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..]
good :)
ReplyDeleteWe interpreted [012] "In this method" to refer to the method of D2 which is referenced by [011]. In other words, if the method of D2 is used to treat the plant material with quicklime, then the mixing should last at least 5 days.
ReplyDeleteThe method of D2 is merely "preferred" though ([010] first sentence), so not essential: there may be other methods, and the paper does not define that for such other methods, the 'at least 5 days' is also essential (it may even be that in such other methods, there is no mixing step).
Arguably, without reference back to the device, your method is probably not enabled, because you need the specific device features to make the 90% happen. Otherwise, this feature is just a result to be achieved.
ReplyDeleteWe also expect that the 'at least 5 days' is only essential with respect to the 'preferred' method of treating with quicklime of D2, not for others (which admittedly are not disclosed, but their existence is indirectly suggested by the D2 method being 'preferred').
ReplyDeleteGood catch, we overlooked that one. However, "a papermaking mill equipped with a stamper machine according to any one of claims 1 to 6" is a dependent claim, which in most exams only attract 1-2 marks. Not sure if it was indeed expected in this exam.
ReplyDeleteDear all,
ReplyDeletethanks for your comments. I gosh, I think I messed this up. Did nobody else consider a further claim on the pulp having the desired viscosity, comprising the raw material and the lime?
Is there a realistic chance to pass the paper with this additional product claim.
Thank you,
Alex
I want to hear your thoughts on this: I wrote a process claim NOT limited to the "a raw plant material not containing lignin", but rather open to all "sources of extracted cellulose fibres".
ReplyDeleteI know that the client explicitly said that they only use raw plant material, but in the whole explanation about the sizing during beating, it is never mentioned that this would only be suitable for raw plant material. Since all other steps (starting from beating) are litterally the same as when cloths etc are used (see D1) I assumed that it would also work for those materials. There is still an inventive step, since it is shorter than having to do a separate step for sizing. Thus even for producing wood paper, although not a durable product, the process would be shorter.
Do you think I would still get credits for this (probably farfetched) idea? Or do I have enablement problems? I obviously also have a claim depending on the one described above, directed to only raw plant material (and including the extra steps).
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
To me, the emphasis on raw plant material in [008] was the trigger to have that in the claim (my doubt was about the lignin (see above)).
DeleteThe words "we would like to stress" and the references to "environmentally damaging" due to "using cotton and linen cloth rags requires bleaching" pointed me to that.
But now I realize that maybe "without bleaching" needs to be in the claim somehow?!
[008] The first thing we would like to stress is that we do not use cotton and linen cloth
rags to make our paper pulp. Using cotton and linen cloth rags requires bleaching, which
is environmentally damaging. Of course, we do not use wood either. Instead, we only
use raw plant material such as flax, hemp, straw, hay, thistles or nettles, or mixtures
thereof, which does not contain lignin. We collect the raw plant material in our region.
This makes our technology cheaper and more sustainable. We are currently striving to
obtain an ecolabel.
I agree with Charlotte.
DeleteThe technical effect of the method is reducing the time for paper making regardless of the materials.
With coton and linen, you have a step of bleaching, not ecologic but works.
With wood, it also works but the obtained paper is less durable.
The best embodiment is the one with the raw plant material because both durable and ecologic.
I wanted to draft the same claim as you Charlotte but I did not find a good way to do it so I give up and only adress the raw material.
Can you share your claim?
Thank you,
This crossed my mind too - soaking in gelatin might imply a homogenous intermixing, in which case the paper claim that reads "fibers homogenously intermixed with glue" would not be novel.
ReplyDeleteBut if this were the case, then the resulting paper would not be novel over D2, period. Product-by-process would not help you either, because characterizing by the process only distinguishes if the resulting product is different. If the product is the same, the product-by-process claim lacks novelty.
The only mentioned difference between the client's paper and the paper of D2 is the homogenous intermix - which can be claimed structurally imo.
To: AnonymousMarch 10, 2022 8:40 pm
ReplyDeleteI would be really happy if more marks are given to the machine claim as my claim is almost identical to DP's claim.
However, I disagree with you that the machine is most important to the client in this case.
For example, in case of, only paper sheet claim (without a machine claim), an infringer can only make papers but can't sell.
In case of, only machine claim (without a paper sheet claim), an infringer can sell the paper without any issues that are made in a territory where there is no patent protection for the machine.
Thus, the paper claim would be most important to the client.
Would like to know others opinion on it.
Yes I found this very confusing also because it states "These drawbacks can be diminished by sizing…. This is essential for our purposes. We preferably use gelatin sizing." but since seeing the DP answer I’ve re-read it and they were trying to say that soaking the paper in glue and drying takes too long so the invention is to mix the glue with the pulp.
ReplyDeleteAnother alternative is to write
ReplyDeleteMethod of making paper sheets from the paper pulp as prepared according to claim comprising the steps:
a) pouring the paper pulp as prepared according to claim onto a screen,
b) filtering through the water to produce a thin layer,
c) pressing, drying the layer,
d) stripping the layer from the screen, cutting and flattening.
I thought 'deviate from' was unclear, and since the client's letter only mentions smaller angler not larger, I also used 'smaller than 90 degrees' instead.
ReplyDeleteIs that completely off?
@Nico: I agree. But by referring to previous claims in the paper claim the two product claims share the same inventive concept which satisfies Art. 82 and make the products interrelated which satisfies Rule 43(2). By drafting like you did the two independent product claims neither share the same inventive concept nor are interrelated in the sense of Rule 43(2) in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteYes in the client letter. Is is actually the two only occurences relating to strike frequencies in the documents.
ReplyDeleteI guess I overthinked but why suggesting in D1 that without this option, hammer does not work properly if candidates should consider it as an option.
@Nico: I agree. But by referring to the previous claims in the Paper claim the two independent product claims share the same inventive concept which satisfies Art. 82 and are interrelated which satisfies Rule 43(2). In your suggestion I don't see that the two independent product claims are unitary and it's also highly questionable if they can be considered interrelated (plug and socket etc.) in the sense of Rule 43(2).
ReplyDeleteNico> I agree. But by referring to the previous claims in the Paper claim the two independent product claims share the same inventive concept which satisfies Art. 82 and are interrelated which satisfies Rule 43(2). In your suggestion I don't see that the two independent product claims are unitary and it's also highly questionable if they can be considered interrelated (plug and socket etc.) in the sense of Rule 43(2).
ReplyDelete@Nico: I agree. But, by referring to the previous claims in the Paper claim the two independent product claims share the same inventive concept which satisfies Art. 82 and are interrelated which satisfies Rule 43(2). In your suggestion the two independent product claims are neither unitary nor interrelated in the sense of Rule 43(2) (plug and socket etc.) in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteClient do not use soaking the sheets of paper in a glue solution for a prolonged period of time,rather uses soaking the paper pulp with a glue solution or adding glue to the pulp.
ReplyDeleteThis is a step in the method of making paper pulp, not in the mathod of making paper sheets-this is the difference with D1/D2
I claimed as you suggest the papers sheet as
Paper sheets obtained by the methods according to claim 1 to 7 having a grammage of 70 g/m2
@unkown; @ anon; soaking would not lead to he glue being homogenously intermixed with the cellulose fibres though. The homogenously intermixed fibres could only be obtained by mixing in the VAT; soaking of the paper sheets essentially provides a coating. This is taking from what the documents told us and not applying any knowledge
ReplyDeleteI also read this paragraph with regards to the claimed invention. The client states, that he relies on the method disclosed in D2 for treating the raw plant material with quicklime (I incorrectly stated D1 in my first post) and then also lays out his preferred method. The method in D2 and his preferred method are only different with regards to when water is added. Both of them include mixing for 5 days, and the client states that this is essential for his method.
ReplyDeleteI therefore think, that the mixing for 5 days is essential for the step of treating with quicklime, and the treating with quicklime, since there is no method disclosed which does not include this step and it is defined as essential by the client. The step of "treating with quicklime" can also be formulated more clearly by including the steps of D2 and the steps of the prefered method with a broad wording that encompasses both methods in the independent method claim.
(Philipp)
So do you think, that points will be lost if the method for making the paper sheet and/or the claim to the paper sheet itself was instead drafted as a product by process claim? And if yes how much?
ReplyDeleteI also had the mixing for 5 days as being essential.
ReplyDeleteAlso beating for 12 hours seemed to be essential and that would rely on a 40 beats per minute stroke rate.
What a disaster of a paper.
Yes, i think somehow you need that swept volume in the device claim. Otherwise a relationship of the hammer and the vat is completly undefined. Without the a swept volume, an imaginary hammer with a hammer surface (4) with an area of 1cm² in a vat of 1m³ would fall under the scope of the claim. This will never ensure homogenous mixing as required by the client.
ReplyDeleteThis might same point as a dependent claim in my opinion, not an expert tho. :)
ReplyDeleteI think you will pass.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a product-by process claim is also an independent claim. That was not my point. The problem as I see it with your proposed solution is that there is no common inventive concept between your stamper machine claim and your paper sheet claim. The claims are therefore not unitary and hence not complying with Art. 82. I think it is also highly questionable if your two independent product claims are fulfilling the requirements of Rule 43(2). By drafting the paper sheet claim as a product-by-process referring back to the previous claims the two independent product claims share a common inventive concept (and thus satisfies Art. 82 EPC) and are interrelated (and thus satisfies Rule 43(2) EPC) in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn at least some previous A exams, it was expected to cover also embodiments which are suggested in the prior art but applicable to the invention as well. In this exam, the client also more-or-less suggests that D1 should be taken into account to understand the invention: "We believe that you will need this document to draft the patent application". Having said this, claims 4-6 are clearly of lesser importance compared to other claims.
ReplyDeleteWe think 'adding glue' during the stamper beating is essential in the process claim, as otherwise the sizing step (cumbersome, takes time) is still needed to produce the desired paper. As for the viscosity - we've updated our post to also discuss the alternative (referring to the 90% volume displaced). Either of both limitations does seem essential if the machine claim is only limited to non-90 degree angles (which would then include, say, 89 degrees, which probably does not achieve the required circulation).
ReplyDeleteI also used "consisting" based on the language provided in the paper.
ReplyDeleteHopefully this won't lead to too many marks being lost..
The effect of the new feature of the stamper machine is for angle "deviating" from 90° toward an angle less than 90° and seems to increases as the angle decreases till to the maximum effect for angle less than 70° where the hammer has to be 5° downslope.
ReplyDeleteReading the client letter then seems that for alpha > 90 and hammer arm angle raising the effect should be worse then the known stamper machine.
So why protect angle alpha > 90°?
@Nico Cordes, March 11, 4:37 pm: Thanks for the update. During the exam, I thought the displacement volume refers to a parameter known in the art. I can't remember anymore the exact wording, but there was a certain term the client used like "head volume" (in German: Kopfvolumen) or the like for this displacement of the hammer. At least for me that sounded like it might be a common parameter for these devices. Thus, the measurement method would not be mentioned in the claim
ReplyDeletesorry, wrong post.
ReplyDelete@Nico Cordes, March 11, 4:54 pm: Thanks for the update. During the exam, I thought the displacement volume refers to a parameter known in the art. I can't remember anymore the exact wording, but there was a certain term the client used like "head volume" (in German: Kopfvolumen) or the like for this displacement of the hammer. At least for me that sounded like it might be a common parameter for these devices. Thus, the measurement method would not be mentioned in the claim
ReplyDeleteWhy does epo expect us to have multiple claims in the same category then?
ReplyDeleteWill we get points for writing pbp claim at all? at least if we made it novel by incorporating the tensile strength or the homog.?
ReplyDeleteI think reciting the stamper machine in the method claim is necessary because it's an essential feature (only known way to mix in the glue). I agree it's not necessary for novelty/inventive step.
ReplyDeleteI think one could argue that checking the viscosity is sufficient, and that the stamper is not necessary. But the prudent thing to do is to include it.
How could claim 8 be dependent on claim 7?
ReplyDeleteClaim 7 is directed to making paper pulp, claim 8 to make paper sheet.
I have a question regarding the solution provided. Does claim 1 have all the essential features for solving the technical problem? It seems to me that deviating from 90 degrees is not sufficient on its own to produce the 90% swept volume, which according to the clients letter was essential. If deviating from 90 degrees was sufficient it would have not been necessary to include the extra condition in method claim 7("wherein the head-to-shaft angle of the hammer is set such that a difference in viscosity..."). Dont we need a corresponding feature in claim 1?
ReplyDeleteIn claim 1, do you think it is ok to use the phrase "wherein the hammer head is positioed at a slant to the hammer shaft" instead of "fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees"? In [19] the client states that "positioning at a slant means a head-to-shaft angle (alpha) set at a fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees". I considered this a technical fact rather than a legal issue (as was the case in A2021 with the "substantially vertical") and therefore figured that we could use the wording provided by the client. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI'm also wondering what's the reason for choosing "fixed angle deviating from 90 degrees" over "positioned at a slant".
DeleteI agree with Mariya. Moreover, in addition to doubts about clarity, in light of par. [0013] of D1, stating that "A number of construction details (vat shape, hammer size, hammer lift distance, etc. ) can be tailored specifically to promote even treatment of the pulp", I decided that simply defining the angle as deviating from 90° would not be enough for inventive step over D1.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding was that the method for making pulp had an influence on at least the viscosity of the pulp. At some point in the letter, the client said that the pulp obtained when adding glue to the vat of the known machine (with 90° angle) was unsuitable. Isn´t this viscosity difference enough to characterize the pulp when claiming it as a product-by-process?
ReplyDeleteYes mixing glue with pulp forms paper sheets. But it doesn't necessarily needed for making pulp. The whole paper was very confusing around these aspects.
ReplyDeleteHi Nico. For the apparatus claim, I ended up saying A machine for making pulp --- following the features as you've suggested plus --- when in use up to 90% of pulp volume is displaced in vat at every hammer stroke.
ReplyDeleteI think this is somehow needed in fhe apparatus claim and came up with this. Do you see anything wrong with it. Would I get a clarity issue here?
James
I can't see why any marks will be lost by this.
DeleteI did two process claims. One for making pulp (which did not contain the glue) and one for making paper (which does contain adding glue).
ReplyDeleteI did find this super confusing but hopefully i haven't been penalised for having two independent method claims. Both of course relies on the novel and inventive apparatus machine claim.
The way I see it. You can still make pulp without glue. It is more essential to have glue when making paper so the glue step is essential for making paper but not for making pulp.
DeleteYep. Agree here. For making pulp, as long as its distributed in vat by use of the machine, I don't see why glue is necessary.
DeleteThe glue is important for making the homogenous paper sheet.
Yes. I wrote something similar too. Two method claims. One to the making of pulp (without glue) and one to making of paper sheet (with glue)
DeleteI then did a product by process claim to the paper sheet as i thought the clue at the end of the paper was directing you towards this claim.
I also did two method claims. Seems like alot of candidates have also done this. DP has also updated their claims to reflect this.
DeleteI also did a process claim to making a paper sheet (with the glue step) and a process claim of making pulp (with no glue).
DeleteAgree with this one Nico. I do think Examiners would be looking for this explicitly.
ReplyDeleteI added the feature of adding glue to claim 8 rather than to making the pulp claim as i don't think you need it for making pulp but you do for making paper sheets. What are your thoughts on this.
Does "a number of vats (1)" equate to "a plurality of vats (1)", or does "a number" include just 1 whereas "a plurality" does not?
ReplyDeletein [011] and [012], mixing for at least 5 days was indicated as being essential in the method from an old patent dated 1801, not in the invention.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe I misunderstood? Maybe mixing for at least 5 days was indicated as being essential for the preferred embodiment of [010]?
ReplyDeletei.m.o., "hixed" does not imply "the same angle for all hammer heads". It means that the angle of a specific head to shaft is fixed, i.e., cannot vary - it cannot swing but the head is stationary relative to the shaft.
ReplyDeleteThis is not "quantitative analytical chemistry"
ReplyDelete@deltapatents
ReplyDeleteWhy did you not include a limitation in claim 1 for head-to-shaft angles (alpha)< 70 degrees? According to the client in para. [022], "To achieve a head-to-shaft angle (α) smaller than 70 degrees [...], the shaft-to-horizontal angle also has to be modified." Therefore, your claim 1 seems not to be enabled for head-to-shaft angles (alpha) < 70 degrees.
Why have an independent claim on a paper sheet if you have a method of making paper sheets?
ReplyDeleteThe product obtained by the method is also covered by the protection of the claim.
Product protection from process claim is much less than from product claim. From process only for product that has really been directly obtained from the claimed product. Product claim not dependent on process used, so also protection if made by another process.
DeleteDear Nico,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure, if the paper sheet claim is inventive. D1 explains that starch is plant lime (which is wherefore included by plant raw material of D2). D1 also states that the pulp should be homogenous (like milk). Therefore by using the teaching of D2 for making pulp from raw plant material in combination with the stamping process of D1 and any paper making process, one would reach a paper sheet as claimed.
What do you think?
Thank you for your help.
Best regards,
Alexandra
I think the beating until homogeneous is dislocosed in D1 only for the pulp without glue. But I also think that this feature is not great. It's questionable whether it's sufficiently clear to distinguish from the soaking disclosed in D2 ("homogeneous" is a relative term imho). I therefore chose the iso parameter as the distinguishing feature.
DeleteIn the german version at least, the adding glue and the machine according to claim 1 were not described as essential for the method claim. There were two different advantages described in the clients letter that showed advantages resulting from the increased circulation alone. A step of increased circulation to 90% (measureable by the viscosity, this can be put in the desciption as definition) by any means was therefore enough to give novelty and IS over th SoTA. The first docuement just hinte that something can be changed to increase circulation, however, it is unclear from the document from which %number to where this can be done and there are also way more parameters than the ones from Document d1 that could be changed.
ReplyDeleteTherefore: 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 to obtain a paper pulp,
- circulation at least 90% of the volume of the raw plant material and/or paper pulp is already new, and arguably inventive,
because no document suggests circulating at least 90% of the raw plant material and/or paper pulp.
Dear Nico,
ReplyDeletecould you explain why you chose the wording "deviating from 90°" rather than "positioned at a slant"?
I had the feeling that "positioned at a slant" was the intended wording and that the definition given by the client only served to make it clear that this feature makes the apparatus novel over D1 (which teaches in [6] that the hammer head is solidly attached at a fixed 90 degree angle to a
hammer shaft).
Do you think that it makes a difference which of the two wordings you chose?
Two of the three proposed paper claims are not novel.
ReplyDeleteA paper sheet comprising pure cellulose fibres homogeneously intermixed with glue is not novel because a paper covered with homogeneous layers of glue is known (therefore the homogeneous paper fibres are between (intermixed) homogeneous layers of glue. If homogeneously intermixed isn't thoroughly defined in the specification this is not enough.
The paper sheet according to claim 13, wherein the paper sheet has a tensile strength of above 1900 N/m, preferably above 2600 N/m, as measured according to ISO 1924-2. This can be claimed, however, it reads more like it is the result to be achieved. If the method claim is correctly done it is anyway a direct product by process and therefore a waste of a claim.
The paper sheet according to claim 13 or 14, wherein the paper sheet has a grammage of 70 g/m2. This is known as well (clients letter).
I think it would be better to go via the process, because coming up with a definition is too much to ask for the little time given.
Good point. The "comprising" language is problematic; it's already enough if there are some fibres (eg on the surface of the paper) that are homogenously intermixed, whatever this means, for the feature to be met.
DeleteI think the iso parameter is fine though; it's a structural property that's clearly defined; not a (functional) result to be achieved. In any case, I hope that multiple versions for this claim be awarded marks.
True, it's not clear how to formulate the paper sheet claim. This is why I went for the paper pulp with the viscosity differences under 1% - in my view this is a feature not being enabled by the prior art as also stated by the client. Please let me know, if you read something else.
DeleteFor a paper sheet claim via the process, I actually don't see, why a product-by-process claim should be allowed here.
Still, I would also guess, that there are plenty of marks on the paper claim as this is the product the client wants to sell and which gives plenty of protection. See also A2018, the claim for the glass plain gave 25 points and was two lines.
Keep my fingers crossed for us.
Have a great week!
Best regards,
Alexandra
@Alexandra
DeleteI agree that, in general, the product claim is the most important claim category . However, in 2018, besides the product claim directed to the glass plane which gave 25 points, they expected only one more independent method claim for producing said glass plane.
However, this year, besides the (probably expected) paper claim, clearly they expected an independent claim directed to the stamper machine as well as an independent claim directed to the method for making paper pulp. So i guess that the paper claim will not attract as many marks as in 2018. But maybe that's just my wish :D
the iso parameter could be fine, however, people can also decide that this feature is only diclosed in combination with the exact process, meaning the process is essential to get this kind of paper.
ReplyDeletethen the claim should read something like "paper made by a process according to claim XY with iso parameter", which is the same as paper made by a process according to claim XY" because the iso parameter is a result of the new process, which is already protected by the process itself.
Overall, i think that this A paper offers a variety of correct solutions and during the exam it is impossible to get a feel for what was intended to be claimed.
further example:
The english version was something like (source: saltedpatents): 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 while the german version was something like "This enhanced pulp circulation is essential to homogeneously intermix the glue in the viscous pulp AND to achieve the desired paper strength and surface quality.
Therefore, in the english version the circulation is connected to the adding of glue, in the german version this is not clearly the case.
In the end if the machine is new and inventive with a from 90° deviating angle then the process is also new and inventive by just adding the 90% circulation or by using the machine according to claim 1.
It just should not come down to trying to figure out what was really intended to be claimed because all advantages are mixed in one sentence so that no one can decide which feature leads to which effect or if the features must be connected to reach all of the effects.
Yes, I fully agree. The main thing is the deviating from 90° in the apparatus claim. I don't think the paper claim will be worth many points and I do think that different solutions will score marks. It seems like the whole exam is more about trying to guess what the committee wants to hear than about patent law. I'm very curious to see how it will be marked.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a bit confused about whether or not there is any problem with using the wording "positioned at a slant" instead of "deviating from 90°" (see my comment above from March 19, 2022 9:47 am). I think the two should be the same since this is the definition the client (who is a technical expert) gives. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Unfortunately, one can argue that even the proposed claim 1 is not clear enough and you need to include longitidinal axes of the hammer's head and hammer's shaft, which are "positioned at a slant" or "deviating from 90°". The axes were shown in the figure and I think they need to be in the claim.
DeleteSecondly, it was always right to use the words given in the client's letter. I assume that will stay the same. Either version was in the letter.
Both alternatives with axes should be fine, without axes I do not know and guess not, but maybe this cannot be expected from candidates to just add by themselves without hints in the letter.
Also I think, if you use the slant version, you have to put the clients defintion in the description. If you use the "deviating" version you do not need to put more defintions in the description.
Thanks for your answer; I agree. I doubt that including the axes in the claim will be expected though, since the client's letter did not provide any language for it. At least in past exams candidates did not have to come up with such language by themselves. But in "real life" you're right that they would be needed.
DeleteI think you might also be correct that the committee will expect you to include the definition in the description if you use the "slant" language. There were also cases like this in the past I think.
It is not acceptable that the german version differs significatly from the englisch version in [023].
ReplyDelete"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 second and third advantage originate from the first advantage.
"Diese verbesserte Zirkulation der Pulpe ist wesentlich für das homogene
Untermischen des Leims in die viskose Pulpe und für die Herbeiführung der
gewünschten Papier-Festigkeit und -Oberflächenqualität". In German there are three different independent advantages.
This means that a method claim in the german version is novel and inventive without the adding of glue while in the english version the adding of glue is essential. Simply unacceptable
True. You would read it as "Diese verbesserte Zirkulation der Pulpe ist wesentlich () für die Herbeiführung der gewünschten Papier-Festigkeit und -Oberflächenqualität." / This enhanced pulp circulation is essential to () achieve the desired paper strength and surface quality."
ReplyDeleteThis is why in the german version the method claim shall not contain the adding of glue, because the inventive step is performed by the enhanced circulation alone. Then you go on and have need two more claims for the two described options of how to add the glue and more claims for the other method steps described to arrive at a sheet of paper. Really difficult to sort that out.
In the english version you start with a much narrower method claim which includes the adding of glue. Much easier to continue with dependent claims here
So the Paper A was a different exam in english and german this year. I wonder how this will be taken into account.
There is an Examiner's Report going around. If it is real this solution will be close to a fail. I am surprise this is the case. @ML was right about the lignin. I hope the results are released soon.
ReplyDeleteby my count the deltapatents solution should score 39/80 points for the independent claims. if they scored perfect (20/20) on the dependent claims and the description, the maximum they could still get would be 59 points. The model solution and marking scheme are really completely random.
Delete@Concerned
DeleteWhere do i find the Examiner's Report you are talking about?
80 points for ind. claims?? Only 20 for dep. claims + description? How is the point distribution between device/method/product?
DeleteAccording to DP solution based on the examiners report released on babylon server of EPO, DP got - 10 for missing "non ligning", -10 for referring back to machine, -5 for not having in the "5 days" feature. So -25 points. Also they lose a couple points on the Paper sheet as they don't mention non-ligning there either.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to imagine the pass rates on this Exam.
A shambles of an exam, based on that ex.report they did not have any sort of ease or humanity in their marking scheme. Horrible.
Also, no independent claim on pulp (minus 4), paper claim missing the features lignin-free and tensile strength (minus 12). they should have gotten the four points for the independent method claim for making a paper sheet since they at least have it in a dependent claim. But that still amounts to only 39/80 points, so if you only consider the independent claims it would be a fail. That's completely absurd
Deleteand actually, DP wasn't even so sure about their independent apparatus claim (if deviating from 90° would be sufficient for inventive step), which turned out to be the only one where they scored good points
DeleteWhich babylon server? Where do i find it?
ReplyDeleteThey removed them this morning.
DeleteAfter checking the model solution of the examiner that has been uploaded and removed to Babylon platform, I think this model solution can get maximum 50 pts. Missed 5 days feature, lignin-free feature and referred back to apparatus = -25 on the method claim. Also missed a claim category of 4 points. Also missed 2 features in the paper claim.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the results got postponed because of the problem with [023] in paper A?
ReplyDeleteLet´s hope the EPO reconsiders paper A as there are several problems with the method claims and the paper claim as discussed above. The back reference is important for the method claim not to be a result to be achieved, lignin-free is not clear from the letter (008 and D2 do not say that wood is a raw plant material, so raw plant material as specified is per se lignin-free), 5 days is not for the method in general but for the specific possibility of the D2 variation described as preferrable in 010. For the paper, homogenously intermixed with glue is a result to be achieved. And so on...
DeleteMy point here is that the viscosity limitation *is* essential. This is because the method should continue (duration of beating) until the necessary difference in the level of viscosity is attained
ReplyDeleteI have some thoughts on the independent method of making paper pulp claim and in particular whether (or not) the feature of treating the raw plant material with quicklime "for at least 5 days" can be deemed essential. My prediction (...) is that "for at least 5 days" will be deemed essential in the Examination Report and that omitting this feature will lose 5 marks.
ReplyDelete[012] of the client letter says: "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".
The preceding paragraph [011] says: "We took *this method* from ..." and [010] gives the specific steps of said method as being "a) grinding ..., b) soaking ..., c) adding quicklime ..., d) mixing into a slurry, and e) drawing off water" as well as more specific "typical" parameters in brackets.
My point is that "at least 5 days" is only said to be essential in combination with the specific method steps described in [010] (see "In this method, ..." [012]). Therefore, in view of the paper alone, I have no clue if omitting the step of, say, "grinding the raw plant material" [from 010 - the "method"] will alter the minimum duration necessary for "mixing with quicklime". The essentiality of "at least 5 days" is intrinsically linked with the other steps of the particular method set out in [010] because [012] begins "In this method, ...". This seems to me to be common sense rather than using outside knowledge. It is at least common sense that the essentiality of "at least 5 days" cannot be generalised to any method of treating with quicklime without further information.
Therefore, "at least 5 days" cannot be said to be essential because we have no idea if this is the necessary minimum duration in all situations. Rather, it seems to me that for a more general independent method of making paper pulp claim it is essential that mixing with quicklime lasts until "cellulose extraction is complete" [end of 012] instead of giving a specific minimum duration.
Would anyone else agree or disagree?
Apologies Paull, I have just noticed your comment (June 30, 11:06) where you also discuss that 5 days is not for the method in general.
DeleteI never saw in my life an examination that need much more time to issue results than to prepare it.
ReplyDeleteThe examiner report reads ".. the hammer is positioned ", he claims the device in use, but it should be "...the hammer is positionable...."
ReplyDeleteThe first thing a Patent Attorney learns as a child is to claim a device-product "on the shell" otherwise it would be a real problem for the applicant to assess the counterfeighting of a competitor. That's what patents are for and for what a candidate should be evaluated for.
I do not agree. It is essential that the hammer is in a certain orientation, i.t. that it is positioned (not as a method step, but as a state). If it would say positionable, it could be absent, or in a position as in the prior art.
DeleteHow can "not 90°" be inventive over "90°" in the state of the art? This seems to be contradictory to GL G-VI, 8.1 and is in contradiction to the Examiner's Report for DII 2019, where "above 80" was not inventive over "80".
ReplyDeleteI agree. There is no information that supports that "not 90°" could be inventive over "90°"
DeleteIt is very sad that nobody answered you up to now. Generally, you should not look for any logic or consistency in the eqe and there are many problems in most exams like A2022. E.g. the method claim for pulp is very "problematic" , the paper claim is unclear and ridiculous, and the pulp claim is completely unnecessary as the scope is covered by the method claim (Art. 64 (2) EPC).
DeleteTo your question: 019 states "deviating from 90°" and not "not 90°". Thus, the angle of the invention is distinguishable from 90° including the measurement deviations (GL, G-VI, 8.1). So you have to apply the deviations to the 90° of D1 and the deviating from 90° of the invention. E.g. 89,5°-90,4° for D1 and 89,4° and below as well as 90,5° and above for the invention. There is also a technical effect "effective circulation and homogeneous distribution) stated thereto in 019. Further, from other exams, a limitation like 82-60° with an additional technical effect (10-40%) as in 021 is normally an indication for a dependent claim.
Earlier this week, on 6 March, D 0021/22 () of 1.3.2023 was published oin the recent decisions page
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d220021du1.html
This appeal against a 43-mark A 2022 was succesful - the paper was refered back for renewed marking.
2.2 Aufgrund der Aussage im Prüferbericht (Seite 7, zweiter vollständiger Absatz), dass bei einem Anspruch auf einen Winkel von "weniger als 90 Grad" statt "ungleich 90 Grad", wegen eines Klarheitsmangels Punkte abgezogen wurden, muss die Beschwerdekammer davon ausgehen, dass das Merkmal "Kopf-Schaft-Winkel (alpha) unter 90 Grad" im Anspruch der Beschwerdeführerin als unklar und nicht etwa als unnötige Einschränkung angesehen wurde. Dem Prüferbericht ist jedenfalls an keiner Stelle zu entnehmen, dass erwartet wurde, dass auch ein Kopf-Schaft-Winkel (alpha) größer als 90 Grad beansprucht werden sollte, soweit dieser zu einer Schrägstellung des Hammerkopfs führt. Wiewohl bei Winkeln üblich ist, von "kleiner" (bzw. "größer") zu sprechen und nicht von "unter" (bzw. "über") oder "weniger" (bzw. "mehr"), dürfte der Klarheitseinwand nicht auf diesen semantischen Unterschieden beruhen, sondern vermutungsweise darauf, dass diese relativen Angaben Werte einschließen könnten, die nahe an 90 Grad liegen. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt kann die Beschwerdekammer aber nicht erkennen, weshalb dieser Einwand nicht auch auf die erwartete Lösung ("ungleich 90 Grad") zutrifft. Auch wenn der Prüferbericht dahin zu verstehen ist, dass die Anspruchsformulierung, dass der Kopf-Schaft-Winkel (alpha) ein fixer Winkel ungleich 90 Grad ist, zu Gunsten der Bewerber als Alternative zur erwarteten Definition, dass der Hammerkopf (2) in einer Schrägstellung zum Hammerschaft (3) angeordnet ist, akzeptiert wurde, ist ein Abzug wegen eines Klarheitsmangels bei der Beschwerdeführerin nicht gerechtfertigt. Denn ihre Lösung entspricht (mit Ausnahme des Ausschlusses von Kopf-Schaft-Winkel größer 90 Grad, der allerdings im Prüferbericht nicht abgesprochen wird) der alternativen Musterlösung.
2.3 Es liegt mithin ein schwerwiegender und eindeutiger Fehler bei der Bewertung der Prüfungsarbeit vor, der zur Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung führt.
Entscheidungsformel
Aus diesen Gründen wird entschieden:
1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung der Prüfungskommission wird aufgehoben.
2. Die Angelegenheit wird zur erneuten Entscheidung an die Prüfungskommission zurückverwiesen.
3. Die Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr wird angeordnet.
Yesterday and today, 3 successful appeals w.r.t. A 2022 were published, all in German:
ReplyDelete- D 0030/22 () of 14.3.2023
- D 0017/22 () of 14.3.2023
- D 0031/22 () of 17.3.2023
I cited some relevant reasons from the decisions below.
D 0030/22 () of 14.3.2023 - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d220030du1.html : 42 marks -> compensable fail
ReplyDelete1. Vorrichtungsanspruch – Stampfwerk
1.5 Der vom Beschwerdeführer im vorliegenden Fall entworfene Vorrichtungsanspruch unterscheidet sich von der Musterlösung nur dadurch, dass diese dem beanspruchten Stampfwerk noch die Funktionsangabe "zur Herstellung von Papierpulpe" anfügt. Außerdem hat der Beschwerdeführer die beiden in der Musterlösung als Alternativen vorgeschlagenen Merkmale [..] in der folgenden Weise kombiniert […]
1.6 Diese Kombination beider Merkmale ist nicht stärker beschränkend als das zweitvorgeschlagene Merkmal für sich genommen und sie begegnet auch keinen Klarheitsbedenken, sondern präzisiert im Gegenteil, was mit dem relativen Begriff "Schrägstellung" im erstvorgeschlagenen Merkmal gemeint ist.
1.7 Für die von der Musterlösung vorgesehene Funktions-angabe ist im Kontext der Aufgabenstellung kein Anlass erkennbar, etwa dahingehend, dass eine Abgrenzung erforderlich erschiene gegenüber anderen Vorrichtungen, die auch als Stampfwerke zu sehen, aber nicht zur Pulpeherstellung geeignet wären. Die Angabe erscheint daher nicht notwendig und wird auch im Prüferbericht nicht näher begründet.
1.8 Die Antwort des Beschwerdeführers enthält damit alle im Prüferbericht als erforderlich angesehenen Merkmale, begegnet keinen Klarheitseinwänden und enthält keine überflüssigen, insbesondere unnötig beschränkenden Merkmale. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist kein nachvollziehbarer Grund ersichtlich, der eine Bewertung unterhalb der für diesen Aufgabenteil vorgesehenen vollen Punktzahl von 28 Punkten rechtfertigen könnte.
1.9 Das den Prüfern eingeräumte Ermessen ist vorliegend nicht berührt. Es betrifft insbesondere die Einschätzung, welcher Punktabzug für fehlerhafte Antworten angemessen ist oder welche hinter der Ideallösung zurückbleibenden Alternativen ebenfalls vertretbar sind und wie diese bepunktet werden sollten. Es kann dagegen nicht als Freibrief missverstanden werden, nach Belieben Punkte abzuziehen, selbst wenn die Antwort technisch und rechtlich einwandfrei ist und alle vor dem Hintergrund der Aufgabenstellung erwarteten und in der Musterlösung angeführten Aspekte enthält.
D 0030/22 () of 14.3.2023 [continued]
Delete2. Produktanspruch – Papier
2.5 Es trifft somit zu, dass der Mandant die Werte der Reißfestigkeit nicht in allgemeiner Form für alle denkbaren Grammaturen von mit dem Verfahren erzeugbarem Papier offenbart, sondern nur im konkreten Zusammenhang mit der von ihm tatsächlich hergestellten Papiersorte, die eine Grammatur von 70g/m2 aufweist. Die Reißfestigkeit soll sich dabei auf die zum Abreißen eines Streifens von einem Bogen erforderliche Kraft beziehen, ist also ersichtlich neben den durch die Erfindung erzielten Produkteigenschaften auch von der Dicke des Papierbogens und damit der Grammatur abhängig. Eine erhöhte Reißfestigkeit kann mit anderen Worten nur dann einen erfinderischen Schritt gegenüber dem Stand der Technik dokumentieren, wenn sie bei gleicher Papierstärke (ausgedrückt durch die Grammatur) erreicht wird.
2.6 Die der Korrektur zugrunde liegende Lösung im Prüferbericht, die die oben genannten Angaben in der Prüfungsaufgabe ignoriert und davon ausgeht, dass - im Zusammenhang mit den strukturellen Merkmalen des Ausgangsmaterials (ligninfreies Roh-Pflanzenmaterial) und des Herstellungsprozesses (homogen untergemischter Leim) - der Parameter Reißfestigkeit alleine, also ohne Angabe der Grammatur des Papiers, einen Hinweis auf die erfinderischen Eigenschaften des Produkts geben kann, geht daher - wie aus der Prüfungsaufgabe selbst ohne Heranziehung weiteren Fachwissens (vgl. Regel 22(3) ABVEP) ersichtlich ist - von einer technisch falschen Beurteilungsgrundlage aus.
2.12 Im Ergebnis kann daher festgehalten werden, dass im hier zu beurteilenden Fall weder ein Abzug von 8 Punkten wegen der Aufnahme der Grammatur in den Anspruch noch ein solcher von 4 Punkten wegen der Nichtaufnahme der Iso-Norm in den Anspruch und ihrer Erwähnung nur in der Beschreibung hätte erfolgen dürfen.
2.13 Diese Abzüge von den für den Produktanspruch - Papier - zu vergebenden 16 Punkten sind vorliegend ersichtlich auch relevant geworden, da auf der Basis der Korrekturhinweise im Prüferbericht eine Vergabe von 0 Punkten auch nicht aus anderen Gründen gerechtfertigt erschienen wäre: Abzüge hätten nur in Höhe von 6 Punkten für das Fehlen des Merkmals "homogen untergemischter Leim" und gegebenenfalls in Höhe von 6 weiteren Punkten für das Fehlen von "lignin-freies Roh-Pflanzenmaterial" erfolgen können (wenn ein Abzug insoweit nicht ohnehin schon im Rahmen des Verfahrensanspruchs erfolgt ist und daher wegen des Doppelbestrafungsverbots nicht erneut hätte vorgenommen werden dürfen bzw. wenn man das letztgenannte Merkmal nicht implizit bereits durch die vom Beschwerdeführer verwendeten Merkmale "Papier" und "chemisch inert" ausgedrückt ansieht).
2.14 Somit hätte die Korrektur auf der Basis der eigenen Richtlinien der Prüfungskommission zur Vergabe von mindestens 4, bzw. (wenn der Abzug beim Verfahrensanspruch erfolgte) 10 Punkten führen müssen.
2.15 Es ist daher festzustellen, dass die auf einer technisch (siehe oben Punkte 2.2 bis 2.6) bzw. rechtlich unzutreffenden (siehe oben Punkte 2.7 bis 2.11) Ausgangsbasis beruhende Beurteilung des Produktanspruchs auf schwerwiegenden und eindeutigen Fehlern beruht, die zur Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung gemäß Artikel 24(4) VEP führen.
3.3 Die Kammer hatte daher allein zu beurteilen, ob - ohne Eingriff in das der Prüfungskommission zustehende Ermessen - festgestellt werden kann, dass eine Neubewertung jedenfalls zu einer Vergabe von 3 Punkten mehr als bislang vergeben führen müsste.
D 0017/22 () of 14.3.2023 - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d220017du1.html: 39 marks -> compensable fail
ReplyDelete1. Vorrichtungsanspruch Stampfwerk - Merkmal "weniger als 90°"
1.2 Die Kammer in der vorliegenden Besetzung schließt sich der Einschätzung der Kammer im Verfahren D 21/22 an, dass der Prüferbericht im Hinblick auf die vermeintliche Unklarheit des Merkmals "weniger als 90°" einen schwerwiegenden und eindeutigen Fehler enthält. Die Kammer hat dort zur Begründung ausgeführt: […]
1.3 Nicht anders liegt der Fall vorliegend. Der Fehler muss dabei auch bei der Bewertung relevant geworden sein, da sich der vorgenommene Punkteabzug nur unter Berücksichtigung dieses Abzugs erklären lässt, so dass die Kammer sich auch der abschließenden Einschätzung der Kammer in der dortigen Besetzung anschließen kann:
"Es liegt mithin ein schwerwiegender und eindeutiger Fehler bei der Bewertung der Prüfungsarbeit vor, der zur Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung führt."
1.4 Die weiteren Abweichungen können für sich oder in Kombination genommen den Abzug aus den folgenden Gründen nicht rechtfertigen:
2. Vorrichtungsanspruch Stampfwerk - fehlende Funktionsangabe
2.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin hat den Anspruch eingeleitet mit "Stampfwerk, umfassend einen Bottich...". Die Musterlösung enthält demgegenüber noch eine Funktionsangabe "Stampfwerk, zur Herstellung von Papierpulpe umfassend einen Bottich..." [Hervorhebung durch die Kammer].
2.2 Ein Abzug lässt sich durch diese Abweichung jedoch nicht rechtfertigen, wie die Kammer in der vorliegenden Zusammensetzung bereits im Verfahren D 30/22 entschieden und wie nachstehend begründet hat; die Kammer hält an dieser Begründung auch im vorliegenden Fall fest: […]
D 0017/22 () of 14.3.2023 [continued]:
Delete3. Vorrichtungsanspruch Stampfwerk - Merkmal "besteht"
3.1 Das von der Beschwerdeführerin anschließend formulierte Merkmal "Bottich, der mit einem Hammer versehen ist, welcher aus einem Hammerkopf (2), einem Hammerschaft (3), und einer Hammer-Schlagfläche (4) besteht" [Hervorhebung durch die Kammer], entspricht wörtlich der Musterlösung im deutschsprachigen Prüferbericht.
3.2 Ein Abzug wegen unnötig starker Beschränkung, wie er sich gegebenenfalls vor dem Hintergrund des englisch-sprachigen Prüferberichts und des dort verwendeten Wortes "comprising" hätte rechtfertigen lassen, ist daher nicht zulässig.
3.3 Ein Klarheitsdefizit ist ebenfalls nicht erkennbar.
4. Vorrichtungsanspruch Stampfwerk - Merkmal "Neigung nach unten [bei Kopf-Schaft-Winkel von weniger als 70°]"
4.1 Das von der Beschwerdeführerin formulierte Merkmal "wobei wenn der Kopf-Schaft-Winkel (a) weniger als 70 Grad beträgt der Hammerschaft (3) in Ruheposition im Vergleich zur Horizontalen eine Neigung nach unten aufweist" rechtfertigt keinen Abzug von 8 Punkten wegen einer unnötigen Beschränkung des Anspruchs: Für den Winkelbereich von 70° bis kleiner 90° ist das Merkmal nicht einschränkend; für den darunter liegenden Winkelbereich ist es aber in der Aufgabe klar als wesentlich gekennzeichnet. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist seine Aufnahme (beschränkt auf diesen Bereich) in den Anspruch gerechtfertigt.
4.2 Soweit die Prüfungskommission das Merkmal als unklar angesehen haben sollte, wäre nach den eigenen Bewertungskriterien allenfalls ein Abzug von bis zu 5 Punkten gerechtfertigt gewesen. Der Abzug von weiteren 10 Punkten wie vorliegend vorgenommen, ist dagegen nicht erklärbar.
4.3 Es kann daher festgestellt werden, dass die auf einer technisch bzw. rechtlich unzutreffenden Ausgangsbasis (siehe oben Punkt 1.2) getroffene Beurteilung des Vorrichtungsanspruchs auf schwerwiegenden und eindeutigen Fehlern beruht, die zur Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung gemäß Artikel 24(4) VEP führen.
5.3 Die Kammer hatte daher allein zu beurteilen, ob - ohne Eingriff in das der Prüfungskommission zustehende Ermessen - festgestellt werden kann, dass eine Neubewertung jedenfalls zu einer Vergabe von 6 Punkten mehr als bislang vergeben führen müsste.
5.4 Dies ist vorliegend der Fall. Wie oben unter Punkt 1 bis 4 ausgeführt, ist kein legitimer Grund ersichtlich, warum die Prüfungskommission von ihrer eigenen Musterlösung im Prüferbericht ausgehend für den Vorrichtungsanspruch um mehr als 5 Punkte hinter der vollen Punktzahl von 28 zurückbleiben könnte. Wie unter Punkt 4.2 dargelegt, ist zwar eine Bewertung zwischen 23 und 28 denkbar, je nachdem ob und wie stark das Merkmal betreffend die horizontale Neigung als unklar eingestuft wird. In allen Fällen ergibt sich aber eine Bewertung, die deutlich über den benötigten sechs zusätzlichen Punkten liegt.
D 0031/22 () of 17.3.2023 - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d220031du1.html: 38 marks -> remitted for remarking
ReplyDelete3. Verfahrensanspruch – Pulpeherstellung
3.8 Inhaltlich entspricht Anspruch 1, auch wenn er als "Verfahren zur Herstellung von Hadernpapier aus Roh-Pflanzenmaterial" bezeichnet wird, einem Anspruch auf die im Rahmen der Papierherstellung zunächst erfolgende Pulpeherstellung, da er keine darüber hinausgehenden weiteren Verfahrensschritte enthält. Die Funktionsangabe ist dabei nicht beschränkend, da sie nur eine Eignung betrifft. Diese Eignung ist auch gegeben; denn die Pulpeherstellung stellt sich tatsächlich als erster Teil eines Verfahrens zur Herstellung von Papier dar.
3.9 Der am Ende von Punkt 3.4 des Prüferberichts genannte Fehler, wonach von manchen Bewerbern kein Anspruch auf die Herstellung von Papierpulpe formuliert wurde, sondern gleich ein Verfahren zur Herstellung von Papier, das auch alle Schritte zur Herstellung von Papierpulpe umfasste, ist dem Beschwerdeführer daher nicht zur Last zu legen; denn er hat einen ersten Verfahrensanspruch, der nur die Schritte bis zur Pulpeherstellung enthält, verfasst. Entsprechend wäre diesbezüglich auch ein etwaiger Abzug von 6 Punkten (genannt ist die Vergabe von maximal 22 Punkte auf einen wie beschrieben kombinierten Anspruch) vorliegend nicht gerechtfertigt. Angesichts der insgesamt nur vergebenen 3 Punkte ist jedoch zu besorgen, bzw. kann von der Kammer zumindest nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass eine solche Reduktion möglicherweise doch erfolgte.
4. Verfahrensanspruch – Papierherstellung
4.2 Der Anspruch ist abhängig von Anspruch 1 formuliert, entspricht aber inhaltlich dem in der Musterlösung unter Ziffer 3.4 vorgeschlagenen Anspruch, der im ersten Verfahrensschritt auch das "Bereitstellen von Papierpulpe nach einem der Ansprüche X bis ..." fordert.
4.3 Es ist für die Kammer nicht erkennbar, warum keine Punkte für einen Papierherstellungsanspruch vergeben wurden; es kann daher nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass es zu der vom Beschwerdeführer vermuteten Doppelbestrafung gekommen ist, obwohl inhaltlich die Bestrafungen nicht nur in Kombination, sondern bereits jede für sich genommen nicht gerechtfertigt gewesen wären.
4.4 Wäre erkannt worden, dass der Beschwerdeführer in der Sache mit Anspruch 1 einen solchen auf die Herstellung des Zwischenprodukts Pulpe und mit Anspruch 2 einen solchen auf Herstellung des Endprodukts Papier formuliert hatte, wäre zu erwarten gewesen, dass in beiden Kategorien Punkte vergeben worden wären.
D 0031/22 () of 17.3.2023 [continued]
Delete5. Produktanspruch – Papier
5.4 Sollte tatsächlich ein Abzug wegen mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit erfolgt sein, wäre dieser nicht gerechtfertigt. Das vom Beschwerdeführer beanspruchte Produkt war laut Aufgabe in dieser Qualität (Reißfestigkeit über 1.900 N/m, vgl. Absatz [026]) bislang nicht erzielbar und ein Weg dorthin war im Stand der Technik nicht nahegelegt. Der im Prüferbericht angeführte Vermerk, wonach Parameter- und Strukturmerkmale für eine vollständige Charakterisierung des Erzeugnisses erwartet wurden, ist zwar für die Kammer nachvollziehbar. Gleiches gilt für die Ausführungen im Prüferbericht dahingehend, dass die Strukturmerkmale dem Anspruch nur formal Neuheit verleihen konnten. Es ergibt sich im Folgeschluss - in Übereinstimmung mit den Angaben im Absatz [026] des Mandanten-Schreibens - dass nicht erfinderische Ausführungsformen eben durch das im Anspruch des Beschwerdeführers angegebene Parametermerkmal "Reißfestigkeit über 1.900 N/m" ausgeschlossen sind.
5.5 Falls bereits wegen der fehlenden Merkmale "ligin-freies Roh-Pflanzenmaterial" und "homogen untergemischter Leim" je 6 Punkte abgezogen wurden, käme ein weiterer Abzug von 4 Punkten wegen des Fehlens dieser Merkmale im Kontext der erfinderischen Tätigkeit einer unzulässigen "Doppelbestrafung" gleich (vgl. D 13/17, Punkt 3.7 der Entscheidungsgründe).
6.3 Der Beschwerdeführer hat seinen Antrag daher auf eine Zurückverweisung an die Prüfungskommission zur erneuten Entscheidung über seine Ansprüche 1, 2 und 13 beschränkt. Diesem Antrag kann stattgegeben werden.