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:
Well done. My claim was quite similar. Let‘s hope the best.
ReplyDeleteSee the comments in reply to Anonymous, March 09, 2023 6:27 pm
ReplyDeleteUse claim was clearly a trick for non bio/chem Attorneys. I also fell into this trap of use of device for wound healing. I've never done in my life and will never write such claims ever so feel a bit cheated. It will probably be a high dependent claim mark by the looks of feedback above.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing it will be a high marking dependent claim too as it relies on device. Hopefully the device claims are sufficient to pass
DeleteBig trick for non bio/chem candidates. Particularly unfair as the committee know full well mechanical candidates have not done such a thing.
DeleteI'm right that no marks are lost for functional language - lack of clarity?
ReplyDeleteE.g. substrate adheres and separates when substrate deforms such that a voltage is applied across the sheets.
I'm sad I didn't get the use claims right
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this
Ha. I also wrote that the sheets are attached to at least on side of the substrate. Thought a lot of that. But it might be correct for all embodiments.
ReplyDeleteIs wound healing therapy. It didn't actually explicitly say this in the letter
ReplyDeletewound healing is definitely therapy - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_b_4_4_1_b.htm
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity that the client's letter is not printable.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have any idea when the delta patents solution for paper A might be released?
ReplyDeleteMaybe no-one has sent them the paper?
Deletei think, the electrodes are essential to create an electric field on the skin, and are also the distinguishing feature compared to D2
ReplyDeletehow much marks deduction if product claim 1 is limited with the shape of plaster and another independent claim is limited with the shape of bandage? Unfortunately, I only have these two independent claims.
ReplyDelete@Anson, I drafted two independent product claims, one for the first two embodiment, and another one for the third, and a dependent claim for the exclusive features of the second embodiment. I thought that the adhesive layer is an essential feature for the first two, because the letter implied so as it was not described as an optional feature, it was the only thing that made the device "wearable on the skin" and no alternative was given for it. Also, the sentence about the third embodiment that states that the adhesive is not needed therefor made me assume that it must be an essential feature for the first two. There were some other structural differences as well. Hopefully you're right and they won't penalize by only marking the worse independent claim.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is
ReplyDeleteUse of wound healing. It's a dependent claim at the end of the day so probably lose only 3 marks. It shouldn't be any more than this.
ReplyDeleteMost marks will be on the 1 independent device claim.
I think so, can't see marks justifying more than this
DeleteI thought about the limitation of the triboelectric material for a long time and in the end I decided to go for the limitation because in the German and English version it seemed like those are the only known suitable materials. I was wondering if some of those materials could be toxic for the body. It did nowhere state that any material with a triboelectric effect could be used.
ReplyDeleteDamn, noone has a clue of the balance mark:)
ReplyDeleteI can see the independent device is worth 42 to 50 marks, probably 46 marks. I'm more worried about dependent claims. There were so many and not.sure what makes them good or not.
DeleteIf you have basis in the description, do you still collate marks as they could be drawn out from spec at any time.
the feature "wherein the triboelecric layer (15) is configured to exhibit a triboelectric effect" is an intrinsic property of the triboelectric layer, I think it does not need to be mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what i did. I claimed the gap 8 between the electrodes to specify where the electric field is and then also "attached to a first face of the substrate which is towards the skin (when the device is worn)". Mainly because was quite unsure if the functional "able to apply an electric field to the skin" is distinguishing enough. Although the device in D2 is electrically shielded by the rubber pad, i thought theoretically you can say it's obvious to omit the rubber pad (omitting features from a known structure is normally not inventive) and then the whole structure is just in the scope of the claim. But I agree now, I doubt the drafters thought that far. Anyway I left it in there as it does not contradict the embodiments. Also had further thoughts...in the beginning of the letter the client says something along the lines "with the triboelectric effect we could surprisingly generate an electric field strong enough to heal wounds"...so as an electrical engineer it was immediately obvious to me if the electrodes are on opposite sides the electric field would be mainly through the substrate, so the strength towards the skin would be (much) lower and maybe the device won't function as desired. Well probably way too far and deep thinking, but better safe.
ReplyDeleteHi Armin, I agree, those 3 materials were in a dependent claim 😊.
ReplyDeleteI think you did well on point 4. Your paper will most likely be the Candidates answer haha.
Good luck next week!
D2 indeed relates to a sensor. It does however disclose the triboelectric effect because of the combination of the tribolectric layer (Kapton) and the aluminum sheets through which the voltage is generated when the layers come in contact during the muscle movement and detach. This takes the triboelectic effect away. But D1 discloses the usage of the electrical energy to heal wounds and the device disclosed therein is on the skin surface. Thus, without your claim language in hand, it is hard to say whether your claim is inventive or not in view of D
ReplyDeleteI had:
ReplyDelete1. A device (14, 16, 17) wearable on the skin (11), comprising:
a flexible and electrically insulating substrate (1),
a first sheet (2a) and a second sheet (2b) made of an electrically conductive material and attached to the substrate (1),
a triboelectric material layer (15) attached to the second sheet (2b),
a first electrode (4a) and a second electrode (4b) made of an electrically conductive material and attached to the substrate (1),
wherein a part of the first sheet (2a) is arranged to adhere to and separate from the triboelectric material layer (15) upon deformation of the substrate
(1),
wherein the first electrode (4a) is electrically connected to the first sheet (2a) and the second electrode (4b) is electrically connected to the second sheet
(2b),
wherein the first electrode (4a) and the second electrode (4b) are arranged so as to apply an electric field (E) to the skin (11) when the device is worn on
the skin (11).
Do you really need to state the electrode is electrically made of conductive material. I don't think it is required as its clear and inherent that electrodes are conductive.
DeleteI also got the overlay bit too as all embodiments show this but don't think it changes much
DeleteHad something similar but I also specified that the electrodes are attached to bottom or inner face of the substrate. This was included in all embodiments so thought it is safer to specify the position of the electrodes relative to the substrate. It also help me when I drafted the description as this arrangement of electrodes allows the E to apply to skin.
DeleteI also had the overlay part in the claim too as this was mentioned in all embodiments and see no reason why it shouldn't be excluded/generalised further.
I wrote "wherein the first electrode (4a) and the second electrode (4b) are each electrically connected to the first sheet (2a) and the second sheet (2b)" Dumb inattention which will sure cost points for unclearness.
DeleteBut besides my claim looks very similar.
Why would that be in the text? Shouldn't the candidate have to think about that themself?
ReplyDeleteDependent claims are always tricky. I never get more than 50%.
ReplyDeleteNeither of the documents teach that triboelectric effect can be used to apply an electric field to skin for a specific purpose, which is the basis of our solution to the technical problem. The features themselves are not new, but the combination and the arrangement thereof are indeed novel and inventive, because it produces a surprising technical effect. There is nothing in D1 or D2 that would incite a skilled person to use triboelectric effect to apply an electric field to a skin.
ReplyDelete@eqe enjoyer I agree and D2 especially teaches away from that since they propose an EM shield to keep the E-field away from the body.
ReplyDeleteWould attaching triboelectric layer to bottom face and the conductive sheets to top face cover all 3 embodiments.
ReplyDeleteEmbodiment 3 says inner and outer but it can still be seen to have a top and a bottom face and doesn't exclude embodiment 3. Maybe a lack of clarity
Top and bottom, inner and outer. I think these would cover all 3 embodiments actually.
ReplyDeleteWon't matter if you use top and bottom as all 3 embodiments are still covered. Even though 3rd embodiment mentions inner and outer, it still has a top and a bottom face so should be fine.
DeleteI agree - you can have a top and bottom layer even if the device is circular, so would cover all 3 embodiments. Its a minor clarity issue though
DeleteI regarded "Top and bottom, inner and outer" as unclear and wrote: "at at least one side one of the substrate". But I wasn't that sure.
DeleteBut top face is already in D1 granted claim, so would seem u just to penalise candidates when "granted" D1 claim has this language already.
DeleteI think that "the electrodes are arranged to be in contact or proximity with the skin" is what the Examination Committee wants us to include. Both D1 and D2 use a similar wording. And I also noticed a strange wording in last paragraph of the client letter that the attached figures form a part of the application to be filed, which I have never seen in past papers.
ReplyDeleteArmin, you may be right. But what is actually the risk to write a medical use claim here anyway? In worst case you just get no points for that claim and do not get one point for a dependend claim which you could not make because of 15 claims?
ReplyDeleteBut if for some reason it is allowed you‘ll earn about 10 points. So I decided to do the latter (in the last minutes…). Let‘s wait an see.
By not excluding the battery, even after explicitly mentioning in the letter that the presence of the battery would mean multiple technical problems, you’re going against the client’s wishes.
ReplyDeleteHere's an additional point. By not excluding the battery, even after explicit warning from the client on facing multiple technical problems, you are working against the client's wishes.
ReplyDeleteI too think electrodes are essential. It covers all 3 embod and i dont see how it could work without it.
ReplyDeleteUse claim is a massive trap. I didn't see why they would put this in. I hope you will lose marks for not having the right dependent claim so minus dependent claim marks (3-4 marks). Otherwise, it seems silly to fail candidates especially from non life science backgrounds bases on wrong medical use. I never draft one in real life.
ReplyDeleteAs a chemist/life sciences background this paper was very very difficult. I do not think it was a fair paper and was fit to test candidates of all backgrounds. It was too mechanical and complicated. At least compared to the previous mixed past paper years of 2017 onwards that we had to use for revision. I do not understand how the Exam Committee thought that this was a paper accessible to every technical background. It clearly was not. I do not expect to pass this which is really disappointing.
ReplyDeletePerhaps more friendly to Electrical Engineering background?
DeleteExtremely hard paper this year and I'm not bio/chem.
DeletePaper A was heavily EM. This is not fair for candidates having a background in the field of chemistry or life sciences. EQE is really becoming every year more and more an exam for EM candidates. This is not fair and very frustrating.
ReplyDeleteWhat is EM?
Deleteit seems fair, I expect that claim 1 could be even more that 40 (in my dream :) ). But are you sure that the exam is scored positively, I read recently that A is scored negatively, but maybe I m wrong
ReplyDeleteI formulated the characterizing portion over D2 as follows (German):
ReplyDelete"dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass die Elektroden so angeordnet sind, dass sie, in dem Spalt, ein elektrisches Feld auf der Haut anlegen, wenn die Vorrichtung auf der Haut getragen wird".
Now I am wondering whether the addition "in dem Spalt" (EN: arranged to, IN THE GAP, apply an electrical field to the skin...) might lead to deduction of marks.
In my view, it's (at most) a minor clarity issue (is the field ONLY in the gap? how far does the gap extend?), which shouldn't lead to more than about 3-5 marks being deduced (I introduced the "Spalt"/"gap" further above when introducing the electrodes ...).
What do you think?
@DeltaPatent. Any news on when we may expect your take on the paper :)
ReplyDeleteI fell into this trap to by saying use of device for wound healing. No idea about medical use claims. Seems quite unfair to throw this in especially if its meant to be for all disciplines.
ReplyDeletehope so, it seems silly if use claims are worth a substantial amount of marks if it is already a dependent claims of the product.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty much exactly my claim 1 as well. I didn't want to a put in 'no battery' but wasn't sure if there was novelty without it. I wasn't sure if the rubber shields electrical fields or just the components from direct contact (wasn't clear imo). Also, (and I know this may sound stupid) I wasn't sure if the radio-wave emitted from the microchip counts as an electronic field such is suitable for applying to the skin.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of not being novel, I put the disclaimer on the basis if its an uneccaray limitation, I wouldn't be penalised as many marks.
Here is my claim 1: I tried to use "short circuit" to be able not to specify where on the substrate the two sheets were located:
ReplyDeleteclaim 1
A device wearable on the skin, comprising:
-substrate(1) made of flexible and electrically insulating material
-a first sheet (2a) and a second sheet (2b) made of electrically conductive material both attached to the substrate (1) in a way to avoid a short circuit between the first and second sheets (2a), (2b),
-the substrate (1) comprises two layers (4a), (4b) made of electrically conductive material, acting as first and second electrodes and forming a gap (8),
-the first electrode (4a) and the second electrode (4b) are electrically connected respectively to the first sheet (2a) and the second sheet (2b), and arranged so as to apply a electric field (E) to the skin,
wherein
-a layer (15) having triboelectric properties is attached to the second sheet (2b), enabling the first sheet (2a) to overlays the layer (15) and to adhere to and separate from said layer (15) when the substrate (1) is deformed.
I did something similar. I recited:
Delete"a flexible and electrically insulating substrate (1) which prevents a short circuit forming between the first electrically conductive sheet (2a) and the
second electrically conductive sheet (2b)"
To me, the electrodes has to be arranged at bottom of the substrate otherwise, it cannot apply electric field to the skin. Plus, all embodiments have this arrangement so for the arrangement to work, the electrodes needed to be at bottom or inner part of the substrate.
ReplyDeleteI was not sure how to defined the bottom so tried to overcome it by stating that the electroed has to be "arranged so as to apply a electric field (E) to the skin,"
DeleteI agree, I can't see how the electric field can be applied to the skin between the gaps if one electrode is on the top/outer face and the second electrode is on the bottom/inner face. Functional language that state the electrodes are arranged so that E is applied to skin is equally the same as specifying that the electrodes are attached at the bottom so shouldn't be penalized because it is this arrangement that allows E to be applied to the skin.
DeleteI stated that it needed to be attached at the bottom or inner face because that is all that is described in the embodiments. I also agree that it is only this specific arrangement that allows E to be applied to the skin. Other arrangements are not possible or at least, not described as a way to provide E to the skin. D2 teaches away from having electrodes at top and bottom as it does not provide E to be applied to skin. So I think stating the arrangement that the electrodes are attached to inner or outer surface is essential.
DeleteI don't believe there will be penalisation for stating electrodes are provided at bottom or inner surface. It would seem extremely harsh given that this is described in all working embodiments - and allow it to achieve its desired function.
Deletealso think you need the overlay too. Again, it is shown in all embodiments so shouldn't be excluded.
ReplyDeleteI can't see that specifying electrodes on bottom or inner face is an unnecessary limitation. I think it is required as all embodiments have this.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this might be a clarity issue with the words top/outer/bottom/inner but should all be under one clarity issue.
?? What do you mean ??
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean?
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner's Report usually becomes available in summer (2022: 6 July; 2021: 19 June) at about the same time as your results.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we do not have a copy of the client's letter, so we could not yet draft our own solution.
James of March 10, 2023, 10:49 am: exactly my point as well. If the triboelectric effect is already known from D2 and the electric energy for skin wound treatment is derivable from D1, then the solution is only clearer when you take the battery out of the picture. I did that to be out of caution. I don't know how that will be seen by the examining committee. Fingers crossed.
ReplyDeleteArt 53(c) explicitly allows devices for use in medical methods - but you must claim the device a a product claim, and not make it into a method/use claim.
ReplyDeleteThus the claim format that was used in D1 is allowable:
"A device wearable on the skin, ..." or " A device for accelerating the healing of the wound, ...".
But "Use of a device for wound healing" and "a method of using the device for wound healing" are excluded.
If the client's letter also disclosed cosmetic uses, a claim "Use of a device for cosmetic treatment" is allowable, provided that the cosmetic treatment and therapeutic treatment fan clearly be distinguished (requirements a bit over-sinmplified).
GL G-II, 4.2.1.2 defines therapy: "4.2.1.2
Therapy 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). It is concerned with bringing the body from a pathological state back into its normal, healthy state or preventing a pathological state."
So wound healing is treatment by therapy.
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_4_2_1_2.htm
@Roel
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying the situation! As you can see, there was a lot of discussion on this point :-)
Do you expect the soft-limiting feature "... for accelerating the healing of the wound" in the independent device claim, or a dependent one, to be required? If so, how many marks would you guess it attracts?
I decided not to do it, because I was already at 15 claims and didn't see the point in adding it to the independent claim already. The remaining features of the claim don't really depend on this suitability at all - in fact, I would think it is exactly those features that make it suitable for the purposes of the client.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on this point. It's still unclear to me what the purpose is of including this art. 53(c) EPC trick when there should be no 'negative' marking.
@Stef
ReplyDeleteRoel clarified the situation far down in this comment section. Indeed, a method or use claim are not allowed under art. 53(c) EPC. A device [suitable] for this therapeutic purpose is okay.
I am still not sure what the consequences are of including it, other than having one less claim to score points on like you said. Hoping the tutors can clarify!
a first (4a) and a second (4b) electrode attached to the inner face of the substrate and forming a gap (8), is it essential or an unnecessary limitation ?
ReplyDelete> Do you expect the soft-limiting feature "... for accelerating the healing of the wound" in the independent device claim, or a dependent one, to be required?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on what the client's letter said exactly.
But... I just included the "for" to clarify that the medical use may be mentioned in the claim as a suitable-for-like phrase. But as with any other product claim, if the product is well defined by all structural and functional features of the claim, you do not need to have the effect of it in the claim -- the effect will need to be in the description for inventive step. (When claiming a mobile phone with improved antenna, it is also not needed to claim "a mobile phone for allowing a person to communicate over a wireless channel with another person")
i would say essential as its this arrangement that allows E to be applied to skin.
ReplyDeleteThis was my effort (jw)
ReplyDelete1. A device (18) wearable on the skin, the device comprising:
a flexible and electrically insulating substrate (1);
a first (2a) and a second (2b) sheet of electrically conducting material attached to the substrate (1);
a layer of triboelectric material (15) selected from polytetrafluoroethylene, poly (4,4'-oxydiphenylene-pyromellitimide) or polydimethylsiloxane, which is
attached to a portion of the second sheet of electrically conducting material;
the first sheet of electrically conducting material (2a) comprising a corresponding portion (3a) which is not fixed to the substrate (1) and overlaying the
layer of triboelectric material, wherein the portion of the first sheet (3a) is configured to adhere to and separate from the the layer of triboelectric
material when the substrate is deformed, thereby creating a voltage between the first and second sheets of electrically conducting material; further
wherein
the first sheet of electrically conducting material (2a) further comprises a first electrode (4a) and the second sheet of electrically conducting material (2b)
further comprises a second electrode (4b), wherein the first and second electrodes are seperated by a gap (8) and arranged so as to apply an electric
field (E) to the skin when the device is worn on the skin.
I chose to specify the tribo material as the client mentioned that these were instances that were appropriate for the device and didn't indicate any others could be. Plus, triboelectric material/material having a triboelectic effect seems slightly unclear to me.
I think you may have limited your claim to the second embodiment only by saying that the electrodes are comprised on the sheets. What about the embodiments where the sheets and the electrodes are connected by wires?
DeleteI'm don't believe so - the term "comprising" in essence means "includes", but I'd say it is interpreted broadly as opposed to restrictively. By way of example, a claim of "a door comprising a handle" would almost certainly cover an embodiment of "a door with a handle connected thereto by nails". I think the same can be said that a claim to "a sheet of conductive material comprising an electrode" covers an embodiment of "a sheet of conductive material with an electrode connected thereto by wires". I'd say the latter in each case is narrower and covered by the claim.
DeleteWhat do you think about a portion which is not fixed to the substrate? I thought it was a requirement when drafting but could it be seen as an unnecessary limitation.
DeleteMaybe an unnecessary limitation as it covers the first 2 but not necessarily required for the 3rd one? It can still cover the 3rd embodiment as there is nowhere in the description that says the 3a must be completely attached to substrate when it comes to the circular embodiment.
DeleteThe 3a not fixed to 2a feature would work for all 3 embods of them as none of them exclude this. The first 2 definitely has it. Not sure about the 3rd embod ut then it didn't say 3a must be fixed to 2a for 3rd embod to work (or to that effect) so by limiting to 3a not fixed on 2a, it can still applied to all embodiments. I suspect you are right that it might be seen as an unnecessary limitation as it might not be required for the 3rd embod.
DeleteI see your point. 3a not fixed to 2a works for all 3 embodiments but not necessarily required for the last one.
DeleteIn the 3rd embod it would still work with end of sheet not fixed to substrate so should be fine. There is no text in the spec that says end of sheet 3a cannot be separated from substrate so this imply that this is applicable to all embodiments.
DeleteI think the no adhesive and no wire are clear clues they if you include this in claim 1, it will exclude embodiments.
Is it really necessary to include " when the device is worn on the skin"? Shouldn´t it be enough to define "apply an electric field on the skin?
DeleteThere is not antecedent basis for just saying apply an electric field on the skin. In the preamble, it is just said it is "wearable" on the skin, the presence of skin hasn't been introduced into the claim so I think you should add the when worn part
DeleteThe question is if omitting that passage still leads to a claim that is novel and inventive over D2. The wording "arranged so as to apply an electric field (E) to the skin" is similar to the "configured to" wording and D2 should not be suitable to do that.
DeleteThe electrodes and sheets are never discrete - the sheets must always have or be joined to an electrode - I don't believe saying the sheet further comprises an electrode limits to instances where the electrodes and sheet are the same material or where they are joined by a wire, I think that would require further specification... my dependencies were the following...
ReplyDelete2. The device of claim 1, wherein the first and second sheet of electrically conductive material are comprised of a metal, optionally wherein the metal is
copper, zinc or aluminium.
3. The device of claim 1 or 2, wherein the first and second electrodes (4a, 4b) are made of the same electrically conductive material as the first and
second sheets (2a, 2b), optionally wherein the electrodes (4a, 4b) are formed by the ends of the sheets of the electrically conducting material (2a, 2b) at
the gap (8).
4. The device of claim 1 or 2, wherein the first and second electrodes (4a, 4b) are made of a different electrically conductive material to the sheets
(2a,2b).
5. The device of any one of claims 1-4, wherein the electrodes are made of a silver layer and/or are coated with an antibacterial composition.
6. The device of any one of claims 1-5, wherein the first and second sheets of electrically conducting material are made of copper or zinc and wherein
the triboelectric material is made of polytetrafluoroethylene or poly (4,4'-oxydiphenylene-pyromellitimide)), preferably wherein the first and second
sheets of electrically conducting material are made of copper and wherein the triboelectric material is made of poly (4,4'-oxydiphenylenepyromellitimide)).
7. The device of any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein the device is a plaster or a bandage.
8. The device of any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the flexible and electrically insultating substrate is comprised of PET.
9. The device of any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the device further comprises adhesives for attaching the device to the skin.
10. The device of any one of claims 1 to 9, wherein the substrate is comprised of a first face and a second face wherein the first (2a) and a second (2b)
sheet of electrically conducting material are attached to the first face (1) and the first and second electrodes are attached to the second face of the
substrate.
11. The device of claim 10, wherein the first electrode (4a) and the second electrode (4b) are electrically connected respectively to the first and second
sheet of electrically conductive material (2a) via electrical wires (5a, 5b) extending through the substrate.
12. The device of claim 10, wherein the electrodes (4a, 4b) are formed by the ends of the sheets of electrically conducting material (2a, 2b) at the gap
(8), wherein the first and second sheets (2a, 2b) are folded around the substrate (1) and extend along the first and second face to the gap (8).
13. The device of claim 1 to 9, wherein the substrate is comprised of a first face and a second face, wherein the first sheet of electrically conducting
material is attached to the first face of the substrate (1) and the second sheet of electrically conducting material is attached to the second face of the
substrate so that the first sheet (2a) and the second sheet (2b) are attached to opposite faces of the substrate (1), wherein the triboelectric material is
attached to one end (3b) of the second sheet (2b) and configured so that when the substrate is bent the one end (3a) of the first sheet (2a) overlays the
layer of triboelectric material (15).
14. The device of any one one of claims 1 to 13, wherein the electrodes are inter-digitated electrodes.
15. A method of smoothing skin wrinkles, the method comprising wearing the device according to any one of claims 1-14 on intact wrinkled skin.
The electrodes and sheets are never discrete entities though - I don't believe it limits to instances where the electrodes and sheet are the same material or where they are joined by a wire, I think that would require further specification, i.e.:
You have alot of optional features in the dependent claims. These won't be marked.
DeleteIs that the case? The independent device claim of the '19 paper A required an "and/or". Which suggests that optional features are marked.
DeleteDepends on the paper but most years, the Examiners report explicitly state that they won't mark optional features in claims.
DeleteIf you're happy to go with that interpretation then you haven't included the essential feature that the sheets are electrically connected to the electrodes in claim 1
ReplyDeleteHmmm...I would probably argue that the electrical connectivity is implicit in such a claim, particularly when referring to the device "creating a voltage between the first and second sheets of electrically conducting material" in combination with the further comprised electrodes being "arranged so as to apply an electric field (E) to the skin when the device is worn on the skin".
ReplyDeleteAfter much reflection, I have noticed that D2 does not disclose have electrodes and there is no electric potential generated at the gap in D2 due to the triboelectric effect. D2 says "Upon relaxation, the aluminium sheet 2a
ReplyDeleteseparates from the triboelectric layer 3 (Fig. 3) and becomes electrically charged due to the triboelectric effect so that a small voltage arises between the sheets 2a and 2b."
This means that the voltage difference is between sheets and as such they cannot act as electrodes. Thus, I may not need the battery disclaimer after all. How much marks are going to be deducted for that battery disclaimer?
T 2081/15 explains a similar situation where the proprietor did not disclaim a feature to distinguish the invention from the CPA, but it wasn't deemed necessary (see 8.13), because an alternative to the feature in question is proposed and the subject-matter renders that said feature redundant. I would be very surprised if a disclaimer was necessary for maximum marks.
ReplyDeleteI thought merely stating that the device is wearable on the skin describes a result to be achieved, without explaining how the device is made wearable. The only feature that made the device wearable was the adhesive layer, no alternative/substitute was given for it, and it wasn't described as an optional feature in the letter. That's why I drafted two independent claims, one to cover the first two embodiments with the adhesive in the preamble as D1 had it already, and one to cover the third embodiment without the adhesive in the claim, as it didn't need one due to its structure.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I'll only get marks based on the worse independent claim, but I'm thinking about appealing the result if that turns out to be the case. Any comments on this, @Roel?
And on a side note, it was explicitly stated in the letter that the third embodiment doesn't NEED an adhesive layer due to its structure. This gave me the impression that it is implied that the first two needs one to function properly. There were other structural differences between the first two and the third as well (such as, the triboelectric layer being placed on one end of a sheet in the third one, but not the others), but this is the main reason I drafted two independent product claims.
ReplyDeleteHi, just a request " a gap (8); the first (4a) and second (4b) electrode" is for you an essential feature ? It was not suggested in the claim 1 of D1 (but already present) and I don't remember the text but I didnt note something like must, mandatory, ...
ReplyDeleteWould stating the first sheet comprises one end that is not attached to substrate exclude the last embodiment? I got super confused with this point and the diagrams.
ReplyDeleteExactly this, stating that device 17 doesn't need an adhesive layer implies that such layer is indeed essential for devices 14 and 16, at least in my eyes. That's why I drafted two independent device claims, one covering 14 & 16 and the other covering 17. Don't think that only the worse claim being marked is an option here, since there is no violation of R. 43 due to the structural differences of said claims. So in my opinion, it is debatable whether we might lose some marks for not having one general independent device claim, but it shouldn't be too bad (see e.g. paper A 2018)
ReplyDeleteTo those who drafted only one single independent claim, covering devices 14, 16 and 17: How did you deal with the statement in the applicant's letter, that 17 doesn't need an adhesive layer? Doesn't this clearly imply that such layer is essential for devices 14 and 16 (even though D1 did not claim it)?
ReplyDeleteFor me that was a clear pointer at drafting two different independent device claims, one covering 14 & 16 and one covering 17, which should then fall under R. 43(2)(c) EPC. Can't really see why D1 being granted without the adhesive should indicate anything, there are lots of weirdly granted patents out there
Adding to that, how would an independent claim covering all three variations be an enabling disclosure without any "sticking/adhering means"? Just stating that its wearable on skin to me seems like a result to be achieved
Delete"How did you deal with the statement in the applicant's letter, that 17 doesn't need an adhesive layer? Doesn't this clearly imply that such layer is essential for devices 14 and 16 (even though D1 did not claim it)"
DeleteI'm just pre-empt the following; im a training so take what I say with a pinch of salt.
I'd say your looking at this the wrong way round. When the letter says that the adhesive layer in the 3rd embodiment is not needed, this is (and usually has been in past papers) that the feature is non-essential to the invention (not an indication that its essential to the other embodiments).
But the 3rd embodiment doesn't need an adhesive layer only because its using a substrate in closed form for the sake of attaching the device to the skin. Since no other means are mentioned in the letter, I thought that one of these two variations is indeed needed. Especially since the letter did not include a statement like e.g. "other means such as mentioned in D2 can be used" or the like. Plus the fact that the only other means mentioned in whole paper A are socks and whatever else it was in D2 (can't remember the other thing), which are used in combination with the much more robust device of D2 (thick rubber layer).
DeleteBut anyway, what do I know. Guess we'll see
My thought was that since D2 was wearable on the skin, but did not need an adhesive, the adhesive was not essential for the invention to work, as other options was available.
ReplyDeleteBut for 17 a closed substrate was essential for adhering the device to the skin. And the means of D1 (e.g. sock) were aimed at a completely different purpose were it is not needed to keep the device in one specific spot. Also there is no indication in the client's letter, that such means could be applied to 14, 16, 17
DeleteI believe it is essential to specify electrodes are bottom/inner face of substrate. If penalised, it doesn't seem logical that it is an unnecessary limitations since it is shown in all embodiments, required to apply E to skin and is a clear structural/device feature of difference from D2.
ReplyDeleteIt would not be an unnecessary limitation.
And it can't be a clarity issue either as D1 has a granted claim to the top face in claim 1.
DeleteI doubt you get penalised for specifying top or bottom as this is also in D1. I agree that electrodes arranged on bottom surface is a must otherwise, how would the E field be applied to the skin. In D2, one electrode is arranged on top and the other is arranged at bottom and no electric field is applied to skin. This showd they electrodes must be attached at the bottom..
DeletePlus, it's described in all embodiments so losing any marks on this seems very harsh.
I agree that it needs to have bottom, inner as no other arrangements are stated as being possible in the letter.
DeleteI struggle to see whether D2 electrode arrangement can be used to apply E. In the end, it seems an essential structural feature for all embodiments and also allow E to be applied to skin so included it.
Why would top/outer and bottom/inner be an unnecessary limitation. Would seem crazy to deduct 7 to 10 marks per limitation so amount 20 marks based on this. Its in all embodiments and in the description. I highly doubt this will happen as there are other important unnecessary limitations e.g. wire, adhesive layer etc...
DeleteRegarding penalisation of electrode provided on bottom/inner surface. I don't see why there should be deduction of this. It is a physical feature that is described in all embodiments. Could anyone explain? Is it because of D2 but to me, electrodes must be arranged at bottom so they can apply electric field to skin. No good having a sideway arrangement if E cannot be applied to skin.
Well the use of top/bottom wording is also in D1 as D1 claim has top layer so not clarity penalisation. I would say it is unlikely to be an unnecessary limitation as it appears in all embodiments.
DeleteOne could you outer (top) and inner (bottom) face. These are interchangeable words and mean the same and would.not exclude any of the embodiments. You can call it first and second face and it would mean the same thing as top/inner and bottom/outer. They're meaningless words so maybe a small deduction of 3 marks or so but then D1 also uses the same wording so they camt penalise candidates for that???
The adhesive layer is not essential. All of the embodiments could be attached to the body using other means, for e.g. with a bandage or an elastic strap going round the body.
ReplyDeleteAnd were do you take that from? There is no indication in the client's letter. 14 and 16 used adhesive straps, 17 a substrate in closed form. The letter does not state that e.g. the means of D2 could be applied here (which are also intended for a different purpose)
DeleteI thought a lot about that in the exam. In the end I decided to put the adhesive layer in a sub-claim. Why? Because the claims of D1 were granted without having this layer in it. And I guess that they want you to have a single claim covering all embodiments.
DeleteDone - because one of the embodiments was a bandage and there is no reason to think that an adhesive plaster that has lost its adhesiveness cannot be secured with a bandage. This is just common knowledge, not specialist knowledge.
DeleteStef - agree with you, and indeed, this is what I did too.
Sorry for being a pain in the a..., but the bandage you mention utilizes specific means of a substrate in closed form for adhering purposes. Of course using a bandage is common knowledge, but the applicant's letter specifically states that device 17 (i.e. the bandage) needs such a closed substrate. So omitting this feature goes against what is required according to the applicant.
DeleteI get that the intention of this paper most likely was to cover all embodiments in a single claim, but then they should've put more thought into the applicant's letter
Sorry Done, I cannot recall the exact wording of the client's letter now but I don't think the substrate (e.g. PET) had anything to do with attaching to skin. Maybe I am completely wrong here!
DeleteThe third embodiment had features exclusive to it that makes it wearable without requiring an adhesive layer. It was explicitly stated in the letter that the third embodiment doesn't need an adhesive due to its structure, but others do. Drafting a description with this statement, and then not including the adhesive in the claim would be a clarity error arising from an inconsistency between the description and the claims in my opinion.
DeleteFurther, GL F-IV, 4.5.2 states that "Essential features of a claim are those necessary for achieving a technical effect underlying the solution of the technical problem with which the application is concerned (the problem usually being derived from the description). The independent claim(s) must therefore contain all features explicitly described in the description as being necessary to carry out the invention.".
The letter implies that an adhesive layer is necessary to carry out the first two embodiments of the invention, because the invention has to be wearable to be able to solve the technical problem it's trying to address (implicit). No other feature as an alternative to the adhesive layer was disclosed in the letter. This is another clarity issue that would arise from a missing essential feature, because it's not clear how the first two embodiments of the device can be made wearable without an adhesive. The adhesive layer is not an arbitrary feature, it's directly related to the technical effect of the invention.
It is stated in G 0001/03 that "either there is a large number of conceivable alternatives and the specification contains sufficient information on the relevant criteria for finding appropriate alternatives over the claimed range with reasonable effort. If this is the case, the inclusion of non-working embodiments is of no harm".
However, this is not the case for a single independent claim that does not include the adhesive. The third embodiment doesn't need an adhesive, because it has other specific features that make this possible. These features would obviously be in a dependent claim if only one independent claim was drafted. So, a single independent claim to cover every embodiment would mostly cover non-working embodiments of the invention. This is also due to the positioning of the sheets and the triboelectric layer, for example, an embodiment wherein the sheets are on the opposite sides of the substrate and the device has a shape of a plaster would be covered by the claim, but does not work. Still, this one shouldn't cause any issues for the reasons given in G 0001/03.
This was my thought process behind drafting two independent product claims. I know it's possible to argue from the other standpoint, so either way, they should allow multiple independent product claims as long as all working embodiments are covered thereby.
There is also another argument to be made here. A feature might not be essential for a product, but might be essential for another, similar product. The essentiality of the feature entirely depends on the objective technical problem and what technical effect is used to solve it.
DeleteI don't think the letter explicitly said that the first two embodiments *needed* the adhesive, but my memory could be faulty. Clearly there are other ways to secure the plasters to the skin (from cgk).
DeleteMoreover, I don't recall anything in the letter which *implied* that they were needed for the first two embodiments either. Just because the last embodiment didn't need adhesives, it does not follow that the first two did. The way I read it, the last one, with its structure, dispensed away the need for any other means to attach to skin.
DeleteThe third one didn't need one, because it was modified in a manner to not require one (i.e., being in a closed shape). From my understanding this implicitly means that the device is only wearable if,
Delete- there is at least one adhesive layer, or,
- it has the form of a closed shape.
No other alternative or hint at all was given to make the device wearable on skin. As I mentioned, the technical problem and the technical effect are directly related to the device being wearable and its performance not being affected by body movements. It could be argued that D1's claim didn't have an adesive because of the way its technical problem is formulated, but we don't have any information about this since we don't know what exactly the prior art for D1 was. A feature's essentiality depends on the technical problem to be solved, and the invention apparently has a different technical problem to solve than D1. So it's not really a valid argument to say that the adhesive can not be essential, because it wasn't in D1's claim.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. The OTP in the present case - at least how I formulated it - was the provision of a wound healing device that did not require a battery. How the device was attached to the skin was not essential. I feel that if the OTP was concerned with adhesives, then we'd have more information around this. The technology was all about how to move away from using batteries.
DeleteI don't entirely agree with that view, because not requiring a battery was the technical effect resulting from the combination of the features of the invention. The technical effect of an invention can not be the same as the OTP it is trying to solve, because that would merely be defining the OTP in view of the result to be achieved. It was stated in the letter that the main problem that D1 presents is that the battery can fall off if the plaster becomes deformed due to body movement, and the battery makes the plaster bulky and difficult to use on curved skin surfaces.
DeleteSo the OTP I formulated was primarly based on the devices of the prior art being bulky, difficult to use on curved skin surfaces and that their performance are negatively affected by body movement. Accordingly, a device that can not be attached to the skin would still present these problems, because its performance would be negatively affected by body movements.
The OTP I've described could be solved in other ways, for example with a plurality of interconnected small batteries not causing the device to be bulky, or a flexible battery, and these would still be inventive over D1 and D2, solving the very same OTP while using a battery. The invention's solution is merely one of the solutions for the OTP, wherein the technical effect of the invention is that it renders a battery completely unnecessary. Maybe that is too far-fetched, but I don't expect EPO to formulate the OTP in terms of the result the invention achieves.
DeleteOnce again, I disagree. The letter said that a drawback of the prior art was that the battery kept falling out / needed to be replaced and that it made the plaster bulky. This to me was a sufficiently large pointer that the OTP was an alternative to the battery. Clearly, the triboelectric material is the solution, not merely a technical effect.
DeleteIn my opinion, your viewpoint is fundamentally flawed within the exam setting (maybe not so IRL) because your OTP relies on knowledge not found anywhere in the prior art - nowhere does it talk about or suggest smaller or flexible batteries. (Out of curiousity, is your background electronics? :-))
Moreover, I never said that the device cannot be attached - just that it does not need to be by means of an adhesive layer, which means that the adhesive layer is not an essential feature. The letter talks about an alternative - bandages, which can clearly be used with the first two embodiments, even though this is not expressly stated.
My OTP doesn't rely on undisclosed knowledge, I only gave them as examples for the sake of the discussion and didn't talk about them in the answer, but yes, my background is EE.
DeleteThere was more than that in the applicant's letter. It was particularly stated that the devices of the prior art are difficult to use on curved skin surfaces and that their performance is affected negatively by body movements (this was a crucial pointer for me to include the adhesive). As such, providing an electric field to be applied to the skin with a triboelectric layer was the solution to the OTP, and the technical effect of this solution is that it renders a battery unnecessary, thus overcoming the drawbacks of D1.
This is what I said in the background part of the description,
"The technical problem to be solved in view of D1 is providing a device wearable on the skin and capable of applying an electric field to the skin, wherein the device's performance and utility are not affected by body movements and wherein the device is not bulky, hence easy to use on curved skin surfaces".
It was another option to formulate it based on a battery, but it comes down to the same thing imo. I agree with the last thing you said, but this is exactly why I drafted two independent claims. They probably expected the candidates to draft only one, but I think I won't lose too many points as I covered all of the working embodiments and described the two as alternative solutions to a particular problem in the description to not violate R43(2)
As far as I can recall, there were at least two problems with the battery -
Delete1. It needed to be replaced
2. It afftect the performance of the device because it kept falling out, particularly the case with curved surfaces.
Both are addressed by finding an alternative to the battery. Your idea of a different type of battery would not address the first. Unless now you tell me that there are batteries which last long enough not to need replacing within the wound healing context - again specialist knowledge and something not hinted at in the paper.
Probably as a result of my non-EE background, I did not even consider whether a different type of battery might work (there was nothing to suggest such a thing). So I had to rely entirely on the info given in the paper.
The performance (I think) was not affected by the absence of adhesives. As I've said before, one could easily bandage the whole device up to ensure that it remains securely attached to the body.
Anyway, time for B! Good luck if you're also doing that one!
True, but would it really be a "wearable device" in that case? You could do the same with basically anything that's not wearable. Maybe it wasn't necessary to define the claim as such. I wonder how they'll formulate the example answer.
DeleteYes, I'll be doing B and C as well. Good luck to you too if you're taking those :)
@Done March 11, 2023 11:04 am:
DeleteIt is in [010]: "The shape and the flexibility of the bandage 17 allow it to be held in place around these body parts by elastic force without adhesives."
Exactly, shape and flexibilty of the bandage. Hence, for the bandage 17 the substrate in closed shape is essential for holding it in place, as is the adhesive layer for devices 14 & 16.
DeleteAdditionally, the device being "wearable on skin", at least in my opinion, is a result to be achieved, if the claim does not contain any information about how to make it wearable on skin
DeleteIs it still possible to pass with 2 of the 3 embodiments covered. I have basis for the third embodiment in the spec so hopefully, they will allow some claw back marks even if claim 1 does not cover all the embodiments as one could file a divisional and not all subject matter is lost.
ReplyDeleteYes absolutely. Instead of getting 65-70 marks, more likely to be around 55-60 marks assuming you get average marks for dependent claims + description. They won't fail you if you missed an embodiment especially if you also have basis for the 3rd embodiment in your spec.
DeleteI struggle to see how 2 independent claims can be awarded full marks. Otherwise, why not draft 3 independent device claims to each embodiment?
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what is mentioned in the Examiner's report of A 2019, where you could either draft a single claim disclosing all three embodiments using and/or or draft three separate independent claims, each disclosing one of the three embodiments.
DeleteI struggle to see how 2 IC can not be awarded full marks. A single IC gives rise to many non-working embodiments due to how broad the scope is. It's not even clear whether the adhesive is essential, as it's the only feature that can render the device wearable. Without the adhesive in the claim, it becomes a violation of insufficient disclosure and result to be achieved, because the device won't be wearable, and a device that's not wearable can not solve the technical problem in question. But the third embodiment doesn't have an adhesive, thus I thought that at least 2 independent product claims are to be drafted.
DeleteBut it also says the worse product claim will be marked if there is a way to have 1 independent claim. It would also be easier to do 3 separate independent product claim. If they allow this and I fail because I attempted to draft an independent claim to include all 3 embods but missed 1 out accidentally then that would bd a bit unjust and I will simply draft independent claim to each embodiment next time.
DeleteBut D1 claim had no adhesive. So I consider it as not essential. However, I must say the letter was super confusing and unclear.
DeleteD1 claim had no adhesive, but a feature might be essential for one subject-matter while it is not essential for another, because whether a feature is essential depends on the technical effect of the invention and the technical problem to be solved. I've posted a detailed response above to kel2's message.
DeleteIf I remember it correctly, D1 claimed a device being in form of a plaster. Hence, the feature of "being wearable on skin" was not just merely a result to be achieved, even without claiming an adhesive. However, as we should not limit the device to a plaster, it was necessary to provide any means for adhering the device to the skin.
DeleteHence, I do not think that it was actually possible to include all three embodiments in one single IC, since 14/16 used different adhesive means than 17 (and for 17 it was explicitly stated that a substrated in closed form is essential for adhering to the skin).
Lets be honest dear committee.
ReplyDeletePaper A this year was based on previous 2016 EM papers complemented with some words which sound like "chemistry".
Paper A this year was extremely EM biased and by far not meant for anybody not having a background in EM or at least not being used to draft patent claims in that field.
The commitee seems to be ignoring the situation which as evidenceb by this year Paper A and last year paper B seems to be goign out of control.
This affects the quality of the exam quita badly, expecially in view of th ecosts involved:
1) discourages CH candidates to pursue the field and rather focus on the respective national exams;
2) it inevitably prevents formation of highly qualified attorneys in CH as the repsective competencies are not appropriately tested;
3) it frustrates CH candidates and forces them possibly to re-sit AND MOST IMPIORTANTLY PAY for exams they do not get prepared in any way for.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES was Paper A this year meant to test the fitness of candidates to draft patent claims in a technical field "Accessible to everyone".
Offering a common EM/CH paper WORKS INSOFAR AS THE SUBJECT MATTER DEALT WITH IN THE PAPER REVOLVES AROUND OBJECTs OF COMMON USE NOT ELECTRODES AND MEDICAL DEVICES.
In the 2022 report, the committee justified itself regarding the EM bias of paper B of that year by stating that "it did not cause problems due to the high pass rate".
However, it was prescribed that Paper A and B should be drafted in a technicla field common to everyone.
We should not be disregarding provisions jsut based on the fact that other options may, according to our personal opinion, be unproblematic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That´s not only politically but also morally incorrect and the commitee should for the sake of the exam make any attempt to compensate for this during marking.
Future exams should be based on the 2017-2019 format!
The EPO and the committee absolutly don´t care and they don´t follow the exam regulations. This can also be seen in the "chemical" exams such as A2017, B2021, A2022. For C2021, B2022 or A2023, on the other hand, they are far too technically detailed and complicated. Since 2017 the EPO is even too lazy to make two A and B exams. You can only file appeals, sue them and contact your national patent chamber to apply pressure on the national gouvenment and the EPO. It is going on every year.
DeleteUnder NO CIRCUMSTANCES was Paper A this year meant to test the fitness of candidates to draft patent claims in a "common technical field".
ReplyDelete100% agree. Absolutely strange paper.
Deleteif it is skin wearable in claim 1, it should cover the three embodiments which are examples of the invention, and skin wearable should be enough to achieve the effect.
ReplyDeleteIt's a relative term that D1 also uses in its claim e.g
ReplyDeleteIt has top face. So seem unfair to deduct marks of candidates.
Hi Armin
ReplyDelete3. I agree, these materials were in my DC.
4. You are correct.
As I can see, your paper will most likely be the candidate´s answer haha!
Good luck next week!
Can anyone tell me if you specify one end 3a is not fixed to substrate 1 excluding embodiment 3 (fig 4) or would it be seen as unnecessary limitation.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be seen as unnecessary limitation as the 3a not fixed to substrate would still work for bandage and there is no text about embodiment 3 that mentions one end is fixed to substrate. Fig 4 is just an example of embodiment 3 and not necessarily limiting it. For that reason? I think it is an unnecessary limitation.
The description of embodiment does not state 3a is fixed or not fixed to substrate so probably include both options. Figures are non-limiting examples. I would say it's unnecessary limitation.
DeleteDescription where the device requires no wires (embodiment 2) and no adhesive (embodiment 3) is clear that these cannot be included. Inclusion of these features would be excluding embodiments 2 and 3.
Including 3a not fixed to substrate in C1 is an unnecessary limitation as the claim with this limitation still includes a workable embodiment 3 i.e. description is silent whether 3a is fixed or not fixed on substrate so embod 3 covers both options. But it is a limitation as embodiment 3 can also work when 3a is fixed to substrate.
DeleteIt's like if you limit claim to copper, it would still work with the embodiments but it can be worked around when someone decides to use zinc. So its rather a limitatuon than an exclusion of embodiment 3.
To be clear the first conductive sheet 2a comprises one end 3a not fixed on substrate. Embod 1 needs this as explicitly stated, embod 2 shows this and embod 3 is silent on it. So claim includes workable version of the 3 embodiments but can be worked around so it becomes a limitation of the claim.
DeleteHope they are not to harsh with marking this one. Too many features can be added or missed or not clarified and it can all go wrong with this one. Even if you have a novel and inventive claim, you could get zero marks, which seems silly to fail people on.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it implicit that electrodes are electrically conductive material? I don't see why this needs to be stated in the claim. There is never a situation where electrodes are not conductive.
ReplyDeleteIn the text, it mentions any electrically conductive material can act as electrodes so to me, electrodes in c1 without specifying what it is or the specific material used e.g. made of sheets should cover everything that can be/act as electrodes.
Electrodes 4a 4b provided across a gap. This is broad and doesn't mention what electrodes are made out of.
I don't know how to broaden out electrodes even further. Electrical conducting element/material acting as electrodes means the same thing. Or electrodes made of electrically conducting material. I fail to see any difference between them all. You still need electrodes in C1.
ReplyDeleteStating electrodes providing a gap seems ok too.
What are your first impressions to this year's A-paper?
ReplyDeleteGenerally okay.
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
No, not really
How did this year's paper compare to the papers of the last few years? Similar difficulty level?
Similar
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Yes, in my opinion. Tech not too difficult to understand. My background is biotech (so neither e/m nor chemist - when will non-biotechs realise there is a world of difference between biotechs and chemists??).
Multiple independent claims?
I had one to the device and one to the method for cosmetic use.
Could you find the wording for claim features in the clients letter and the prior art?
For some of them.
Did you have enough time?
Yes
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
50+
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
Should not be too dissimilar to previous years (haven't checked what these were!)
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?
Would have been better to able to print the client's letter. My eyes started hurting after a while.
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
Initially not sure, but was okay in the end. Now, given a choice between home and exam centre, I would probably use home.
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?
Main issue was eyes hurting. No tech difficulties other than being locked out due to using alt+tab, but easily resolved by pressing F5. Tech support was prompt with this.
This year the claim drafting seemed far to mechanical and was very difficult for those not in the field to actually draft. It seems that it is based on old mechanical papers but there was not much guidance in the paper as usual in other papers to help formulate a claim for those non mechanical candidates.
ReplyDeleteI drafted one claim to cover 2 embodiments and an extra claim to cover embodiment 3. I did not like it, but that’s the best I could do.
ReplyDeleteA device (14, 16) wearable on the skin, comprising:
- a substrate (1) made of a flexible and electrically insulating material;
- a first electrically conductive layer (2a) attached to the top face of the substrate (1), and comprising at least one part (3a) which is not fixed to substrate (1), overlaying ta triboelectric layer (15) and adherible and separable to a triboelectric layer (15) when substrate (1) deforms through movement of the body or muscle contraction;
- a second electrically conductive layer (2b) attached to the top face of substrate (1), and comprising at least one part (3b) attached to a triboelectric layer (15);
- a triboelectric layer (15) made of a triboelectric material,
- a third and a forth electrically conductive layers (4a, 4b) attached to the bottom face of substrate (1) forming a gap (8), and electrically connected respectively to the first electrically conductive layer (2a) and to the second electrically conductive layer (2b) via:
a) electrical wires (5a, 5b) extending through substrate (1), or
b) directly connected to first and second electrically conductive layer (2a, 2b) being folded around substrate (1) extending along the bottom face of substrate (1);
wherein the first, second, third and forth electrically conductive layers (2a, 2b, 4a, 4b) have a form of sheets.
i know it is a crazy claim, but is new and inventive at least. I hope I can get at least 15 points.
Sorry to break it to you, but this claim only covers the first embodiment imo.
DeleteCan you tell me why?
DeleteActually no, I missed the "or" part, my bad. This should sufficiently cover the first two embodiments. But did 4a and 4b have to be in the form of sheets? I don't recall such a thing.
DeleteIt's difficult because if a candidate tries to have 1 independent claim and accidentally excludes one embodiment, they get penalised. It is so much easier to draft 2 or 3 independent claims so you will probably get some penalisation. In old paper, it's not a max of 35 marks out of 50 if 2 or more independent product y claims are drafted when 1 can suffice.
ReplyDeletethanks for your comment, if I get 15 points with that claim I will be happy
DeleteVery brave to post your claims. I must say that I've seen so many different versions and combinations. This is not normally the case with paper A.
ReplyDeleteIt shows how difficult this paper was especially covering all embodiments so I hope the Examiners do not penalise to heavily for missing embodiments.
Is it really necessary to include " when the device is worn on the skin"? Shouldn´t it be enough to define "apply an electric field on the skin?
ReplyDeleteThe question is if omitting that passage still leads to a claim that is novel and inventive over D2. The wording "arranged so as to apply an electric field (E) to the skin" is similar to the "configured to" wording and D2 should not be suitable to do that.
Probably not but if you include it then it is also no problem as it's in use. It's also in the client description so I suspect most would have added it
ReplyDeleteI added ' first electrical sheet 2a comprising one end 3a that is not fixed to the substrate 1'.
ReplyDeleteI now realise this may exclude embodiment 3. Could it? At the time I didn't fully understand the figures along with the text.
Can someone tell me if this is the case?
I wrote electrodes 4a, 4b are electrically connected to sheets 2a, 2b.
ReplyDeleteIts implicit that electrodes are made of conductive material otherwise it cannot be electrically connected to sheets 2a, 2b. I don't see why we need to state conductive materials acting as electrodes or electrodes made of conductive materials are electrically connected to 2a, 2b.
Yes I agree it all has the same meaning. It should be sufficient to just put electrodes 4a, 4b electrically connected to sheets 2a,2b.
DeleteYou also need to be careful with "electrodes made of an electrically conductive material", as the electrodes may be coated with an antibacterial
Deletecomposition -- if you name the coated electrode the "electrode", then that may not be consistent with "made of (only) ..."
For the use claim - I wrote "Use of device according to claim X-X for smoothing skin".
ReplyDeleteWould this gain any marks. I understand it has the same claim scope as method for smoothing skin using the device according to claim X-X.
Autocorrect "Use of device according to claim X-X for smoothing skin wrinkle"
DeleteI drafted the same use claim. However, I now tend to think that it might lead to a deduction of marks since a therapeutic use is not explicitly excluded by it (as it would be in "Cosmetic use of a device..." or the like).
DeleteSee GL G-II, 4.2.1: "A cosmetic treatment INVOLVING surgery or therapy would, however, not be patentable (see below)."
In my view, when, while using the device to smooth skin wrinkles, "accidentally" also a (microsized) wound is healed, the proprietor could prohibit such (also therapeutic) use of the device. Thus, it appears necessary to really claim ONLY a "cosmetic" use, either explicitly ("cosmetic use ...") or by specifying that the device is used to smooth "intact" skin or the like.
That seems extremely harsh I think to deduct. If so, by how. 50% of the marks?
DeleteCould be reading alot into it. Use according to device for smoothing skin is like a method of using a device for smoothing skin - it must be limited to smoothing skin wrinkles and not intended for something else so would exclude wound healing.
DeleteWhat do you think about a claim that defines a use of the device for applying an electric field to a skin? Worth any marks?
Delete@FT:
Delete[025] provides: "In this cosmetic use, a device of our invention is worn on intact wrinkled skin. When worn on intact wrinkled skin, the device has NO THERAPEUTIC effect but ONLY the cosmetic effect of smoothing out the wrinkles."
So a cosmetic claims (method, use) will be expected
@Roel,
DeleteSo Use of device according to claim X-X for smoothing skin wrinkle is wrong (some deduction marks) and like FT says, they were looking for Cosmetic se of device according to claim X-X for smoothing intact skin wrinkle
Have I understood your statement correctly Roel?
DeleteYes, [015] clearly shows that limiting to intact skin isd necessary for a cosmetic-only method: "Use of device according to claim X-X on intact wrinkled skin (for smoothing skin)" or "A cosmetic method of smoothing skin, the method comprising wearing a device according to claim X-X on intact wrinkled skin."
Delete"Use of a device for smoothing skin wrinkles" would be seen as a cosmetic use right?. The claim scope is limited to smoothing skin wrinkles and not for heal wounds e.g. therapy. I'm not sure/or understand why this claim would be penalized.
DeleteThanks Roel. I've messed this claim up and the device claims didn't exactly go according to plan too. Hope they don't mark to harshly on the use claims. Could do with gaining a few marks from it.
Delete@Anonymous March 13, 2023 3:16 pm:
DeleteNo, see [025] (above): you need "in intact skin" in the use, as that is needed to have no therapeutic effect and to be outside the exclusion of Art. 53(c)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument as to why claiming a functional feature such as "so as to apply an electrical field to the skin" or the like should be allowable/expected in the situation of this year's paper A:
ReplyDeleteGL F-IV, 4.14.2 state the following: "Furthermore, references to second entities which cannot be seen as subject to standardisation may also be sufficiently clear in cases where the skilled person would have little difficulty in inferring the resultant restriction of the scope of protection for the first entity".
In my view, a skilled person would have little difficulty in checking whether or not the claimed device (=first entity) is arranged so as to apply the electrical field to the skin of the user (=the second entity) when worn by the user.
Therefore, this functional feature - allowing claiming all embodiments in a single independent device claim - should be allowable (and probably expected) for this year's paper A.
I think this will be fine, but I also think they cannot deduct marks for specifying that electrodes are arranged at the bottom/one face/inner face of the substrate. Its in all embodiments and there is no description that says the electrodes can be placed in other position.
DeleteThey will probably accept both options.
DeleteIn my view, nothing wrong with "so as to apply an electrical field to the skin when the device is worn on the skin", as in the claim of D1 (which was a clear hint to a claim structure/ claim terms).
DeleteI put both structural and functional language in i.e. electrode are provided bottom/inner face of substrate so as to apply electric field.
DeleteI hope I don't get penalized for stating this but as it's in all embodiments, clear distinctive feature from D2 and there are no arrangements that was mentioned in the client letter, I thought this would be best. I can't see it being an unnecessary limitation.
no other arrangements I should say.
DeleteHi Roel
ReplyDeleteLooks like you have a copy of the paper. Would one end of 3a not fixed to substrate 1 exclude embodiment 3? I have this in my independent claim and now fearing that I accidentally excluded 3rd embodiment because I didn't quite understand and appreciate the minor differences in figures and text under time pressure.
You can still download the preprintables from Wiseflow EPO - EQE.
DeleteThe paper is now available in Wiseflow in EPO - Compendium, in the same way as in the exam (lockdown browser, same preprintables, client's letter only available when in the flow).
I can only see figures and not the text of embodiment 3. Been very worried that I accidentally excluded embodiment 3 from my independent claim.
DeleteBrother Anonymous: can you explain what you mean with functional link? What is that? Why is it needed?
ReplyDeleteFig. 3 shows sheets 2a, 2b which are / can be longer than the substrate 1...
ReplyDeleteWhy they don't allow us to print client's letter?
ReplyDeleteDid you not check the EQE FAQ before you sat the paper? It says:
Delete"Will it be possible to print the examination papers? When are the printable parts made available?
Candidates will be allowed to print parts of the pre-examination and main examination papers before the start of the respective paper. When it comes to deciding which parts can be printed, consideration will be given to ensuring the confidentiality of the questions while enabling candidates to work comfortably and ergonomically.
The printable documents will be made available shortly before the start of the flow."
https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/faq.html
That decision T2081/15 may be for anything but a disclaimer.
ReplyDelete