different claims, which are all discussed here and seemed valid.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Especially compared to previous years since mech and chem drafting have been combined, this year's paper was very unclear in what's essential, what should be claimed, how do things interact?
DeleteIt is particularly concerning that there doesn't even seem to be any agreement on how the invention works. It seems like the examiners tried so hard to make the people less technical, that they removed any sort of logic regarding the functioning.
I can't see how the two independent product claims 1 and 13 suggested above can comply with the EPC regarding Art. 82 and Rule 43(2). To avoid this problem I drafted the paper claim as a product-by process claim referring back to the method (which in turn referred back to the stamper machine).
ReplyDeleteI did exactly the same
DeleteSame!
DeleteA product-by-process claim is still an independent claim, in the same way as claim 13 in our attempt above. The reference to the method does not make it dependent, see GL F-IV 3.8 "A claim containing a reference to another claim is not necessarily a dependent claim as defined in Rule 43(4). One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different category"
DeleteI added sizing into the independent process claim as it mentioned that it was essential. Also - adding glue directly was not fit for purpose.
ReplyDeleteSo I added sizing step into independent claim as it was described as essential. BUT the paper is super confusing around these features. Did the EPO not checked them/read them again. It was not very clear around these areas at all.
Another solution could be that the downslope of the shaft has to be modified depending on the head-to-shaft angle when it is below 70. In this case the characterizing portion of the independent claim could be "characterized in that the head-to-shaft is between 60 and 82 degrees, wherein if said head-to-shaft angle is below 70, the shaft is arranged with a downslope with respect to the horizontal, such that the sum of the downslope and the head-to-shaft angle is equal to 70".
ReplyDeleteSomething like that maybe written a bit differently. But the point would be that if you have 60 degrees head-to-shaft angle you need 10 degrees downslope, if you have 65 you need 5 degrees downslope and so on.
For me, 'deviating from 90 degrees' was the key feature. This provided improved circulation of the pulp during beating which is advantageous in any method of producing pulp, not necessarily only the client's specific method of using raw plant material, treatment with quicklime etc. This was clear from D1 - it said something about milk and buttercream (?). In light of this, I had a use claim to using the apparatus/stamper machine to make paper, as well as an independent method claim focussed more on the client's particular method.
ReplyDeleteI did not include adding glue to the vat during stamping in the independent method claim. I thought the use of the novel and inventive stamper machine ('deviating from 90 degrees') in the method was sufficient to render the independent method claim novel and inventive. In addition, I read adding glue to the vat as the preferred method of applying a coating - traditional sizing could also be used, it's just that this would be more cumbersome and would take longer.
I didn't include the viscosity limitation in any claim - result to be achieved?
I had a dependent method claim to adding glue to the vat during stamping. In this claim, I also included beating until a homogenous mix of pulp and glue is achieved - adding the glue to the vat without sufficient beating would not provide the homogenous mixture.
I also included the 'at least 5 days' limitation in the independent method claim - this was essential to the client's treatment method and no other treatment method was disclosed.
I completely missed the relevance of the different hammer heads; nails, flat etc., and did not mention this in my answer. An oversight on my part, hopefully not catastrophic.
I also had a claim to paper made using the claimed method; product-by-process but allowable because the process provides certain properties of the paper - grammage, tensile strength etc.
I also did not change 'consisting' to 'comprising'. Like others, I have always been warned against this, but in hindsight maybe it's an unnecessary limitation here (so hopefully worst case scenario is losing 5 marks).
Otherwise not the most straightforward paper. I have no doubt that on a different day I would have produced a different answer.
I agree on the 5 days, but with the addition that the client stated that he uses the method as disclosed in D2, and then also laid out his preferred method no other methods were disclosed. It was possible to include both methods in the independent claim since they only differed with regards to when water was added. And both methods (the preferred one and the one from the state of the art in D2) uses the 5 days limitation.
Delete1. A stamper machine comprising:
ReplyDeletea vat (1) fitted with a hammer comprising:
a hammer head (2);
a hammer shaft (3);
a hammer face (4);
wherein the hammer head (2) is attached to said hammer shaft (3) at a fixed head-to-shaft angle (α), the head-to-shaft angle (α) deviating from 90
degrees.
7. Method of making paper pulp by use of the stamper machine of any of the claims 1-6, the method comprising the steps of:
- treating a raw plant material with quicklime;
- beating the treated raw plant material with said stamper machine thereby transforming the treated raw plant material into paper pulp, and,
- adding glue to the pulp directly in the vat of the stamper machine during the beating.
14. Paper obtained by the method of X, the paper having a tensile strenght of at least 1900N/m
Will i make it ? Even though i failed the pbp claim? Hopefully the point allocation is 40 machine, 20 method, 10 paper.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one considering 40 heats by minute as essential because of this sentence of D1 :
[011] Each hammer strikes 40 blows a minute when it is functioning properly.
I mean, if it does not function properly, how could the hammer achieve the technical effect?
I think there is one paragraph saying that "typically" it is 40 blows
DeleteDo not we need to limit the "raw plant material" to "raw plant material not containing lignin", as the absence of lignin seems to be essential in view of [005] and [008]?
ReplyDeleteI struggled.
Delete[005] says that wood contains lignin, and we do not want to sue wood, so that would be OK - the "no lignin" would exclude wood from "raw plant material".
But it nowhere says that cotton and linen contain lignin, while -at least- cotton is also clearly "raw plant material". Not in the letter, not in the prior art. So it is not clear whether "no lignin" would exclude cotton and linen.
Note: I just googled it and found that:
- cotton does not contain lignin - https://www.textileschool.com/379/natural-cellulose-fibres-natures-own-fibres/ - so, "no ligning" would not exclude cotton
- linen contains 4% ligning - https://textilefashionstudy.com/chemical-composition-of-flax-fiber-linen-fiber-composition/ - so, "no ligning" would exclude linen
When I read [008] - it is completely ambiguous. I took it to mean that it is inherent that raw plant material does not comprise lignin at all.
Deleteso there was no need to do a disclaimer but I agree that the paper was not clear at all. It can be interpreted as being inherent of the raw plant materials not to contain lignin.
DeleteI assume as DP point out in the post that the paper supposedly implied that raw plant material in general does not contain lignin. So the not containing lignin is already implicitly claimed. however, if that is not what the paper implies according to the examiners, I agree that it does seem essential that there is no lignin in the raw plant material.
Delete@ml whether linen contains lignin or not is completely irrelevant. You aren't supposed to use outside knowledge for the paper. The paper implies that linen does not contain lignin, so for the purposes of the answer, it does not.
DeleteExactly, that is also why I would say you don't have to exclude wood. Because in the light of the letter and the provided prior art, wood is not a plantmateriat. At least I cannot remember any passage refereing to a statement that wood is a plant material.
Delete@123: I am ware that I should not use own or outside knowledge. But [008] was ambiguous, and the paper did not tell me whether cotton and linen contained lignin, although that appeared essential. It only told me for wood.
Deletethe lignin is super unclear. I can see both arguments. I think the EPO will have to neutralise this point. It is very poor drafting style. It can be interpreted as implicit that raw plant materials do not contain lignin or it can be seen as a disclaimer. Its very uncertain for even native speaking candidates so I cannot imagine what its like for non-native speakers.
DeleteAs repeated by others, I think it will be very difficult to mark as the paper was so unclear around the processes and the paper sheet. There are many different versions.
ReplyDelete[006] We are aware that it may be necessary to draft several independent claims in various categories.
ReplyDelete[007] The relevant passages are appended as document D1. We believe that you will need this document to draft the patent application.
D1, [005] Most of the papermaking mills in Europe are still equipped with old stamper machines (as shown in Figure 1) in keeping with tradition.
D1, [006] The general set-up comprises a number of vats (1) each fitted with a hammer consisting of a hammer head (2) solidly attached at a fixed 90 degree angle to a hammer shaft (3).
Because of the above, I also had a claim, adapted to your claim set:
A papermaking mill equipped with a stamper machine according to any one of claims 1 to 6.
What do you think? Will that get any marks?