Paper A Online EQE 2022: first impressions?
To all who sat the A-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's A-paper?
Any general or specific comments?
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years?
Similar difficulty level?Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
Did you have enough time?
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a part could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
The paper and our answers
Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, preferably in all three languages (English, French and German). Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!
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 10-03-2022 21:09"), whereas using your real name or a nick nameis more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
Thanks!
SHARE:
Easy
ReplyDeleteDid you claim a paper sheet? If yes, what claim did you use?
Delete(I'm not anonymous) I claimed a process to make pulp, then a process to make a paper sheet from the pulp, then a paper sheet made by the previous process.
DeleteWhat about the stamping apparatus device itself, having a angle between the hammer head at a slant to the hammer shaft when in stamping operation?
DeleteI don't think this paper was easy, it was not clear which claim categories were expected and which elements were essential. This is also obvious from the discussions below and the many different claims drafted by everyone in this forum.
DeleteI think the paper was not clear at all. essential features and claim categories were not clear.
Deletedifferent than the previous years I think was really difficult to decide which feature should be added to the main claim.
It seemed fair to me all in all. I was a bit thrown off by the part of "deviating from 90 degrees", since one could also define an angle of 270 degrees and the hammer head will still be perpendicular to the shaft. In the end I decided to include the range and then also needed to 5° slope for enabling the full range, which left me with a quite long characterising portion....Does not feel right!
ReplyDeleteOne more thing a little bit off to me was that the applicant explicitly wanted several independent claims in several categories...
How did you define the range? I thought about but then I just wrote "deviating from 90 degrees" to stick to clients letter...
DeleteI think one could claim, alpha less than 90 degrees, and include a condition: when alpha is less than 70 degrees, (3) is deviated 5 degrees from the horizontal position.
DeleteI remember answering one of the Mock A papers (Jan 2021 I believe) and formulating the answer in a very specific way (i.e. if this particular feature is present, then this other feature is required, much like your suggestion) and then finding that they had completely ignored this in their model answer and this particular combination of features was only required as a dependent claim.
DeleteSpent lot of time to figure out by myself how copy and paste, you have the copy mode in the menu on the assignement text but no paste link in the paper.
ReplyDeleteI had to delete all highlighted text in order to copy it even in view mode.
I'm very pissed off
I don't remeber it was like this in the mocks
Did you consider to use the "remove formatting" menu option (the icon that looks like an I with subscript x) after you copied?
DeleteNo I did not.
DeleteNot sure whether the option should have been covered to ad glue only subsequently? Did the device (angle not 90 degrees) alone change the structure? Please comment..Thx
ReplyDeleteSurprising effect!
DeleteHow many independent claims to go for? In the end I went with three, stamper, process and paper.
ReplyDeleteFelt a bit less ‘concrete’ than previous years as to what the independent claims should be.
Good luck to the EPO making a standardised marking scheme for that one…
Exactly what I thought. So many different (correct?) solutions
DeleteIf one adds two independent claims in the same category, what is the marking criterion? So for instance adding two product independent claims - a first one defining the product in terms of composition (homogenous mixture of paper pulp and glue solution and the second one referring to the manufacturing method is normally marked how? The marks awarded are equal to the one getting the less marks?
ReplyDeleteI went for "deviating from 90°" but then added (for the same reason as you) the functional limitation of 90% displaced volume (however that was phrased in the client's letter, don't remember right now). The client said this is easy to check and described how, so I think it should be okay in terms of clarity.
ReplyDeleteAt first I added the angle range too, but then thought it's probably too limiting..
As for the several categories, it seemed to me that you would have a claim for the method of making paper, the stamper machine, and the paper sheet. I was also thrown off a little bit in that I saw several variants of doing so (method of making paper pulp and a further claim for making paper itself, product-by-process or paper sheet with homogeneously mixed glue.. etc.). In the end, I went with stamper machine, method of making paper sheet (just paper pulp lead to awkward object/technical effects), and paper sheet (safe option, homogeneous mix seemed the only difference between product by process and paper sheet of D2, in which case you can claim it this way).
I thought about it for a long time and then I assumed that "deviating from 90°" is sufficient for "90% displaced volume" - the paper is very unclear on this point. Now that I see you comments, I believe that both limitations were expected. It would be very annoying, if 0 points are given for the claim with only "deviating from 90°"!!!
DeleteDon't worry, I don't think you'd get 0 marks.
DeleteIf this is indeed what they wanted to see, missing it would be a clarity issue I think. Deviating from 90° is definitely novel, and I also think inventive. Historically, a clarity issue cost 5-15p. depending on severity I think.
i have those three,
ReplyDeletecharacterizing portion in stamper is the angle not being 90 degrees...and in the process the use of said stamper and the addition of glue.
Mee too!!!
DeleteAnonymous at 1:47, spot on I think. What a nightmare for the examining committee to mark…oh well not my problem.
DeleteWas the feature "shaft-to-hammer angle deviating from 90º" clear enough and sufficient to make it new over D1? If not, what feature should be present to solve this issue? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI believe it was, but I also believe the 5° condition for under-70° angles was to be added in the independent machine claim. I don't know. Maybe the restricted range was expected in the independent claim.
DeleteI draftred claim of:
Delete- Stamper machine claim;
- Method of making pulp using claimed stamper machine;
- Use of the pulp claimed in paper sheet production;
- Use of the stamper machine in paper sheet production (useless);
- Production of paper sheet by process of.....
What did you do?
I decided to insert the range between 60 and 80° into the independent claim. I also specified where to measure the the angle because on the other side there is an angle of "180° - alpha". Not sure if this is necessary because alpha is shown in the fig.
DeleteI did not find it easy/classic at all. It was hard to extract the core of the invention (was it the machine or the process ?). Not easy to determine which to claim first also. I went with claiming the process alone with a result-to-be-achieved claim type, but not sure at all it was what was expected. Also regarding the 5° condition when the angle is under 70°, I added it to the independent machine claim as I believe the "deviate from 90°" feature does not work in all cases. Also not easy to determine the expected dependent claims.
ReplyDeleteI added the feature of the 5° condition when the angle is under 70° to the process claim, as the process doesn't work in some non-90 cases (the increase of 10-40% volume moved at an angle between between 82 and 60) must mean that between 82 and 90 the volume moved is less than 90%. However the apparatus as an independent claim doesn't necessarily need to be limited in this way, it is still novel and inventive over D1 because it moves more volume than when the angle is 90 degrees.
DeleteI also had some trouble figuring out the core of the invention. I ended up going with 1. Process for paper making (too narrow, possibly), 2. Paper, and 3. Apparatus for claim 1. I found some reassurance in Guidelines F IV-2, 3.1 which allows multiple categories where "in addition to an independent claim for a given process, an independent claim for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out said process"
Deletei also did a method for making the paper pulp and paper pulp obtained by said method. (product-by-process)
ReplyDeleteI have:
ReplyDelete1. stamper machine
2. Use of the stamper machine for making paper pulp
3. Method of making paper pulp
4. Paper pulp obtainable from the method
5. Method of making paper sheet
6. Paper sheet obtainable from the method
I have the same except the use claim. I just realized that the 5 degree condition when the angle is under 70 should be in the independent claim after reading comments here. Unfortunately, I put them into dependent claim. Does anyone know if it means I failed because first claim is not enabled. ?
Deletesame for me... I didn't put that in the independent claim... I hope that would not result in a fail...
Deletegood to know I am not alone :)
DeleteDisagree - I don't think the 5° are essential. The client specifically says that it is only necessary in some embodiments.
DeleteIn fact, I think including 5° in the independent claim would cost a lot of marks because it excludes some of the client's embodiments (and is very easy to circumvent)..
I have five independent claims...
ReplyDelete1. Paper sheet
2. Stamper machine
3. Method of making paper pulp
4. method of making paper sheet
5. Paper pulp
This felt like such a different exam do any other year... Very unclear what were and weren't essential features, very unclear language which presumable is supposed to be used in the claims. Even figuring out the types of independent claims they want, which usually takes looking at paragraph 1 of the client letter, took forever.
What was your paper sheet claim?
DeleteI draft paper sheet claim as product-by-process claim
DeletePaper sheet having a tensile strength of above 1900 N/m measured according to ISO whatever it was. Seemed new to me (rag paper of D1 significantly less than 1900 N/m; the wood paper as well as other paper is less strong than rag paper), and the broadest possible protection. Felt wrong at the time, still feels wrong now, but I just couldn't think of a reason not to do it at the time...
DeleteI agree 123 - product by process only allowed if it is impossible to define otherwise - in this case it seemed to me like the final paragraph was a clear indicator ("no previous rag paper achieves this tensile strength" etc) that you can claim the paper sheet in terms of its properties and not product by process.
DeleteAt least someone agrees with me, thought I was going mad with no one else saying it. I don't draft chemical patents, but don't see why it wouldn't be a) novel, b) inventive, and c) clear. I even took the time to look at the Guidelines for Parameters and given that there's an ISO to measure it, it seemed a good idea at the time...
DeleteI made that claim dependent on a method of making paper claim in the end (despite the client's wishes) as I thought it would be a result to be achieved if not (the disclosure of one method of making the paper in the description does not justify a general claim to all rag paper having the resultant properties, as it can be defined in more concrete terms, by reference to the method). I have absolutely no idea if that is a correct way of thinking about it though!
Deletebut you can't claim paper sheets by the result you want to achieve
DeleteI characterized the paper sheet claim by the pure cellulose fibres homog. Mixed with glue+ raw plant starting material without lignin ..anyone else made so?
DeleteI did consider that, but came to the conclusion that a parameter can' t just be considered a "result to be achieved", otherwise every claim defining the subject matter by a parameter would be a result to be achieved...
DeleteNot sure regarding your S's point about the breadth of the claim... I thought for most chemical type claims, it was allowable to generalise in this manner, but as I said above, I don't draft chemical patents and didn't do any old chemical papers, so I defer to everyone else's expertise, and simply hope that it won't be punished too harshly.
I don't draft chemical patents either... I think anonymous above is correct and it should be formatted as an independent claim, having just read over the guidelines again now. As you say hopefully it won't be punished too harshly!
DeletePaper sheet components are not new.
DeleteIt is just new the way to produce the papers sheets using the particular stamping machine.
Then product by process seems to be more appropriate.
I also think the strength would be a result to be achieved. As for product by process, I agree to the extent we're talking about D1, but compared to D2 the only difference was the homogeneous glue/fiber thing (not clear if stronger). So I believe it needed to be claimed structurally, not product by process. But I'll freely admit that I'm not certain.
DeleteI draftred claim of:
ReplyDelete- Stamper machine claim;
- Method of making pulp using claimed stamper machine;
- Use of the pulp claimed in paper sheet production;
- Use of the stamper machine in paper sheet production (useless);
- Production of paper sheet by process of.....
What did you do?
The 5 degree condition is specifically just in their example set up so I don't think the 5 degrees was required as an essential feature - just that the machine is configured to allow some adjustment of horizontal angle where the desired angle is below 70 degrees.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to download my submission but it's not available. Do you know if this is different from the last year? I think last year it was directly available
ReplyDeleteFor paper D on Tuesday it took a bit of time to become available, but should be available this afternoon
DeleteThanks!
DeleteIt is available now!
DeleteThe invention is enabling and works as well for angle less than 90° to 60°, but just under 70° (where you have the best result) you need 5 degree condition.
ReplyDeleteI think the letter said that for alpha <70 you need to change somehow the angle of the shaft, which to me does not imply that this change must be a downward slope or even exactly 5 degrees.
DeleteFurthermore, the shaft-to-vertical angle was undefined in the letter as well as i D1 anyway, so I cant see why one would need to define it particularly for alpha <70.
Agreed DCF - IIRC, the 5 degree was specifically referred to as in "our set up" - i.e. just how the client has it in their particular machine in their factory - it seems a very narrow feature to need for independent claim (why wouldn't 6 degrees or other deviation from horizontal also work?)
DeleteI drafted:
ReplyDelete1. stamper machine ("not 90°" + the 5° limitation(otherwise problem not solved over entire breadth)
2. Method of making paper pulp using the stamper machine IN THE PRESENCE OF GLUE
3. Method of making a paper sheet comprising the method of claim 2 and further steps.
4. Paper sheet characterized by having homogenously mixed glue and celluloses fibers and a tensile strength of above 1900 N/m measured according to ISO whatever.
5. Paper pulp obtainable by the claimed method...
Why did people claim making the pulp, rather than making the paper? I don't see the benefit
ReplyDeleteYou can make pulp without making paper, but you can't make paper without making pulp. Broader scope.
DeleteYes but no ones going around making pulp without making paper :D
DeleteI claimed making pulp and then a dependent claim comprising the further steps of making paper from the pulp - does both jobs!
DeleteI did the same - an independent method claim for making the pulp and then a dependent claim having the further steps of making the paper.
DeleteFor the apparatus claim I had alpha from 82 to 70 or alpha less than 70 + 5 degrees. Although deviating from 90 degrees may be novel, I did not think it was inventive - i.e. this would cover 89 degrees which may not have a sufficient effect. I thought 10% better was justified for an inventive step POV so began at 82 degrees. [I think it was 82, it might have been 80].
ReplyDeleteThis was my thinking too...
DeleteI found large sections of the wording very unclear in the letter, especially with regards precisely at what stage the glue solution was added. You have an overall "beating process", which comprises a "breaking step", a "beating step" and a "brushing out step". Was it meant that the glue had to be added to the "beating step" or could it be added to any of the steps of the "beating process". Furthermore, I was overthinking things and for a while it was unclear to me whether the "breaking step" was even required for raw plant materials. In the end I decided that this was definitely overthinking things and there was no explicit statement that they had removed any of the individual steps of the "beating process", so I left everything as it was.
Overall not very happy with my answer. Erred on the safe side by perhaps including a few too many features, rather than having a non-enabled/non-inventive claim...
Okay paper I thought. Easier than some previous years but not the easiest.
ReplyDeleteFor independent claims, I went with - similar to others by the looks of it:
- Stamper machine (characterising feature the "deviates from 90 deg"
- Method of making paper (characterising feature the use of the stamper machine and also the addition of glue solution into the vat with the pulp)
- Paper (characterising feature with homogenously intermixed cellulose fibres and glue).
I thought about whether further limitation beyond "deviates from 90 deg" was needed, but in the end decided against because (A) this unquestionably gives novelty over D1 and (B) other possible limitations seem severely restricting. Yes in reality there would probably be an operable range of the angle but nothing in the letter discussed that so I thought that would be using outside knowledge...
For the paper product claim I had a product by process claim for most of it and then changed my mind at the last minute. Differentiating feature of cellulose fibres and glue "homogenously intermixed" seemed definitely novel over D1 (which doesn't discuss sizing) and D2 (which uses the coating method for sizing). Almost certainly not novel in the real world but then who cares about the real world in EQE...
I have also done what you did in the end except that I just had paper sheet with HM of cellulose and glue all along and then kept thinking it was too broad and was not feeling comfortable with that claim. Finally, I felt that the main problem was definition of HM from the perspective of clarity and much more so from the perspective of infringement. You take a sheet of paper of your competitor being sold in the market - you say it is HM, your competitor says it is not! How does the court decide? What is HM?? The client letter takes the pain to define HM during beating but there is no info on what is HM in paper - how do you prove HM. You can't. At least there is no info on that in the paper and based on that an HM claim will be heavily penalised for lacking clarity.
Delete... and also for failing to be suitable for catching infringers... but then again, if the product is claimed as a product-by-process, this protection is already available to the client as per Art. 64(2) EPC.
DeleteI also read the 1% difference in viscosity of the resulting paper pulp as being essential so included this requirement in the method of producing the paper pulp.
ReplyDeleteme too :)
DeleteIsn't that feature(the 1% difference in viscosity)inherently achieved by the machine configuration, and hence not need to be included into the method claim emplyoing the defined machine?
DeleteI put that in a dependent claim which includes a further step for verifying the circulation
DeleteLikewise.
DeleteI interpreted this paragraph as implying that the key feature that made the method inventive was the 90% head-swept-volume and so I took a bit of a risk and stated that any such stamper machine (i.e. having a head-swept-volume of 90%) could be used, with the use of the claimed stamper machines being a dependent claim.
I was very unhappy about the percentages given, since if the range of 68 to 80 gives an improvement of 10-40%, presumably this means that 80 gives 10%, whilst 68 gives 40% (increases with deviation from 90).
If there is still scope for the 80 degree embodiment to improve by (140-110)/110= 27%, then how can this embodiment have a head-swept-volume of 90%. It is mathematically impossible.
I claimed:
ReplyDeleteMachine - "deviating from 90 degrees" used.
Method for making pulp using the machine - "added glue"
Method for making paper using machine
Paper obtained by the methods, the paper having a tensile strength of X.
Did anyone consider the nails essential?
ReplyDeleteClient describes a hammer with a hammer face, and the embodiment of Fig. 1 shows the nails with the flat heads. D1 describes only flat or rounded heads as suitable for plasticising the pulp.
I included it to be on the safe side, but this was tactical, since too limiting loses less points than missing an essential feature...
I thought flat or rounded head nails were essential for the method claim based on the same disclosure you mention in D1. But did not deem it necessary for the stamper machine claim.
DeleteI included them, particularly because the client's letter had a hint saying "I'm sure you'll need D1 to draft the claims" or something like that.
DeleteWithout them, the hammer head is not suitable for actually smashing up the fibres.
I also thought about this, but in [04] of D1 it reads: the hammer *can* have nails.
DeleteYep - I included that the hammer face had rounded or flat nails because it was the beating step that was important. I wasn't sure if this is where the comment about having to use D1 was pointing you
Delete@Ma but then D1 goes on to explain what the nails are for in the next few paragraphs, and without them, it can't actually make a pulp.
DeleteAt least that was my thought process...
@Ma, I took that to mean that we didn't need to include a nail limitation in the stamper machine claim (which can be used for processes other than the claimed process where cloths etc. may be used). However, for the claimed process, you can't smash up the fibres without them to obtain the pulp you need.
Delete@HJ but what would be the technical effect/advantage be if there is no pulp?
Deleteyes i know, i went for something like "the hammer is configured to smash the fibers..." in the preamble of the claim
DeleteI claimed a stamper machine characterised in that the hammer head is positioned at a slant to the hammer shaft (3) such that the head-to-shaft angle (alpha) is less than 90 degrees. Further limitations are in dep clms, angle 82-60 and when angle is 70 deg, added also further modification that a 5 degree downslope is needed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with other sitters that it was not crystal clear if the effect of circulation of pulp is present anly for this modified stamper (angle70), so taking into account the whole disclusure assumed that this is true if angle is less than 90.
For me"deviating from 90 deg" seem to me unclear, since the further limitations 82-60 indicates that it cannot be more than 90 deg.- any comments?
Finally an answer using "the hammer head is positioned at a slant to the hammer shaft".
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.
This is how I did it.
DeleteFor the stamper claim I had, this:
DeleteA stamper machine for making paper pulp, the stamper machine comprising:
a vat (1) fitted with a hammer comprising a hammer head (2), a hammer shaft (3) and a hammer face (4);
characterised in that the hammer head (2) is solidly attached to the hammer shaft (3) at a fixed angle (α) of between 82 and 60 degrees between the
hammer head (2) and the hammer shaft (3); and
wherein the angle (α) is less than 70 degrees the hammer shaft (3) has a 5-degree downslope angle relative to the horizontal when in a resting
position.
But I had the same for the method
Does it make sense to direct an independent claim towards the pulp itself? This pulp does after all contain glue and D1 mentions flocs. It would appear such pulp would not survive storage/transport without gelling to one solid mass. I am not sure separating pulp and paper productions would be a practical way of working around claims.
ReplyDeleteThere was no indication in the paper itself that pulp cannot be stored or transported. There was however also no indication that the client wished to sell pulp. Nevertheless, it would seem that to get the broadest protection possible, even broader than just the paper sheet, a paper pulp should be claimed. It is an intermediate product necessary for the production of the sheet of paper.
DeleteIn D1 [009] it is indicated that it is desirable to freeing the pulp of flocs. Did I read too much into this?
DeleteI have a claim for paper, method for making paper and stamping machine.
ReplyDeleteMany people appear to have a method for making paper pulp, which is clever bcause it avoids having the quite narrow steps of drying, cutting, removing etc.
However, I feel a (further) independent claim towards a method of making paper is definitely needed to have it protected under A64(2).
I have a paper claim directed to a paper made from a raw, lignin-free characterized in that it consists of a layer of glue homogenously mixed with the cellulose fibers and having a tensile strength of over 1600 N/m when formed into a 70 gsm sheet.
The latter feature is s bit weird, but I modeled it after similar real world cases. I felt that the homogenous mix alone is not enough because it appears to be a borderline unclear feature. Im not sure how one could measure the homogenousmix compared to a paper with an allegedly inhomogenous mix by standard sizing.
Limiting the claim to a 70 gsm sheet on the other felt far too limiting.
The numerical value of 1600 n/m still excludes paper weight below 70 gsm.
Furthermore, the tensile strength itself does not appear to be inventive as such, because if you want a stronger paper, you can always make it thicker.
But maybe thats overthinking it, I dont know.
Another thing that puzzled me is that the technical effect of the method and the paper product is increased strength and dispensing with extra sizing step, which by itself would probably be a fine invention.
The inventors however describe that they want to make a long-term stable archive style paper, which is only possible using certain plant materials.
Maybe the trick of the paper was to put that idea into the background (i.e. into dependent claims) because the inventors have in fact something else related to tensile strength and to try to obtain protection for that as broadly as possible?
Here are my claims :) Feel free to comment - no idéa if they are good - I feel puzzled about this exam ...
ReplyDelete1. A paper sheet composed of cellulose fibres having homogeneously intermixed glue.
2. The paper sheet according to claim 1 having a grammage of 70 g/m2.
3. The paper sheet according to any of the preceding claims, having a tensile strength above 1900 N/m, preferably above 2600 N/m, wherein the tensile
strenght is meaasured according to the standard method ISO 1924-2.
4. The paper sheet according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the glue is a gelatin solution with a concentration of about 3%.
5. A stamper machine for producing paper sheets having homogeneously intermixed glue, wherein the stamper machine comprises a vat (1) fitted with
a hammer consisting of a hammer head (2), a hammer shaft (3), and a hammer face (4), characterized in that the hammer head (2) is solidly attached to
the hammer shaft (3) at a head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees.
6. The stamper machine according to claim 5, wherein the head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) is between 82 and 60 degrees, and wherein if the head-to-shaft
angle (α/alfa) is smaller than 70 degrees the shaft-to-horizontal angle has a 5-degree downslope in a resting position.
7. The stamper machine according to any one of claims 5-6, wherein the head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) is smaller than 70 degrees and wherein the shaftto-horizontal angle has a 5-degree downslope in a resting position
8. The stamper machine according to any one of claims 5-7, wherein the face of the hammer (4) is fitted with sharp nails, rounded or flat nails, or
consisting entirely of plain wood.
9. The stamper machine according to claim 8, wherein the sharp nails and/or rounded or flat nails are iron or bronze nails.
10. Method of making paper sheets having homogeneously intermixed glue, the method comprises the steps of:
a) providing raw plant material, such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles, nettles, or mixtures thereof;
b) treating the raw plant material with quicklime to obtain treated plant material;
c) beating and sizing the treated plant material to transforme it into paper pulp by stamper beating using a stamper machine according to any of
claims 5-9 and by adding a glue to the pulp directly in the vat of the stamper machine during beating hereby beating the pulp together with the glue;
d) pouring the paper pulp onto a screen, and once most of the water has filtered through and a thin layer of pure cellulose fibres homogeneously
intermixed with the glue is left on the screen, this layer is pressed, dried, stripped from the screen, cut and flattened to obtain paper sheets.
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein step b) of treating the raw plant material with quicklime to obtain treated plant material, comprises the
following steps:
i) grinding the provided raw plant material, hereby obtaining ground plant material;
ii) soaking the ground plant material in water, hereby obtaining a water-material mixture;
iii) adding quicklime to the water-mateiral mixture and mixing it into a slurry for at least 5 days, then drawing off water from the slurry
12. The method according to claim 11, wherein in step ii) the grounded plant material is soaked in water in a ratio of 1 kg ground plant material to 20
litres of water.
13. The method according to any of claims 11-12, wherein 1.5 kg quicklime is added per 1 kg of grounded plant material in the water-material mixture.
14. The method according to any of claims 11-13, wherein the slurry of step iii) is mixed for at least 6 to 8 days prior to drawing of water.
15. The method according to any of claims 10-14, wherein the stamper machine strikes 40 blows a minute and stamper beating is continued for at least 12 hours, such as 24 hours.
A bit cleaner here :) Sorry for additional post...
Delete1. A paper sheet composed of cellulose fibres having homogeneously intermixed glue.
2. The paper sheet according to claim 1 having a grammage of 70 g/m2.
3. The paper sheet according to any of the preceding claims, having a tensile strength above 1900 N/m, preferably above 2600 N/m, wherein the tensile strenght is meaasured according to the standard method ISO 1924-2.
4. The paper sheet according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the glue is a gelatin solution with a concentration of about 3%.
5. A stamper machine for producing paper sheets having homogeneously intermixed glue, wherein the stamper machine comprises a vat (1) fitted with a hammer consisting of a hammer head (2), a hammer shaft (3), and a hammer face (4), characterized in that the hammer head (2) is solidly attached to the hammer shaft (3) at a head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees.
6. The stamper machine according to claim 5, wherein the head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) is between 82 and 60 degrees, and wherein if the head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) is smaller than 70 degrees the shaft-to-horizontal angle has a 5-degree downslope in a resting position.
7. The stamper machine according to any one of claims 5-6, wherein the head-to-shaft angle (α/alfa) is smaller than 70 degrees and wherein the shaftto-horizontal angle has a 5-degree downslope in a resting position.
8. The stamper machine according to any one of claims 5-7, wherein the face of the hammer (4) is fitted with sharp nails, rounded or flat nails, or consisting entirely of plain wood.
9. The stamper machine according to claim 8, wherein the sharp nails and/or rounded or flat nails are iron or bronze nails.
10. Method of making paper sheets having homogeneously intermixed glue, the method comprises the steps of:
a) providing raw plant material, such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles, nettles, or mixtures thereof;
b) treating the raw plant material with quicklime to obtain treated plant material;
c) beating and sizing the treated plant material to transforme it into paper pulp by stamper beating using a stamper machine according to any of claims 5-9 and by adding a glue to the pulp directly in the vat of the stamper machine during beating hereby beating the pulp together with the glue;
d) pouring the paper pulp onto a screen, and once most of the water has filtered through and a thin layer of pure cellulose fibres homogeneously intermixed with the glue is left on the screen, this layer is pressed, dried, stripped from the screen, cut and flattened to obtain paper sheets.
11. The method according to claim 10, wherein step b) of treating the raw plant material with quicklime to obtain treated plant material, comprises the following steps:
i) grinding the provided raw plant material, hereby obtaining ground plant material;
ii) soaking the ground plant material in water, hereby obtaining a water-material mixture;
iii) adding quicklime to the water-mateiral mixture and mixing it into a slurry for at least 5 days, then drawing off water from the slurry.
12. The method according to claim 11, wherein in step ii) the grounded plant material is soaked in water in a ratio of 1 kg ground plant material to 20 litres of water.
13. The method according to any of claims 11-12, wherein 1.5 kg quicklime is added per 1 kg of grounded plant material in the water-material mixture.
14. The method according to any of claims 11-13, wherein the slurry of step iii) is mixed for at least 6 to 8 days prior to drawing of water.
15. The method according to any of claims 10-14, wherein the stamper machine strikes 40 blows a minute and stamper beating is continued for at least 12 hours, such as 24 hours.
The pulp has 3% glue. Do we know that also the paper has 3% glue once the water is drained?
DeleteI have written this method claim:
Delete5. A method to make a paper pulp by stamper beating using a stamper machine comprising:
a) providing a raw plant material that does not comprise lignin, or a mixture thereof;
b) extracting cellulose fibres from the raw plant material or the mixture thereof;
c) beating the cellulose fibres into paper pulp in the presence of a glue solution;
d) displacing over 90% of the pulp volume in the vat with each stroke of the hammer in order to homogeneously intermix the glue solution in the paper pulp.
Step b) is the treatment with quickline described in D2...
Has anyone written a similar claim?
Hey Lisa, I even considered indicating "supplying a cellulose fibers' extract'. Since no further extraction methods were mentionned, I considered your approach, finally in a better safe than sorry approach I limited to b) + CaO treatment for 5 days
DeleteI applied the same c-d steps
Did anyone else have an independent claim to a hammer for a stamping machine for making paper pulp? Figured it gives broader protection than claim to the stamping machine. I also had dependent claim for stamping machine incorporating the hammer of claim 1 and a dependent claim for stamping machine with additional vat fitted with plain wooden hammer w/o nails for brushing out the pulp.
ReplyDeleteI did too. Then ended up with a lot of independent claims and very little space for dependent claims.
DeleteI had these independent claims:
1. A hammer for a stamper machine (to explain the size etc) with an angle deviating from 90 (I found it absurd as an angle of 89.9 would not solve the problem but thought it was better to stick to the wording they gave rather than overthinking).
2. Stamper machine comprising the hammer of any of the above claims
3. Stamper machine of the previous claim with head-to-shaft angle less than 70 and shaft to horizontal angle of 5.
4. Method for making paper pulp (with the steps from the letter) wherein the stamper beating is carried out in a stamper beating machine according to claims x - y until a difference in viscosity between top + bottom does not exceed 1%.
5. Method for making paper sheet comprising the steps of the above method and (steps as described in the letter).
6. Paper sheet produced by the method of claim x and having a grammage of 70.
Does anyone specified, in the method claim for producing the pulp, that the raw plant material does not have lignin?
ReplyDeleteYes I specified that the plant material does not contain lignin. I though without that limitation the raw plant material could also be wood but would does not give strong high quality paper.
DeleteYes - this is necessary to exclude wood in my opinion - also a raw plant material.
DeleteYes, yes, yes!!!
DeleteThis seemed to me to be an essential feature for achieving durable paper. Furthermore, wood may be considered as a raw plant material, and this is clearly not suitable, so you need to exclude it somehow.
I did that, along with many other features that were mentioned as essential in the letter... like the mixing time with quicklime, the viscosity difference to detect when the pulp is ready, etc.
DeleteYes, IMHO a very broad method claim was possible. Something along the lines of
Delete"method of making paper pulp, comprising providing raw plant material devoid of lignin, and the pulping step with ... what was it, lye?"
Also, the intermixed glue was not necessary for any of this, since client said that dunking the sheets is possible, but time-consuming.
Solves, in light of D1, the environmental problem of not needing bleach, and in light of D2 the problem of how to make the paper pulp suitable for a paper that is chemically more stable.
Yes, I excluded lignin too.
DeleteAlso I excluded need for bleaching in order to exclude linen. I think there was a trap here in that linen is made from flax, and flax was stated as acceptable. This is common knowledge for native English speakers, not sure about the rest.
AV - is that claim novel over D2 if it doesn't use the intermixed glue?
DeleteMV, I think the mixing time of 5 hours was tied to the 'preferred' specific method. I think all that was essential was treating the raw plant material with quicklime such that the cellulose is fully extracted.
DeleteYes I did. I thought it was an essential feature. I also defined the process steps according to the ones given in the paper and the ones in d1 as alternatives in this claim.
DeleteThis is in response to AnonymousMarch 10, 2022 4:13 pm, and I am sorry for the delay...
DeleteI scratched my head over this a bit during the exam and had to check my D2 printout again. I might be completely wrong, but I am also somewhat anonymous, so here are my two cents:
D2 para. [002] describes exclusively a class of compounds connected by an AND construction. The class includes waste and refuse from hemp (clearly processed, thus not a raw plant material) and wood (has lignin).
More curious, para. [003] states "sraw or hay, etc." (et cetera meaning "and also the further"). So D2 does not disclose the use of single compounds, only mixtures in the process. German version was "und so weiter". Both seemed intentional.
This gives further disclosure based on the above class of compounds, excluding either hay or straw, but still including the rest of the materials.
I agree that a disclosure of a single compound, e.g. "straw, and/or any of the other compounds", would anticipate "raw plant material without lignin".
But as it stands, I believe that the feature is not a selection from a single list; it's at least two selections resulting in two overlapping compound classes, one excluding "waste and refuse" with the limitation "raw", one excluding "wood" with the limitation "no lignin".
I don't know if this would be an application of two-list-selection or standard species versus genus.
Careful Pulp Fiction (heh), linen, imho, would be cloth, which then would be excluded by "*raw* plant product".
ReplyDeleteMy problem as a biochemist was that bark of D2 is also known to be full of lignin, but this info was nowhere in the paper, so I shut the hell up about it.
I put in a nice markush group as a dependent claim for the raw plant material for the hell of it.
It said in the paper that wood comprises bark, in the claims I restricted mine to a "raw plant material which does not contain lignin"
DeleteThis therefore excludes wood and covers what the client does (I think...)
I drafted:
ReplyDelete(i) the stamper machine - not limiting the hammer to having a particular face; I went for the narrow range of 82 to 60 angle; deviating from 90 deg is arguably unclear and, and we were only told in this range you get the effective mixing; This independent claim also included that if less that 70 you had to have the 5 deg deviation, without this the claim is not enabled across it's whole range
Then included a dependent claim to the hammer face having the rounded or flat nails, I think the nails were necessary to create the pulp, but not required to provided novelty/IS over the PA
(ii) method of making pulp, this used the apparatus claimed above with the nails
(iii) method of making a paper sheet, using the pulp made in the method above
(iv) a paper sheet comprising cellulose fibres homogenously intermixed with glue. This had a clear advantage explained in the paper and so no other features needed
I went with the angle deviating from 90 degrees plus a functional feature 'so that when pulp is produced with the stamper the pulp is cause to circulate and mix'
DeleteI wonder if the plant material was essential to the invention since leaving wood / bark out of the mixture known from d2 would be rather obvious. Instead what imo would render a method claim (no matter if directed to producing pulp or paper) new and inventive would be putting the glue directly into the pulp. Therefore I went with a independent method claim like:
ReplyDeleteA method for producing pulp mixed with glue, comprising the following measures:
- Providing a cellulose raw material;
- Stamping the cellulose raw material whilst adding glue, such that the raw material and the glue are made to circulate and mix with one another, so that the pulp mixed with glue is generated.
I then added the plant material features to the dependent claim.
I directed further independent claims to:
A method to produce paper from the pulp mixed with glue
A stamper to produce pulp
A use of the stamper to produce pulp mixed with glue
A paper produced by the method to produce paper from pulp mixed with glue
What also made me stumble a little is that the clients letter did not ask for a the introductory part of the description, specifically. Rather, somewhere it stated sth like D1 and D2 might be useful for drafting 'the application'.
Therefore I drafted a complete application, treating all claims and containing a description of the figure besides the introduction.
Main problem to be solved would be in the case of my claims that producing paper should be simplified, in particular accelerated.
Anyone else used a 'provisio' in the product claim of the machine..? My claims were:
ReplyDelete1. A stamper machine comprising a vat (1) fitted with a hammer comprising a hammer head (2), a hammer shaft (3) and a hammer face (4),
characterised in that the head-to-shaft angle (α) is set at between 82 and 60 degrees.
I defined the angle given by the client as the advantageous head swept volume increased by 10-40% only when these degrees were used. I thought of using 'slanted' however this I found unclear (slanted to what direction? at what angle? etc.) and I didn't think that this was a universally accepted meaning of the word slanted. I found the 'deviating from 90 degrees' to also be unclear and lacking inventive step over D1 (does deviating also mean greater than 90 degrees? if so, was this described by the client or is this too broad, i.e. not enabled? also, deviating can also mean 89.9 degrees - would this be sufficient to provide novelty (Y/maybe, depending on the extent of deviation) and inventive step over D1 (the advantageous effect is of 10-40% improvement is only achieved when a certain degree is used; thus the effect with a less-than-what-the-client-defined degree may or may not achieve the same technical effect)). Thus, I found this limitation to be necessary to be introduced into claim 1.
2. The stamper machine according to claim 1, wherein the shaft-to-horizontal angle has a 5-degree downslope in resting position with the provisio that the head-to-shaft angle (α) is set to be smaller than 70 degrees.
In my understanding, the 5 degree shaft-to-horizontal angle was only required for head-to-shaft angles smaller than 70 degrees (see [22]: 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).
Thus, this was a preferred embodiment (i.e. optional) and didn't need to be lifted into claim 1.
SF, I had the same product claim specifying the 60 to 82 range. Personally, I felt the "deviating from 90 degrees" solution to be too simple for this paper (I could be wrong!) and I also saw a clarity issue. Also D2, para. 13 says "a number of construction details can be tailored specifically to promote even treatment of pulp".
DeleteDid anyone draft an independent claim towards a method for testing homogeneity of the pulp?
ReplyDeleteHaving let this settle for a few days, and reconsidered the paper, I agree with others who suggest that the exams wasn't clear, in particular when compared to previous exams.
ReplyDeleteThe parts that were clear to me at least were those relating to the machine, so I agree with others that the distribution of marks is likely to be (and actually pretty similar to the amount of content per independent claim): 40 for the machine, 20 for the method(s) and 10 for paper/pulp. That would seem to be in line with previous years as well.
But let's see what the examiners come up with.