A 2023: 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?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?Multiple independent claims? Functional features? Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
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?
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. [Update 13/3/2023: the paper is available in Wiseflow EPO - EQE Compendium, and copied from there to the end of the blog with our answer]
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.
Please be reminded that you can view and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied it in full into your exam answer).
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 09-03-2023 21:09"), whereas using your real name or a nick name is 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:
Two indie claims anyone? Device and use? :V
ReplyDeleteI agree, except I did a medical use and a use for cosmetic treatment.
Deleteme too
DeleteMe too, one to the device, one to a medical use and one to a cosmetic use
DeleteYes, device and non-therapeutic (cosmetic) use. Therapeutic use is excluded from patentatbility. (Medical use claims are special product claims, not use claims.)
DeleteI agree with @Gerben on this. Use of the device in a method for treating wounds would not be allowed under art. 53(c) EPC as I think it will be treated as a therapeutic method claim.
DeleteArmin! Read Art. 53(c) MORE CAREFULLY brother! PRODUCTS for USE IN THOSE METHODS IS ALLOWED! :V :)
DeleteI have a device claim, cosmetic method comprising the use of the device, a device according to claims x, for use in healing wounds
DeleteUse of a device according to claims 1 - .. for a method of healing a wound!
DeleteIP
DeleteMethod of using the device for healing a wound is not allowable from Art 53(c) EPC. The product for use just means that the product is patentable.
DeleteArt 54(4) EPC formulation was also not possible because it is a device, not a substance or a composition.
There was in my opinion no therapeutic method claim expected, or possible.
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_b_4_3_5_c.htm
DeleteWhat about this? I think a use of a device for medical treatment is not allowed.
Is there a functional link between the device and the skin?
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_b_4_3_5_c.htm
DeleteThank God for this! The method IS allowed hooray!:
"...a method which is only concerned with the operating of a device without any functional link between the claimed method and the effects produced by the device on the body does not qualify at all as a method for treatment within the meaning of Art.52(4) EPC..."
I drafted an independent device (14, 16, 17) claim for a device (14, 16, 17) wearable on the skin of a user for applying electric field on an area of the skin of the wearer. I only mentioned in that claim that the electric field E in the gap 8 applies to the area of the skin of the wearer.
DeleteI drafted 12 dependent claims. The last which (dependent claim 12) is characterised in that the electrically conductive elements (4a, 4b) are electrodes arranged in the shape of inter-digitated electrodes.
I then drafted only one use claim (claim 13), - use of the wearable device of claim 12 (only that dependent claim) so that the electrodes are placed over wrinkles of the skin of the user, for cosmetically treating wrinkles of the skin.
I drafted no use claim. I wrote in the description that no protection is sought for use of the device for therapeutic purposes, since such use is excluded by virtue of Article 53(c) EPC.
I hope I will pass... Not sure.
@Anonymous March 09, 2023 2:21 pm
DeleteThe fact that the product itself is allowed under art. 53(c) EPC does not render a method of using that product allowable.
In particular:
- "A device [suitable] for treating wounds..."
Is different from the following:
- "Method of treating wounds using a device..."
- "Use of a device in a method of treating wounds..."
The former is a device claim with a suitability - allowed. The latter two are therapeutic methods/processes and are not allowed under art. 53(c) EPC.
Brother Armin..Is there a functional link between the device and the use claim?
DeleteWhy medical stuff with use claims, WHYYYYY???
ReplyDeleteI drafted a user of the device (with the embodiment per one of the dependent claim whereby the electrically conductive elements (4a, 4b) are electrodes arrange in the shape of inter-digitated electrodes) for cosmetic purposes so that the electrodes (4a, 4b) are places over wrinkles of the skin of the user so that wrinkles of the skin are cosmetically treated. I drafted no other use claims.
DeleteI drafted only use of a specific embodiment of the device (per one of the dependent claims whereby the electrically conductive elements (4a, 4b) are electrodes arranged in the shape of inter-digitated electrodes ) - for cosmetic purposes when the electrodes (4a, 4b) are arranged to be placed over wrinkles of the skin of the wearer. I drafted no other use claims. The device claim (and any dependent claims) pertains to a device wearable on the skin of a user for applying electric field on an area of the skin of the wearer. i did not recite either therapeutic or cosmetic purpose of any word related to it, in the device claim(s).
DeleteToo many features and too many arrangements for a single claim- MG
ReplyDeleteI drafted two independent product claims, one for the first two embodiments and one for the bandage one. It seemed too difficult to cover everything in a single product claim.
ReplyDeleteI did not specify in claim 1 whether the sheets are attached to the same surface or opposite surfaces of the substrate. They are simply 'attached' to the substrate. I believe this is how you can cover all three embodiments under the same independent claim.
DeleteI also did the same. I couldn't find a way to cover all three embodiments under the same independent claim and just keep it the sheets are attached to the surface
DeleteSame here, the first two examples seemed to require an adhesive, while the third example transferred the skin movements to the device via its attachment due to its specific shape + required different arrangements of features
DeleteI think D2 discloses that that device can be worn against the skin in a sock or in an arm band, thus those are options without adhesive.
DeleteThat is exactly why I drafted two independent product claims, but it appears that D1 was granted without the adhesive in its claim, so it probably wasn't an essential feature. The letter made it seem like it's essential for the first two embodiments though, we'll see.
DeleteI did the same as Armin above. It was also mentioned that other embodiments than plaster and bandage were possible, which I took as an extra hint that a single generic device claim was expected. I also agree with ^^ that D2 showed that an adhesive was not essential, as well as it not being present in (granted) D1.
DeleteTrainee
DeleteDid you guys generalize:
Delete1. the copper layers to metal sheet? (maybe electrically conductive sheets would be better).
2. the substrate to flexible and electrically insulating substrate?
3. The layer to a layer made of a triboelectric material?
4. The electrodes to electrically conductive sheets?
@Trainee
Delete1. the layers *must* be sheets. This was explicitly stated in one of the paragraphs. They must also be electrically conductive (metal is unnecessarily limiting in my opinion, even though the only examples given were metals)
2. the substrate *must* be flexible and electrically insulating, this time strongly implied but not explicitly stated. PET was merely an example of such a material.
3. This is not a generalization in my opinion, since there is no effect (no voltage) if the layer is not made of triboelectric material. The paper never gave a hint that other types of materials can be used as a substitute.
4. I see electrically conductive sheets as a limitation w.r.t. electrodes, not a generalization. I chose to go with 'electrodes of electrically conductive material' since electrodes are always electrically conductive, rendering it not really a limitation.
Thanks Armin!
Delete1. I agree and see your point. It was too late for me to change metal sheets to electrically conductive sheets, but it is indeed better.
2. It seems we agree on this one too.
3. What about a triboelectric material selected from poly (4,4'-oxydiphenylenepyromellitimide), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)? If I understood correctly, those are types of triboelectric material.
4. "electrodes are always electrically conductive" - Isn´t it your own knowledge in the field? :) I may have missed it but the paper does not mention it.
The paper mention a sentence that was on my head the whole time, it was something about "any element of conductive material with a gap would work" (not exactly like this, I do not remember the sentence). This made me generalize the electrodes to the electrically conductive sheet (not element, because it was mentioned somewhere that it must be a sheet, but I might have misunderstood it as well). Anyway, this paper was difficult for a biotech attorney like me!
1. Sheets must be electrically conductive, no other limitation regarding the sheets was needed. I used metals and specific metals within dependent claims. The letter had only metals as examples, but the letter implied that they could be made of other electrically conductive materials. They also must have the form of a sheet, but if you said sheet to refer to these layers, it probably wasn't necessary to state that they are in the form of a sheet, as it's implied.
Delete2. The substrate must be electrically insulating and flexible. This was explicitly stated. The device won't work if one of these features is missing.
3. I said "a triboelectric layer made of a material with triboelectric properties", I don't think it could be generalized further. No other material was given as a substitute, and the material had to have triboelectric properties in order for the device to work (i.e., no voltage if not triboelectric).
4. I went with "first and second elements forming a gap
and functioning as first and second electrodes, wherein the elements are electrically conductive". I think they don't expect a further generalization, it should be enough if you said that they're electrically conductive.
@Trainee, regarding:
DeletePoint 3: those were three types of triboelectric material specified by the client. It was not explicitly indicated that they were the *only* ones; the focus was on the triboelectric effect. My opinion is that it is probably an unnecessary limitation to provide a selection of three materials even though those were the only ones mentioned. I put the specified materials in a dependent claim.
Point 4: Indeed like you said, one of the paragraphs stated that any pair of electrically conductive elements may act as electrodes. Something like that. Nevertheless, I added to my claim that they are electrically conductive to take away any and all doubt. :-) thus, probably not an unnecessary limitation.
I can very much imagine this paper being difficult depending on the field of the patent attorney (to be). Wish you the best!
I thought D2 was really tricky as prior art. Is the radio-frequency signal an electrical field (indirectly) applied to the skin by the sheets? I supposed that this would be too obscure.
ReplyDeleteIn the end I decided that "full electrical shield" must mean no electrical field is applied and left wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin when the device is worn on the skin as my distinguishing feature over D2.
Agree with this and it was my rationale. The rubber blocks electrical signals therefore (cross fingers) that’s the distinguishing feature.
DeleteI thought this too, but thought that it definitely relies on outside knowledge...
DeleteI went with "wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin" as the distinguishing feature over D2
D2 did not disclose how to use triboelectric effect to apply an electric field to the skin, or how it can be used to heal wounds. That was enough to render the invention inventive, imo.
Delete@AD I claimed the same. I mentioned the direkt contact to the skin early AND named the device "medical device". Better lose some points for little bit narrowing that lose all point because of novelty in view of D2. That caused me headache the last hour.
Delete"wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin"
Deletethis was supposed to be in the preamble of the claim, as D1 already discloses this and D1 is the CPA.
"wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin"
DeleteI agree with this a distinguishing feature over D2: the full shield provided by the rubber makes it clear, in my opinion, that in D2 the electric field is not applied to the skin.
It is debatable whether in the invention the electrodes make direct contact with the skin, as they can be coated with a antibacterial composition.
@F - I never use the two-part form.
Delete@Gerben - "wherein the first and second electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin" was recited several times, so it seemed to be the wording the examiner's wanted to differentiate over D2... I hope.
I agree that the arrangement of the electrodes so as to apply the electric field to the skin is the distinguishing functional feature over D2.
DeleteI claimed this functionally but also structurally by stating that the first electrode and the second electrode are both attached to the same face of the substrate as each other since this was a common feature to the three described embodiments and was a structural difference over D2.
I have no clue if this was expected and it was a very last minute realisation/addition in my answer.
I included both the gap (as such not novel over D2) and the functional feature of applying an electric field to the skin when worn on the skin (novel over D2). I did not like leaving out the gap and it did not seem particularly limiting anyway since all embodiments have this gap (and in fact there is no indication that it can be generated another way with the electrodes)
DeleteI also included ''for treating a skin wound'' in the preamble of the device claim. The device of D2 is not suitable for treating a wound since an electrical field will not be applied to the skin because of the shield.
DeleteI figured that it is my way out without it being a (significant) limitation as the client is in the field of medical devices and ''for treating'' is a soft limitation meaning ''suitable for'' as it is a product claim
For the same reason I included "for applying an electrical field to the skin" in the preamble in order to also cover the cosmetic use.
DeleteCosmetic use is not excluded by specifying ''for treating a skin wound'' as it being suitable for treating a skin wound does not exclude other uses or it being suitable for removing skin wrinkling
Deletesee https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_13_1.htm
But I do think "for applying an electrical field to the skin" works as well
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI've drafted a claim that says "use of the device (14, 16, 17) according to any one of claims 1-11 for applying electric field to a skin". Not sure if it would attract any marks.
DeleteDid the English version of the paper actually say “applying an electrical field TO the skin”? In the German version of the paper - translated into English - it said “generating an electrical field ON the skin”. I found that the device of D2 also generates an electrical field on the skin (the rubber does only prevent the field from interacting with the skin) and therefore I had to look another distinguishing feature (decided to chose “electrodes on the same side of the substrate”).
Delete@Samson If I remember correctly, it is indeed applying the electrical field TO the skin in the English version.
DeleteThe electrodes being on the same side of the substrate excludes the embodiment of Fig. 4 (bandage). I am always very cautious with excluding an entire embodiment of the client, as it typically comes with a pretty big penalty.
If it cannot reach the skin (full electric shielding of the rubber), is the electric field generated ON the skin, or just somewhere above and not related to the skin at all? That's a difficult one. I hope it doesn't come down to a translation issue.
@Armin, I hope, I didn’t oversee anything but if I remember correctly, also in the bandage both electrodes were on the same side. They were on the inside of the bandage, wherein the first electrode was simply the same piece as the foil and the second electrode was connected to the second foil with these wires, no?
DeleteRegarding your comment on the translation, I totally agree.
@Armin - The electrodes (4a and 4b) being on the same side of the substrate doesn't exclude the embodiment in Fig. 4, because the electrodes are on the same side, even though the sheets aren't.
DeleteElectrodes..or rather...ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE ELEMENTS?
Delete@Samson @Claiming Novelty
DeleteApologies, I indeed meant the sheets, not the electrodes. You appear to be right that then the embodiment of Fig. 4 is not excluded.
Interesting idea! I am very curious what the tutors and the Exam Committee think of that solution.
Well, it was not a substance or composition so I did not claim a medical use, or a treatment method (no exception in A54, I hope). But 53(c) says "this provision shall not apply to *products*, in *particular* substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods." so I got really confused since I never drafted a medical use claim before (big mistake not studying these harder) and the device is a "product" but not a substance. So, wrote an independent claim for the device, another for a method for cosmetic intervention on wrinkled skin and another for use of the device in cosmetic treatment of wrikled skin... I have no idea if I just lost 40 points by doing it like this. Also, D2 was hellish for novelty having the gap there and maybe the electrodes implicit in the sheets (since in the letter the electrodes can also be the actual sheets) so I included a disclaimer to "no electrical shielding". I figure better to lose 10 points with an unnecessary limitation that gives 100% novelty than get 0...
ReplyDeleteI had lots of work with the dependents but was able to get all three enbodiments in logically. 15 claims and had to condensate some in the end, 17 would have been ideal with 1 extra feature per claim.
It was very hard for me, in short.
"Overlay" anyone?! And two indie claims sufficient to pass anyone?!
ReplyDeleteI had "overlay" as well, because in one of the last exams "IR/UV"-laser were mandatory due to no alternative in the disclosure. Overlay was in every embodiment, and in the description it wasn't mentioned as optional.
DeleteSame with "coper sheets fixed to the substrate".
Yeah, I included the overlay as a possibly required constructional feature allowing the first sheet to be arranged to attach to and separate from the triboelectric layer upon deformation of the substrate. I wasn't completely sure on this, however, but I think all examples in the client's letter mentioned it. However, on second thought, the example in D2 does not, and could also be modfied to work (wires through the rubber, electrodes beneath it)
DeleteI think the copper could be generalized to metal sheets, but it must be a sheet.
DeleteElectrically conductive sheets and electrically conductive elements (NOT electrodes) anyone?!
DeleteSame, I've said "first (4a) and second (4b) elements forming a gap (8) and functioning as first and second electrodes" in the claim. Don't think it matters though.
DeleteI did not include the overlay, but my reasoning for not doing so was not the client's letter. D1 had a claim to his previous invention where ''overlay'' was not mentioned even though the arrangement of the sheets was similar (battery instead of the triboelectric layer)
DeleteFrom other tests I noticed that sometimes the prior art claims give hints on how you are supposed to write your own claim, so I went with that
DeleteIn my view, it was essential that the sheet overlay the triboelectric layer, otherwise the triboelectric effect cann be achieved. In D1 it wasn't essential because there's any number of ways in which the battery could be held without the sheets overlaying.
DeleteThat should say "cannot be achieved"
DeleteBut i suppose you already included in the claim ''arranged that the layer (15) can adhere to and separate from the first (2a) sheet upon deformation of the
Deletesubstrate (1)'' right? that is the necessary part, how it is achieved (e.g., overlay) I am not sure had to be specified as well. We will see in the Examiner's report I guess
Like most people, I was surprised by the topic of therapeutic/cosmetic use. The device according to the invention had a therapeutic application (accelerating the healing of wounds) and a non-therapeutic one (smoothing INTACT wrinkled skin).
ReplyDeleteI assumed that a method or use claim directed at the treatment of wounds with the device would not be allowable, and that an art. 54(4) and (5) EPC style claim would not apply because the claimed device is not a substance or composition.
The technological topic of the paper was in my opinion not the easiest, but I could get around that by sticking close to the wording in the paragraphs except where abstraction was clearly needed; the paper was quite clear in regard to the latter, directing you away from putting specific features in claim 1.
I think the most important aspect of this paper was that you had to be very careful regarding novelty with respect to D2. It is very easy to direct your attention to the much closer D1 and forget about checking whether you are indeed still novel over D2.
The printables became available quite early (somewhere between 15-20 minutes before the start). I had no issues at all with WiseFlow.
Though I've never done an A-style exam on paper, I am confident I would always prefer online because copy-pasting makes everything considerably easier. Side-effect: my doorbell rang a total of THREE times, admittedly giving me a slight panic every time.
Overall, I had plenty of time left over at the end, even after finalizing the description.
@Armin I agree that novelty over D2 seemed to be the most important aspect.
Delete> The printables became available quite early (somewhere between 15-20 minutes before the start).
DeleteNice! I will assume that that will also be the case for B and C!
4 claims: Device claim, use of the device in a method of healing wounds, use of the device for smoothing wrinkles, a cosmetic method of smoothing wrinkles.
ReplyDeleteMethods of healing wounds are excluded, however not the use of devices in these methods Guidelines G-II, 4.2. Medical use claims are only for substances and compositions, so these should not be drafted - if not it should have been triboelectric material/teflon for use in a method of healing wounds, however no suggestion at all in clients letter that this is new.
Not used to drafting device claims, so definitely had difficulty being sure that all three embodiments were covered in claim 1, and still keeping all essential features.
Definitely also speculating on the novelty over D2, "the first and second electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin" should bring novelty and also included this argument in my background description of D2 - D2 stated "special rubber that provides a full electrical shield between the skin and the electrical parts".
Interesting! I'm looking now but I can't find a passage in GL G-II, 4.2 which allows one to directly claim the use of a device in a therapeutic method. I did suspect there was something positive to do with the medical use, though, so you might be right.
DeleteThere is no such passage. The GL reiterate part of the Article 53(c) EPC "this provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods."
DeleteEPC
"for use in any of these methods" - i.e. you can have product claims reciting devices suitable for use in such methods. This does not mean you can claim a method of using the devices!
DeleteFrom 4.2 - "The exception under Art. 53(c) does not extend to products, particularly substances or compositions, for use in these methods of treatment or diagnosis."
Deleteand then also in 4.2.1 "Claims to medical devices, computer programs and storage media which comprise subject-matter corresponding to that of a method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or to that of a diagnostic method practised on the human or animal body are not to be objected to under Art. 53(c), because only method claims may fall under the exception of Art. 53(c)."
Device for use in a method of healing wounds would be rejected to, so it must be "use of device.."
Hi James, it says "are NOT objected to".
DeleteEPC
I agree. "A device for healing wounds" is perfectly fine, not excluded under 53
DeleteIt says it right there - the exception does not extends to products. So you can claim the products suitable for whatever use (medical or otherwise). You cannot claim use of such devices because that is the same as "a method of using the device to treat a wound". Such a claim would prevent doctors from being able to use your product to treat patients - this is exactly what a53(c) aims to prevent.
DeleteA claim as in D1 is not excluded under 53:
Delete1. A device (16; 17) wearable on the skin, having the shape of a plaster and capable of applying an electric field to a skin wound for accelerating the healing of the wound, the device comprising ...
For me it was very much mechanical for those in Life science like myself.
ReplyDeleteA lot of generalizations required
3 embodiments impossible for be to cover in 1 IC
Very close and relevant PA
For me, the main distinguishing feature was the electrodes (which I generalized into something else I don't remember). D2 has no electrode and is not suitable for treating a skin, I think.
D1 had electrodes, but not the arrangement of overlay to create the trino whatever effect.
No wiseflow issues, thank God!
I think we were supposed to draft two independent product claims, the third embodiment had significant structural differences such as the positioning of the sheets (opposing faces, unlike 1st and 2nd embodiment) and also the positioning of the triboelectric layer (on one end of a sheet, unlike 1st and 2nd embodiment). And it didn't need an adhesive layer, while the first two needed one to be worn.
DeleteI did not specify in claim 1 whether the sheets are attached to the same surface or opposite surfaces of the substrate. They are simply 'attached' to the substrate. I believe this is how you can cover all three embodiments under the same independent claim.
DeleteI did the same as Armin. The way they were attached felt linked to the plaster/bandage embodiments, and the letter of the client said that other shapes are possible as long as the device is skin-wearable (which is the limitation I used in my claim).
DeleteI put the plaster shape / features and the bandage shape / features as dependent claims.
Only used 1 independent claim (seems that I should have included more...) directed to "a wearable device for treatment of skin wounds and other skin problems".
ReplyDeleteNovel over D1 by reciting triboelectric layer.
Novel over D2 by specifying that the electrodes are arranged so as to apply the electric field to the user's skin.
I did/thought the same, not sure why another independent device claim would have been required to cover the third example
DeleteI thought the adhesive layer was essential for the first two embodiments, because it was also used in D1 and no alternative was given. It wasn't required for the third one.
DeleteI figured since D1 was granted without the adhesive layers, it is not essential to have it, though I included a dependent claim with adhesive layer or armband/sock as suggested in D2.
DeleteI thought the same with James. At the beginning I had doubts about adhesive layer and then I saw D1 was granted without the adhesive layers. I also I claimed a device wearable on a skin and adhesive layer helps to attach to skin
Deleteyes in my view the most important part is the "skin wearable".
DeleteI do not think the armband/sock of the prior art was so relevant, since the embodiment without adhesive was described such that it could stay on the arm simply by force
DeleteThat's why it's confusing for me. The first and second embodiment appeared to have to have the adhesive layer, as it wasn't described as an optional feature and no alternative/substitute was given for it. How does one even wear the first embodiment without the adhesive?
DeleteA single independent device claim, three dependent claims for the embodiments, and then 10 more dependent claims:
ReplyDelete- the overlaying parts being ends
- the adhesive layer of the plasters (debatable whether this was optional)
- 6x materials
- antibacterial composition
- interdigitated
A single method claim (cosmetic). I don't think a medical use claim was possible, and I wonder what the point was of including it as a trap, since the exam is scored positively.
Novelty over D2 was tricky. "so as to apply an electric field..." should be good enough I think. Also some tricky decisions to be made regarding enablement (for example: I specified the gap in claim 1, but that might not be necessary).
Almost made a mistake with the reference signs for the various device embodiments: (14), (16), and (17).
Overall I thought the exam was fairly straightforward (speaking as an E/M specialist). I was able to consider all issues calmly and thoroughly and still had some time left over.
I was also confused as to why the method of treatment trap was there, I considered including it even though it seemed to fall under the exclusion on the basis that the exam doesn’t have negative marking but in the end I didn’t, but it’s a bit odd if the only disadvantage of including it was losing out on one more dependent claim
DeleteAgreed with pretty much everything.
DeleteI think a dependent method claim directed *specifically* at the interdigitated aspect would score points separately from the independent claim, since this was particularly advantageous; par. [15] of the client's letter. They seem to like those aspects in separate claims (even though a method claim referring back to your interdigitated claim already includes it).
@SH @Anson perhaps the 'trap' is there to make you use up one or more of your valuable claims on 0 marks :-) Still, there seems to be a lot of debate on whether the medical use claim is allowable or not. I hope the DeltaPatents tutors can clarify this soon.
DeleteSo no marks awarded OR DEDUCTED for the medical use claim? PLEASE CLARIFY!
DeleteI did almost the same.
DeleteThe adhesive is for sure optional, otherwise, the badage wouldn't be covered by the single device claim. Stating that the device is wearable on the skin is enabling enough in my opinion.
The most difficult part was to combine the two plaster embodiment under one claim since one has 4 sheets and the other has 2 sheets folded around the substrate.
PDFs are out.
ReplyDeleteI made a Device claim, a Method of making the device, A method for the cosmetic treatment of wrinkles and a device claim for use in a method of regrowing cells of the skin of a person. (thus 4 independent claims)
ReplyDeleteWhat features did you include in the method of making the device? I considered adding such a claim but I'm pretty sure there were no features to include.
DeleteI don't think we were required to draft a claim for the production method, there wasn't anything in the letter suggesting a specific method
Delete
Delete- providing a substrate (1),
- attaching a first electrically conductive sheet (2a) ------etc ------,
-attaching a second electrically conductive sheet (2b)- ------etc -------,
-attaching a triboelectric layer (15) ------etc ---------
I added this limitation to device claim "wherein the substrate (1) is longer than the first electrically conductive sheet (2a) and the second electrically conductive sheet (2b)"; because i was confused whether only specifying that "the electrodes are arranged so as to apply the electric field to the user's skin"; was alone sufficient to be novel over D2.
ReplyDeleteD2 says that its electrodes are longer than its substrate.
so i risked that limitation .....
Excuse me everyone, how many points for one device independent claim...?
ReplyDeleteThe last paragraph of the client's letter was clear in that they wanted you to look at the use of the device too, but I do think the device claim will attract by far the most points.
Deletein previous years if there are not many independent claims (like last year), mainly the main claim here is the device claim get marks between 30-40
DeleteAny idea of the mark points for the independant claim covering all embodiments, and the cosmectic use claim ?
ReplyDeleteDo marks get deducted for a wrong independent claim...?!
ReplyDeleteDepends on how wrong it is...
Deletewhat if I have no use claims? only 2 product claims?
DeleteThe exam is marked positively, so no marks are deducted for wrong claims. (This is in principle. Perhaps if you do something really weird they will find a reason to deduct points). I expect that no points will be deducted for including an unallowable medical use claim (if it is indeed not allowable) unless it caused issues in the introductory part.
DeleteFor the expected answer the point distribution could be:
- 40 points for a fully correct independent device claim covering all embodiments
- 3x5 points for 3 dependent claims to the 3 separate embodiments
- 20 points for other dependent (device) claims
- 10 points for a fully correct cosmetic use claim
- 15 points for the introductory part
And I expect that having two independent device claims, one for the first two embodiments and the other one for the third embodiment, will not lose you many marks (compared to 1 independent claim) if they are otherwise as expected, but you may have missed one of the three embodiment claims.
(this is an informed guess: I'm just a candidate like you)
How works the marks, start from 100 and deduced ? or start from 0 and add each mark ?
ReplyDeleteHow does the marking work?!
ReplyDelete"a triboelectric layer (15) attached to one end (3a) of the first electrically conductive sheet (2a) or to the one end (3b) of the second electrically conductive
ReplyDeletesheet (2b) "; will this be ok?
...as the client says that it does not matter that the triboelectric layer is in any of the first or the second sheet
The client says that it does not matter if the triboelectric layer is at the end or at any other position of the sheer
DeleteShit... I missed that. I simply looked at figures 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 and recited this limitative feature of the triboelectric layer (15) attached to the end (3b) of one electrically conductive sheet (2b) of the two electrically conductive sheets (2a, 2b). I hope it didn't screw up my exam.
DeleteTrue, I used a "part of" instead of an "end", but I think it is a minor issue and should not take more than 3-5 marks
Delete@ YY almost the entirety of the last pages of the client's letter were about discussing all optional features and there were many
Delete@trainee combining all optional features there were is probably a lot of points, even when I agree that this single one is probably not a lot
DeleteWasn't this exclusive to the third embodiment? I might be wrong, but I remember that the layer could be attached anywhere for the first two embodiment, but was attached to one end in the third.
DeleteAm I the only one who drafted a dependent claim for the second embodiment? How did you guys cover all of them with a single claim?
ReplyDeletedevices of d1 and d2 both have a battery, client says the advantage of the invention is that it does not require a battery, which reduces the bulk. Seems to me you had to disclaim the battery using wording alone the lines of "a wearable device configured to operate without the use of a battery..."
ReplyDeleteWhile I see some potential clarity issues with this disclaimer, experience with past papers show that if the client highlights a different wrt to the prior art (which the client does in the letter for both D1 and D2), then you can accept that as a clear-cut distinguishing feature.
DeleteI thought about this, but decided not to use a disclaimer. The technical problem is solved by the combination of the features, and the combination renders a battery unnecessary, because the triboelectric layer serves the same purpose a battery would normally do. Therefore, the technical problem isn't solved by simply removing the battery, it's solved by the alternative solution proposed.
DeleteThat would consitute a result-to-be-achieved (EPO GL, F-IV 4.10):
Delete"The area defined by the claims must be as precise as the invention allows. As a general rule, claims which attempt to define the invention by a result to be achieved are not allowed, //in particular if they only amount to claiming the underlying technical problem//."
Here, your technical problem is bulkiness or the need for a battery. If no technical details are provided as to how the skilled person can achieve device operation without a battery, such a claim cannot be allowable under art. 84 EPC.
On top of that, disclaimers to establish novelty are often severely punished by the Examining committee (they do not like it, apparently...)
DeleteTrainer- It depends on the invention. A disclaimer is usable. Adding or deleting the disclaimer during the prosecution (paper B) is a different matter. Paper A 1992 Chemistry dealt with the disclaimer. There was also mock EPI paper (not sure which one December or January 2021) dealt with a disclaimer feature.
DeleteArmin- the technical problem is not just the bulkiness, but also battery falling off. Additionally, the battery does not stick to curved shaped of the skin. So all the three problems require disclaiming the battery. I would be astonished if the examination division penalizes this.
DeleteI don't see what a disclaimer would accomplish in this case. The absence of battery is not really relevant, what's relevant is that the invention eliminates the need for a battery by virtue of the other features it comprises. It works because it doesn't require one, not because it doesn't have one.
DeleteEnjoyer - the absence of the battery is relevant because it provides inventive step in view of D2 for the remaining subject-matter. If you claim only the remaining generic features, it requires specifying the location of attaching the first and second conductive sheets in relation to the substrate to differentiate in view of D2. It can satisfy novelty, but not inventive step. A broader feature than mentioning the exact way the first and second sheets are attached to the substrate is to disclaim the battery. There is no prior art document D1 and D2 that is devoid of battery.
Delete@Helloman
DeleteYou could also distinguish the claim from D2 by:
- functionally claiming the electrodes being arranged so as to generate an electric field to the skin when the device is worn on the skin (repeated several times in the client's letter)
- claiming that the electrodes are arranged on the same surface of the substrate (not my solution, so I'm not 100% convinced of this yet)
Neither restricts you to any of the embodiments. Both provide the effect of reduced bulkiness since the voltage can be applied using the triboelectric effect of a layer that is less bulky than the batteries would be.
The mere omission of a battery does not confer inventive step. How do you then provide this energy? This must be specified. If you did (using the triboelectric layer), then there was already no need to disclaim the battery, since the battery could have been simply left out of the claim already.
I disagree. You don't need a disclaimer to provide inventive step in view of D2, because D2 does not teach how to use a triboelectric layer or triboelectric effect to apply an electric field to a skin. Neither does it disclose how an electric field can be used to heal wounds or smooth wrinkles, or electric fields' possible effects on skin. The electric field generated in D2 is used for a completely different purpose, and is shielded by the rubber anyway, so it's not applied to the skin at all. If a person skilled in the art were to combine D1 and D2, they would not be able to reach the invention, provided that the claim is properly drafted, even without the disclaimer. Because none of the documents suggest using triboelectric effect to apply an electric field to skin, and it's not clear from these documents whether the electric field generated by triboelectric effect would be significant on its own in terms of its possible effects on skin. The invention proposes a new and inventive solution by means of the newly found effect of the triboelectric layer in combination with the other essential features, producing an unexpected technical effect which is not hinted at in the other documents. The specific combination renders a battery unnecessary, and this is why the invention works. The fact that it doesn't have a battery is merely the result of not requiring a battery for the electric field generation, but one could still use a battery for other purposes within the device. I don't think people who disclaimed it will lose marks, but in any case, it shouldn't be required to include a disclaimer.
DeleteIt is expressed as a result to be achieved and thus not allowable for lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC and F-IV 4.10 as Armin said), but I believe that although marks will be deduced, you will still get some marks for that claim if otherwise it establishes novelty over D1/D2.
ReplyDeleteThis is my claim 1:
ReplyDelete1. A wearable device (14, 16, 17) for applying an electric field to the skin comprising:
- a flexible and electrically insulating substrate (1) having an inner face and an outer face;
- a first (2a) sheet of electrically conductive material attached to at least part of the inner and/or outer face of the substrate (1);
- a second (2b) sheet of electrically conductive material attached to at least part of the outer face of the substrate (1) ;
- a layer of triboelectric material (15) attached to at least part of the second sheet (2b);
- a first (4a) and a second (4b) electrode attached to the inner face of the substrate and forming a gap (8); the first (4a) and second (4b) electrode being
electrically connected respectively to the first (2a) and second (2b) sheet and arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin when the device is worn
on the skin;
wherein at least part of the first sheet (2a) is able to adhere to and separate from the layer of triboelectric material (15) upon deformation of the
substrate (1).
Novelty over D1 by incorporation of the triboelectric material, novelty over D2 by specifying "for applying an electric field to the skin" and by specifying that electrodes are arrange to apply an electric field to the skin.
I also have a method of cosmetic treatment using the wearable device, and a dependent claim to the device for use in the treatment of wounds.
Failed this paper horribly last year, I really hope I passed this year.
Looks quite good to me Charlie, well done!
DeleteI used more functional feature in the end, since I am always afraid to be too broad (may be I limited too much):
"when a movement of a body wearing the device deforms the substrate (1), the second part (3a) of the first metal sheet (2a) adheres to and separates from the layer (15) and generates a voltage between the first and second metal sheets (2a, 2b) and between the first and second electrically conductive sheet (4a, 4b) , thereby generating an electric field (E) in the gap (8)."
To me it looks brilliant. I am willing to bet you have passed this year.
DeleteThanks Trainee! Your claim also looks good, I agree it's good to include this type of functional language as it doesn't limit the claim but provides further clarity.
DeleteI also failed horribly last year, am not too far from that, and hope I will pass this time!
DeleteDidn't the letter state that the triboelectric layer could be attached basically anywhere as long as it is able to adhere to and separate from the layer of triboelectric material upon deformation of the substrate?
DeleteFor this reason, I've drafted "the device (14, 16, 17) further comprises a triboelectric layer (15) made of a material with triboelectric properties, wherein the triboelectric layer (15) is attached to a part of the first sheet (2a) or the second sheet (2b) such that the sheet that does not have the triboelectric layer (15) attached thereto is able to adhere to and separate from the triboelectric layer (15) upon deformation of the substrate (1) in order to generate an electric field (E).".
how much marks deduction if product claim 1 is limited with the shape of plaster?
DeleteIt does not cover the last embodiment depicted per figure 4 and is a major limitation.
DeleteShould be a significant penalty, unless you drafted another independent product claim for the last embodiment.
DeleteAt anonymous 5.45 pm, I think you could loose about 15 marks as you exclude an entire embodiment. But you can still pass the paper, it's indeed a significant penalty but it's not as bad as ending up with a non-novel claim (happened to me last year and I ended up getting only 22 marks for the whole paper).
DeleteI am highly suspicious that this claim covers the embodiment presented in Fig 3.
DeleteSimilar but I added a functional language about elwctrodes configured to provide voltage between electrodes to be sure
DeleteFound it very tricky with a biotech background.
ReplyDeleteMy main independent claim was directed to a device (single claim covering all 3 embodiments). But it seemed that the "use" aspect was quite important to the client so I also included method (cosmetic) and medical use claims.
Importantly, the medical use claim needs a substance/composition so my medical use claim was:
"an anti-bacterial agent for use in a method of treating a skin wound in a subject, the method comprising (i) administering the anti-bacterial agent to the subject; and (ii) applying the device according to any preceding claim to the skin wound".
Not sure if anyone else went the same route...
I didn't pick up any method clues.
DeleteUses I did, just a claim to use of device for wound hhing and use of device for smoothing wrinkle.
I see a lot of comments overcoming D2 by relying on the functional feature that the electrodes are arranged so as to apply an electric field to the skin when the device is worn on skin. What do we think about overcoming D2 instead structurally by having the two electrodes attached to the same bottom surface of the substrate and configured to form a gap, wherein the bottom surface is defined as the surface of the substrate closest to the skin when worn on the skin?
ReplyDeleteI think that is definitely novel over D2 as the two electrodes plus gap are on the same bottom surface. I just wonder whether that would be considered as successfully limiting to embodiments where the electric field is applied to the skin (ie is technical effect achieved over entire claim scope). I believe the client’s letter mentioned that such a configuration of the electrodes would “therefore” mean that the electrodes were arranged such that an electric field is applied to the skin, so I didn’t feel the need to include that functional language.
I have limited structurally more or less as you said. I think it is safer to rely on different structural features...
DeleteThis was my thinking (see my comment in a previous thread above).
DeleteHowever, I just stated that the two electrodes were on the same face of the substrate instead of "bottom" surface because the first and second embodiments used the term "bottom" whilst the third embodiment used the term "inner".
I also claimed the functional feature (e.g. structure of electrodes so as to provide function of applying electric field to the skin). My reasoning for including both the structure and function was that I'd rather risk losing a few marks for an unnecessary limitation but ensure that the claim was clearly novel over D2.
It wasn't super clear if it was the two electrodes being on the same face of the substrate was the structure that gave rise to this function but I concluded that, on balance, it was because of the "therefore" language in the client letter.
In my view the effect of electric field applied to the skin is achieved by the electrodes being arranged in such a way that they separated by a gap, but not necessarily that the electrodes are arranged on the same bottom surface. You could have for instance a super large gap with electrodes that are a bit off to the edges of the stack, and still apply your field (actually yes or no, we are not really told but probably yes). I would say you are novel but likely limiting in view of the problem to be solved. After all, the problem in D2 is more that the device is encapsulated anyway, so even if there were two electrodes on one bottom edge separated by a gap, would still not work?
DeleteI believe both the functional approach and the structural approach render the claim novel.
DeleteAs for inventive step:
If you put in the functional feature of applying an electric field on the skin when the device is worn on the skin, you clearly still achieve the effect (healing wounds/treating wrinkles) over the whole scope of the claim.
If you claim electrodes on the same side forming a gap, you could still argue implicitly that you would point the electrodes at the skin (and not away from it) when wearing the device, but the intent is in my opinion less clear.
In my solution, I specified both the gap and the functional feature, but not same-side electrodes. I think this was the intended solution, but I admit it is not with 100% certainty. It doesn't seem unlikely that both are fine.
Interesting, thanks both. On reflection I think adding both features was definitely the “safest” option!
Delete@ Anon of 6:11 - I don't think the electrodes being arranged in such a way that they are separated by a gap is a sufficient structural limitation to generate the effect of applying electric field to the skin in and of itself because the metallic sheets in D2 are arranged so that they have a gap (which shares the same ref num as the client letter).
DeleteAlthough I think claiming something along the lines of "the electrodes being arranged so as to apply the electric field to the skin" would be okay as a functional limitation.
@Armin - I did that too initially and only added the "same face" bit near the end of the exam. I think your approach is equally valid tbh.
@func v struct - I think your approach is fine too because you defined "bottom" relative to the skin when worn, which, in my view, is equivalent to claiming the "same face" alongside the functional limitation.
I think we need to state electrodes are bottom face of substrate otherwise your electrodes in c1 will be unclear as there is no positioning of the electrodes. I then add the functional bit as above ab generating electric field.
DeleteAll embodiments point to electrodes on bottom surface. Can bottom also be seen as inner?
@Anonymous March 09, 2023 6:46 pm
Delete"bottom" becomes "top" when I flip the device upside down ;-)
It is a relative term, i.e., it is meaningless/unclear to state 'bottom' without having also 'top' somewhere in the claim or if it is sufficiently implicit (the bottom of a car is not likely to be the roof...)
That's why I opted for the functional feature - it is then made clear that when the device is worn the E-field is applied to the skin. The skilled person can probably figure the rest out.
Any idea what time the provisional answers will be out?
ReplyDeleteWhen is Herr Woudenberg showing up?
ReplyDeleteHaha, yes, please, I'm still not sure if a claim for a first medical use is allowed or not.
DeleteHere is my claim 1:
ReplyDelete1. A skin wearable device (14, 16, 17), comprising
a flexible and electrically insulating substrate (1),
a first electrically conductive sheet (2a) attached to the substrate (1),
a second electrically conductive sheet (2b),
wherein the second electrically conductive sheet (2b) is attached to the substrate (1) such that the second electrically conductive sheet (2b) is separated
from the first electrically conductive sheet (2a) with a gap (8) forming first and second electrodes (4a, 4b), and
a triboelectric layer (15) being releasably attached to at least the first electrically conductive sheet (2a),
wherein the triboelecric layer (15) is configured to exhibit a triboelectric effect when there is a mechanical action between the first electrically conductive
sheet (2a) and the triboelectric layer (15) and generate an electric potential betwen the first and second electrodes (4a, 4b), and
wherein the skin wearable device (14, 16, 17) does not have a battery.
Don't think you actually needed a battery disclaimer
Delete1. A device wearable on the skin comprising: + a felxible and electrically insulating substrate (1), + first (2a) and second (2b) electrically conductive sheets
ReplyDeleteattached to at least one face of the substrate (1) and seperated by at least one gap (8), + a triboelectric layer (15) attached to the second electrically
conductive sheet (2b), and arranged so that the first copper sheet (2a) is able to adhere to and seperate from the triboelectric layer (15) upon
deformation of the substrate so as to apply an electric field (E) to the skin when the device is worn on the skin.
I didn't include electrodes (4A,4B) to the 1st independent claim. Any comments?
How is the electric field applied without the electrodes? I'm afraid I don't think the "at least one gap" suffices because this gap could be the gap between the triboelectric layer and the first copper sheet.
DeleteTo me it's clear that the sheets are separated by the gap.
DeleteThe electrodes are nothing else than "conductive sheets"- therefore that suffices.
I first thought it's probably necessary to define, that the gap is on the side of the substrate towards the skin because the substrate is an insulator but I think it's clear as it's written. I like your claim.
The "copper sheet" will lead to a clarity issue though.
Copper sheet won't lead to a clarity issue, but it appears to be a major limitation and will lose a lot of marks.
DeleteA claim in the form "Use of substance or composition [or device] X for the treatment of disease [or wound] Y..." will be regarded as relating to a method for treatment explicitly excluded from patentability under Art. 53(c) and therefore will not be accepted. GL G-VI, 7.1
ReplyDeleteIs a wound a disease? I SAY NO.
ReplyDeleteFrom GL 4.2.1.2 "Therapy":
DeleteTherapy implies the curing of a disease or malfunction of the body and covers prophylactic treatment, e.g. immunisation against a certain disease (see T 19/86) or the removal of plaque (see T 290/86).
Prophylactic treatment means "treatment intended to prevent diseases". I would certainly qualify a method of a healing a wound as prophylactic treatment.
Plaque is not a 'disease' but a method of its removal under T 290/86 is still considered a treatment within the meaning of art. 53(c) EPC.
From T 58/87, therapy "covers any non-surgical treatment which is designed to cure, alleviate, remove or lessen the symptom of, or prevent or reduce the possibility of contracting any malfunction of the animal [or human] body"
DeleteArmin and TWH are right. The purpose of the exclusion under Art. 53(c) is to allow doctors to freely perform the procedures they need to without fear of infringing on patents. If we could claim the use of devices for treating wounds, then doctors would not be able to use them.
DeleteWell still...would I get penalized for having drafted such a claim?! How does the marking work?!
Delete@Anonymous March 09, 2023 6:44 pm
DeleteFor now, this remains a mystery to me. There should be no 'negative' marking, so I do not know why they included this.
The medical use claim will just be marked as zero marks. So you then only have 14 claims and the description remaining with which to make up the marks you need.
DeletePlease cite the basis for your "negative marking" assertion, sire!
DeleteIf I claim that stupid patch for the use in a therapeutic method I still claim the patch and not the method.
DeleteI've only seen punishment for two independent product claims, where only the worse claim got marked. For use claims there's no limitation as far as I know.
Delete@Anonymous 6:58, Where did you see that? Was there a unity problem or something?
DeleteSomeone please find and cite a case law which OVERRIDES GL 4.2.1.2 and T 58/87!
ReplyDeleteThis made me laugh out loud! Well done :')
DeleteI believe you need electrodes in claim 1, otherwise the electric field generation doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteYou also need to state the elements are electrically connected to electrodes as this is described as essential
This was a very difficult paper
ReplyDelete@ Anon 6:47 - I 100% agree!
DeleteA device (14, 16, 17) wearable on the skin comprising:
ReplyDeletea first means comprising a first electrically conductive sheet (2a) and a second means comprising a second electrically conductive sheet (2b), said first means and said second means being separated by a gap (8) and forming a pair of electrically conductive electrodes (4a, 4b), a flexible and electrically insulating substrate (1), which prevents a short circuit between the pair of electrodes (4a, 4b), the first electrical sheet (2a) and the second electrical sheet (2b) being fixed to the substrate (1), a triboelectric layer (15) having triboelectric properties being fixed to the second sheet (2b) in such a way that the first sheet (2a) overlaps the triboelectric layer (15), and that the first sheet (2a) can adhere to the triboelectric layer (15) and separate from the triboelectric layer (15) when the substrate (1) is deformed, wherein when the first sheet (2a) separates from the triboelectric layer (15), the first sheet(2a) is electrically charged by the triboelectric effect and thus a voltage is applied between the pair of electrodes (4a, 4b) so that an electric field (E) is generated in the gap (8), wherein, when the device (14) is worn on the skin, the pair of electrodes (4a, 4b) is arranged in such a way that the pair of electrodes (4a, 4b) applies the electric field (E) to the skin.
Am I missing the electrical connection between the sheet and the electrodes or is it implicitly disclosed by the transfer of the electrical charge in the sheet and the voltage in the electrodes?
The marking question is a tricky one. I wondered after the exam if they were maybe looking for a note to the client - "You wanted us to claim use of the device in treating a wound but we can't because..."? You should get marks somehow for deciding not to claim use of the device in a medical treatment because it's excluded (if indeed that is the right decision).
ReplyDeleteRegarding Paper A 2019, independent claim device covering all embodiments 40-45 marks, dependent claims 25 marks (or more), description 15 marks, and Use claim 10 marks (or 15). Claim of stamper machine last year was on 28 marks while it was easy to draft it. Any suggestion of mark balance ?
ReplyDeleteI mean, based on marking of Paper A 2019
DeleteHow does it work if you drafted two independent product claims when you were supposed to draft one? Do you get marks for both, depending on the scope of protection?
DeleteYou will probably be penalised quite heavily because two independent claims does not fall within the remit of Rule 43(2)(c) because it was possible to cover all embodiments with one claim. I expect they will mark only one of the claims and deduct points for unnecessary limitation.
DeleteWell, I've described them as alternative solutions to a particular problem in the description, because the way I drafted the claims made it inappropriate to cover everything with a single claim. I remember some A papers where multiple independent product claims were accepted as long as they cover the invention properly, hopefully this will be one of them.
Deletea device for use in healing wounds. is this allowable? I think it is not a medical treatment claim but all the discussion above, I'm confused
ReplyDelete@XYZ - That's fine because you're claiming the device, not its use. The "for use in healing wounds" merely means that the device is limited to a device that is "suitable for" such a use, but the device can still be used for other things.
DeleteThis is okay - it's a product claim where the product is suitable for use in healing wounds.
DeleteWhat is not allowed is a method claim which specifies "a method of using the device to heal wounds" or "use of a device to heal wounds".
I had a similar claim:
Delete14. The wearable device according to any of the preceding claims for use in the treatment of skin wounds
15. Method of cosmetic treatment for smoothing wrinkles, the method comprising wearing the wearable device according to any of the preceding claim on intact wrinkled skin.
Claim 15 is inspired by the botox paper (chemistry 2013 or 2015), claim 14 is an allowed formulation for first medical use (G-VI 7.1)
I still think use of device for wound healing is ok. Its the same thing
DeleteIt's not - "use of a device for..." is a method claim, "a device for use in..." is a product claim
DeleteOh crap
DeleteI never drafted use claims ever as not bio/chem field. I take it I've lost all marks for use claims. Sincerely hope they are not worth much
If you got the device claim in there somewhere then I'm sure you'll be fine. I think that's where most of the marks will be. The way I remember use claims is that "use of X" = "a method of using X".
DeleteIf you got the device claim in there somewhere then I'm sure you'll be fine as I think that's where most of the marks will be. The way I remember it is that "use of X" is the same as "a method of using X".
DeleteAre we sure wound healing is therapy, medical treatment. I did not see this in the text.
ReplyDelete