Paper B Electricity Mechanics 2016 - our claims
Here it is: our claims and a brief explanation.
Looking forward to your comments,
All blog threads allow anyone to add comments and already have a lot of valuable, interesting and sometimes surprising discussions between many candidates who posted their comments as well as tutors resulted from those.Any remarks, (different) opinions and questions as are welcome! Please post your contribution as comments to this blog, so everybody can paticipate in and benefit from the discussion/ explanation.
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 02-03-2016 14:56"), whereas using your real name or even a pseudonym (nick-name) is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation
Jelle, Sander, Tanja
Claim 1. Warning system for a driveway crossing (3,
13), comprising:
- a control unit (5),
- a pavement sensor (7, 8, 17) connected to the control unit (5) and configured tom detect pedestrians on a pavement (2, 12) approaching the driveway crossing (3, `13),
- a first display means (6, 16) connected to the control unit (5),
the control
unit (5) being configured so that the first display means (6, 16) gives the
warning signal to the driver of a vehicle in the driveway (1, 16) in response
to the output of the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17),
characterised
in that:
- the system further comprises a driveway sensor (4, 14) connected to the control unit (5) and configured to detect a vehicle in the driveway (1, 11) approaching the driveway crossing (3, 13); and
- the control unit (5) being configured to activate the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17) in response to the output of the driveway sensor (4, 14)
Basis: original claim 1, further limited based on:
- Claim 2: the system further comprises a driveway sensor (4, 14) and configured to detect a vehicle in the driveway (1, 11) approaching the driveway crossing (3, 13)
- Claim 4: also depended on claim 2):
[driveway sensor is] connected to the control unit (5); the control unit (5)
being configured to activate the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17) in response to the
output of the driveway sensor (4, 14).
This is also clear from [012], wherein a warning pole is described comprising such a warning system (see [005]). In lines 24-28 the now introduced feature is described.
Not taking over the second display
means of claim 2 is an allowable intermediate generalisation:
The description in [008] introduces
the driveway sensor. In [009] it shows a first use of the driveway sensor,
being to warn pedestrians that a vehicle is exiting from the driveway. For this
function the second display means is required.
However,
[009] 1st sentence indicates that the second display means is preferred; thus
optional. In [011] and [012] it becomes clear what a second, unrelated,
function of the driveway sensor is: to ensure that the pavement sensor is
activated only when the driveway sensor detects a vehicle, saving electricity.
For this function no display is required. Thus indeed the second display means
is optional and not mandatory to be used for the driveway sensor [not
structurally and functionally linked such that they can only be used in
combination].
Claim 2. Warning
system according to claim 1, comprising a second display means (9) configured
to warn pedestrians on the pavement (2, 120) that a vehicle is exiting from the
driveway (1,11).
Basis:
remainder of original claim 2, dependency unchanged.
Claim 3. Warning system according to any of the
previous claims, wherein the first display means is an LCD screen and the
control unit (5) is an integral component of the LCD screen (6).
Basis:
original claim 3, properly introducing the LCD screen, overcoming clarity
objection (Art.84) raised under item 3 of the communication.
Reason for
not broadening to ‘first display means’ is that the control unit being an
integral component is only shown for an LCD screen (see [008], line 15). In real life we expect this generalisation not to have been problematic, but not having any own knowledge of the field there may not be enough basis for a generalisation.
Original
claim 4: incorporated into claim 1.
Claim 4. Warning
system according to any of the previous claims, characterised by the first
display means being a traffic light, the system being configured so that the
red light of the traffic light indicates the detection of a pedestrian on the
pavement.
Basis:
[010]
Note: not
taken over is a dependency only on the preamble of claim 1; this would result
into two separate, non-unitary inventions. Claim 5 proposed by the client
relates arguably not to searched subject-matter.
Also
avoiding introducing a clarity issue in the client’s claim of whether the
traffic light is additional or is in place of the first display means.
Also
avoiding a clarity issue of whether the driveway is claimed.
Claim 5. Warning
pole (20) comprising a warning system according to claim 1.
Basis: [005], [012]
Note:
‘preferably’ has been scrapped. Only referring back to claim 1, since the pole
is not shown in combination with the features of claims 2-4.
All blog threads allow anyone to add comments and already have a lot of valuable, interesting and sometimes surprising discussions between many candidates who posted their comments as well as tutors resulted from those.Any remarks, (different) opinions and questions as are welcome! Please post your contribution as comments to this blog, so everybody can paticipate in and benefit from the discussion/ explanation.
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 02-03-2016 14:56"), whereas using your real name or even a pseudonym (nick-name) is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation
Jelle, Sander, Tanja
Pretty much the same as me. But should really claim 4 refer to any one of the preceding claims? i.e. even refer to claim 3 where the first display means is an LCD screen?
ReplyDelete-oskar
I did almost the same, but in claim 4 I wrote that the traffic light is configured so that the red light of the traffic light indicates the detection of a pedestrian on the pavement, not the system. Is that ok?
ReplyDeleteI made claim 4 depend on claim 1 or 2, because in the description it was clearly stated that the traffic light is an alternative to the LCD screen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the suggested solution! I agree with the features included in the independent claim 1. I disagree, however, with the position of "characterised in that". D3 is the closes prior art. The inventor is wrong by stating in his letter, that D3 does not disclose driveway sensor. D3 can be interpreted broadly. The first sensor 327 can detect vehicles and is, thus, a driveway sensor. The second traffic light 309 (=first display means) shows a (red) warning signal in response to the output of the second sensor 307 (=pavement sensor; output=no detection in a predetermined time period). My conclusion: the "characterised in that" should only comprise only the following feature:
ReplyDelete- the control unit (5) being configured to activate the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17) in response to the output of the driveway sensor (4, 14)
The vehicle sensor in D3 detects vehicles on Main Street. The driveway has crossing with the pavement (and driveway is defined in the spec as including an exit from a building, property or garage, or an alley) - so Main Street is not a driveway, and the vehicle sensor of D3 is not "configured to detect a vehicle in the driveway".
DeleteIMHO Main Street can still be interpreted as driveway. Let's see...
DeleteI used exactly your argumentation to support the disclosure of claim 1 (corresponding to GL H-V 3.2.1). After the exam it was discussed that it might be better to quote and explicitly check all the steps of the essentiality test (corresponding to GL H-V 3.1) because a feature from the originally disclosed claim 4 was removed. Any thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteI think you refer to the omitted feature of orig. claim 2 (not 4). In this regard, I additionally performed the essentiality test for the removed feature of the second display means to make sure that the second display means can be removed from both embodiments of the application since it its not essential (optional for first embodiment and not present in second embodiment).
DeleteHowever, my independent claim 1 reads a bit different since I did not take over the wording of original claim 4 but used the wording of the description (pavement sensor is only activated when the driveway sensor detects a vehicle).
Though I disagree with the arguments in the office action, I still thought that I should use a different wording than original claim 4 since claim 4 was indicated as being obvious in the office action.
Also I divided the above proposed claim 3 into two dependent claims because it is an optional feature that the control unit may be integrated into the diplay means ("may be integrated" in German version of the original description). Therefore, I thought it would be advantageous for the client to divide the subject matter of above claim 3 into two claims. In total I got then six (instead of the above five) claims = same number of claims as in the client's proposal.
Maybe my claim set is still violating the client's requirement of "no additional claims" but I am not sure.
Xentres
Addition:
DeleteMy reason for doing the essentiality test was the way how this situtation was solved in the examiner' report for Paper B 2014 where they used both GL H-V 3.2.1 and 3.1.
For dtails, see section 5.3 of the Examiner's report for Paper B 2014 (= section regarding original support for claim 1 of 2014).
Xentres
For Details
@ AnonymousMarch 04, 2016 9:30 am
DeleteYes, I refer the omitted feature of orig. claim 2 - which is also a feature of claim 4 referring to claim 2.
I lost a few points in the argumentation by not employing the essentiality test and not referring to the GLs at all. I also lost a few points for claim 5, because I added the limitation, that certain features of claim 1 are part of the pole. Maybe my claim 5 also refers (incorrectly?) also to other claims than claim 1. Anyway, I should have passed...
The essentiality should not be used. The Guidelines has introduced the new test 'intermediate generalisation. B 2014 was of the time of the change and used the wrong test (introduced i Nov. 2013). later B's used the right test.
DeleteCheck ;-)
Delete@Jelle Hoekstra
DeleteThanks for this information.
I did use a combination of GL H-V 3.2.1 and 3.1 showing that the intermediate generalisation is possible and also showing that omitting the second display device from claim 2 and dividing the features of claim 2 is possible.
Do you think that doing the "extra" of the essentiality test will be a big problem?
As you pointed out, I formally did the "wrong test" but I also performed the required two steps of the "right test".
I think i was overthinking in the Exam and i also generalized the expression "detect pedestrians on a pavement " to "detect any danger on a pavement approaching...". I saw basis for this in both of the examples so figured it could be something that they were looking for...
ReplyDeleteDear all,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering, nobody preferred D2 as CPA ?
To me, it was clear that claim 1 as originally filed CPA was D3, as it is the only one that warns the driver of the vehicle. However claim 1 as amended drifts away from this problem (with new features) and know seem to aim at saving energy as sequential activation of sensors (the warning becoming a secondary aspect).
I think if it was a C exam with claim 1(as amended) as a dependent claim of claim 1(as originally filed), it would be the typical case where you would switch your CPA for your inventive step attack of the dependent claim.
I hope I am not the only one who picked D2 as CPA :)
Results are in ! Pass rate for B 2016 is 66% (my calculation from the official numbers, excluding zero marks).
ReplyDelete