Paper B 2018 Fuse for protecting an electronic circuit
Below a short answer to start the discussion.
The DeltaPatents team,
Jelle, Jessica, Nico.
===========================================================
Brief explanation
Description:
[002]: Two categories: fuses for low-sensitivity electronic components and fuses for high-sensitivity components.
[011] To protect low-sensitivity electronic components quality score Q should be greater than 30. To protect high-sensitivity electronic components quality score Q should be greater than 60.
First conclusion: client wants to provide a fuse for protecting high-sensitivity electronic components [= field].
[009] makes clear that the high quality score is a parameter determined according to an in-house protocol which is not specified in detail. Such a parameter may not be used. It also indicates that a high Q value indicates a low degree of metal reflow.
[004] makes clear that blowing of the fuse should be irreversible. Metal reflow endangers this.
[005] Aim of the invention is to provide a fuse which overcomes that problem.
The purpose is thus to provide an irreversible fuse for high-sensitivity electronic components which avoid/overcome reflow issues.
[005] (part of the solution) using a fuse track formed of AlCu.
Table 1, table 2, [011]: to have Q above 60 we need that the metal of the fuse track is AlCu alloy having a content of Cu in the range of 10-20% by weight and a cover layer made of epoxy resin.
This should be introduced in claim 1 replacing the quality score. It makes original claim 4 redundant.
The cover layer is part of the second embodiment described in [008] for Fig.2. The neck portion is optional and does not need to be incorporated into claim 1 (allowable intermediate generalisation with respect original claim 3.
[012] gives a nice definition of ‘smooth surface’ referring to Ra, better than the active formulation proposed by the client. This should be introduced in original claim 5.
Closest prior art:
Field: high quality fuse for protecting high-sensitivity electronic components
Purpose: provide an irreversible fuse which avoids/overcomes reflow issues
Structurally close: fuse track of AlCu alloy
D1: uses AlCu alloy with 15% Cu by weight, no protective cover. According to table 1: not high quality, not suitable for high-sensitivity electronic components. No further measure to deal with reflow. Conclusion: not close.
D2: Is irreversible (thus high quality), but solves the problem rather differently – not structurally close. The fuse is covered by glass causing an explosion. Reflow issues are thus avoided. Walls are needed to avoid that metal sprays from the fuse to the circuit. Seems not great for high-sensitivity circuits. Conclusion: not close.
D3: uses an AlCu fuse track and focusses on dealing with metal reflow [01]. Close in field and purpose. Structurally close enough.
Conclusion: go for D3 as the closest prior art.
The DeltaPatents team,
Jelle, Jessica, Nico.
===========================================================
Brief explanation
Client's letter
“Our invention has the advantage that the quality score (Q)
of the fuse is much improved”. In draft claim 1 two ‘measures’ are introduced:
- cover layer covering the fuse track
- quality score is at least 60.
Description:
[002]: Two categories: fuses for low-sensitivity electronic components and fuses for high-sensitivity components.
[011] To protect low-sensitivity electronic components quality score Q should be greater than 30. To protect high-sensitivity electronic components quality score Q should be greater than 60.
First conclusion: client wants to provide a fuse for protecting high-sensitivity electronic components [= field].
[009] makes clear that the high quality score is a parameter determined according to an in-house protocol which is not specified in detail. Such a parameter may not be used. It also indicates that a high Q value indicates a low degree of metal reflow.
[004] makes clear that blowing of the fuse should be irreversible. Metal reflow endangers this.
[005] Aim of the invention is to provide a fuse which overcomes that problem.
The purpose is thus to provide an irreversible fuse for high-sensitivity electronic components which avoid/overcome reflow issues.
[005] (part of the solution) using a fuse track formed of AlCu.
Table 1, table 2, [011]: to have Q above 60 we need that the metal of the fuse track is AlCu alloy having a content of Cu in the range of 10-20% by weight and a cover layer made of epoxy resin.
This should be introduced in claim 1 replacing the quality score. It makes original claim 4 redundant.
The cover layer is part of the second embodiment described in [008] for Fig.2. The neck portion is optional and does not need to be incorporated into claim 1 (allowable intermediate generalisation with respect original claim 3.
[012] gives a nice definition of ‘smooth surface’ referring to Ra, better than the active formulation proposed by the client. This should be introduced in original claim 5.
Closest prior art:
Field: high quality fuse for protecting high-sensitivity electronic components
Purpose: provide an irreversible fuse which avoids/overcomes reflow issues
Structurally close: fuse track of AlCu alloy
D1: uses AlCu alloy with 15% Cu by weight, no protective cover. According to table 1: not high quality, not suitable for high-sensitivity electronic components. No further measure to deal with reflow. Conclusion: not close.
D2: Is irreversible (thus high quality), but solves the problem rather differently – not structurally close. The fuse is covered by glass causing an explosion. Reflow issues are thus avoided. Walls are needed to avoid that metal sprays from the fuse to the circuit. Seems not great for high-sensitivity circuits. Conclusion: not close.
D3: uses an AlCu fuse track and focusses on dealing with metal reflow [01]. Close in field and purpose. Structurally close enough.
Conclusion: go for D3 as the closest prior art.
SHARE:
Thanks for the analysis. I understand your reasoning with regard to the selected CPA and unfortunately I find it sort of convincing. :(
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I chose D1 as CPA because D3 as far as I remember is silent about any Cu contents of AlCu alloys and further allows other alloys to be used. But from the examples in the application, NiCr does not work and does not give any improvement in terms of Q-value / SRI (regardless if it is used with or without cover layer) and if Cu contents outside the range are selected the positive effect deteriorate quite quickly. Thus, I concluded that D1 would be a more suitable starting point to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 because only the cover layer would have to be added (a bit ex-post facto admittedly). And further, D1 also addresses the problem of metal reflow same as all the others.
BR Kim
The feature "a cover layer made out of epoxy resin" seems to be extremely narrow, and not desired by the client. He didn't refer to this epoxy resin in his letter, and didn't add it to his claim 1.
ReplyDeleteI guess, the feature could be formulated as "a cover configured to soften and flow into a gap formed by ruptured fuse track" (see page 3, lines 6-10 in the description for support). Epoxy resin was in a different dependent claim from the cover layer, so they are not inextricably linked.
I also took D1 as CPA as the fuse of D1 is already made of the same material as the claimed fuse. D3 only mentions one concrete starting point, i.e. 80/20 Nichrome, and only refers to the "family" of AlCu allows. Moreover, D1 already anticipates the 1st embodiment of the application in its most preferred composition.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the analysys! I had the larger range 5-25% in the preamble and the cover layer with epoxy resin in the characterizing portion and chose D1 as CPA. I think that the inferior effect of protecting the low-sensitivity component was sufficient to defend the inventive step. Although the client discouraged to use Cu in 5% and 25% by weight there was no (clear) indication that those experiments were done with the second embodiment (with epoxy cover layer) especially when you look at the tables 1 and 2 of the application where the two embodiments seem to work rather differently due to the presence of the epoxy resin cover layer. I do not see why the broader range could not be claimed based on the experiments disclosed in the application.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I also went for the broader range of 5-25% in the preamble. There is sufficient basis to claim that together with the epoxy resin cover layer from Table 2. While 5% and 25% themselves may be less preferred, they still provide the advantage of reduced reflow as can be seen from the comparative examples. Besides, if the client wants broadest possible scope, we should be covering e.g. 6% or 22%, which may not have the issues raised in the letter.
DeleteThank you! Actually I picked D3 as prior art because I thought it's the only one which actually has some layer in contact with the strip.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in claim 1 I didn't put the epoxy. As a basis for the layer without the epoxy, I argued that original claim 3 has no epoxy in it, therefore I saw sufficient basis there. My claim would probably lead to a lack of support, but normally that would be easily solved by adapting the description (which shall not be done in paper B). I don't think that the layer without epoxy lacks essential features, because otherwise the EPO letter would have contained a corresponding objection against claim 3.
What I found strange is that the first embodiment could not be rescued. Indeed it appeared to be really not new; however in the CEIPI preparation course I took we were told to always write a claim that covers ALL embodiments.
To Jenny: A claim with cover layer without epoxy is not new in view of D2 if you do not have any range in the claim or not inventive in view of D1+D2 if you have the range.
DeleteI do have the 10-20% Cu in the claim; for inventive step, I mainly argued against cpa=D3, against D3+D1 and D3+D2, but in the last few minutes of the exam I shortly argued that it is inventive over D1+D2 because D2 prefers Palladium-Gold and therefore starting from D1, D2 would not really be considered and anyway D1 contains no hint at all that their fuse design isn't good enough. But maybe I'm wrong here.
DeleteWhat do the experts think how many points it will cost to not have the epoxy? And will points lost in the independent claim also lead to loss of points for the corresponding arguments?
DeleteIt happened more often in paper B that not all embodiments could be rescued. I think it happened even in paper A once that not all the client's embodiments could be protected, but I am not 100% sure about that,
Deletesorry but I cannot follow the argumentation as for closest art being D3. D1 has the same object as the invention, even mentions judging the quality of fuses by measuring the index mentioned in the invention (the objectively measurable one may have been kept in the claim imo) and discloses the same material for the fuse track, so that it would require the least structural modifications to arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1. At least, the CPA should be highly discussable in this exam... :)
ReplyDeletein connection to the model answer: reflow at least implicitly disclosed in D1 (if not explicitly for a person skilled in the art), since the reflow index is mentioned there as distingushing means....
DeleteI agree, both D1 and D3 are directed to the same purpose and are in the same technical field. The deciding factor between the two is therefore the number of features in common or amount of modification required, in which case D1 is the more natural starting point.
DeleteStarting from D1, D2 teaches away (cover layer that effectively explodes!) while D3 teaches a different solution (to broaden the gap between the two remaining ends of fuse by pushing up from below, rather than filling in the gap to stop liquid metal getting in there).
I am not convinced by that structurally ‘close enough’ of D3: D3 has a strip layer under the fuse track. How would a skilled person start from a fuse track that has an under layer and modify it in something that requires to be covered? In principle, with D1, it is enough to extend the layer (of epoxy resin) over the fuse track to arrive at the invention. Minimal structural modifications are required with D1 and not with D3. Furthermore, I cannot follow your reasoning that the field of the invention is determined by the maximum level of improvement that the client allegedly in his claim amendment wants to make?
ReplyDeleteWell, you don't have to modify the expansion layer.
DeleteRather, as would be the case with D1, you would 'only' need to add an additional cover layer (while leaving the expansion layer in place).
Minimal structural modification are always difficult to assess.
Nevertheless, according to table 1 of the client's application, D1 seems to be not suitable for protecting high sensitivity electronic components (15% Cu, Q of 35 and thus well below the 60+ of the invention as claimed). If one would like to obtain a fuse suitable for protecting high sensitivity electronic components, wouldn't it make sense to start from one which presumably already is suitable, or at least more suitable for that purpose (owing to the additional measures provided by the expansion layer)?
Way to go inventing that some of the prior art could have certain test results...
DeleteLet me defend why I chose D1 as closest art:
D1: take the thing, drop a glob of liquid epoxy on it and let it dry. Bingo, you're at the invention.
D2: waht is this I can't even
D3: take the weird and complex fuse, drop a glob of liquid epoxy on it and let it dry. So... will the extra cover layer prevent the expansion track from functioning, because it acts like a brace? Where's my required range of Cu in my liquid aluminum alloy? Why would I use that Cu, and not the better TitaniumGold that's already used? TiAu has inherent low reflow... This is not closer than D1, as both are coverless fuses. D1 at least has the right AlCu range. D3 is just weird.
I do not think D3 is closest. It's structurally exotic, and the narrative of the problem solution approach doesn't automatically flow from the rest of the paper.
D1 as closest? D2 has cover, but it's not epoxy, and we don't want to explode our electronics. D3 has epoxy, but it's not a cover for a fuse track, and the cover expands so wouldn't bring any perceived benefit to solve our problem (problem being: to block reflow). So elegant. So graspable by people from all fields. So... designed by an author of a B paper. This is why I think it's D1. I also hope it is, because I used it ;)
Ok but my starting point was that the client wants to make just an improvement and not a big improvement because he also wants the broadest scope of protection which is given by the 5%-25% range and not by the 10%-20% range. It is not 100% clear from the client letter that the 5% and 25% points are not workable points also with the embodiment with the cover layer.
Delete@B-Real - Hilarious, that gave me a good laugh. I agree with you, problem-solution doesn't flow properly from D3 at all. D1 is definitely the more natural starting point.
DeleteHmm.. a few things I was wondering:
Delete1. What happens if you look at the fuses upside down? Is the D3 expansion layer then covering the fuse track or not?
If it is, would the skilled person be inclined to try with AlCu of D1 [in view of 004 of D3]?
Would he not be inclined to try with AlCu 15% regardless of table 1 as table 2 has epoxy cover layer.
Would he arrive at that claim without inventive step?
2. Would D3 be considered the best starting point if want to avoid unreliable fuses when the track is thin?
Looking at D3, there's quite a hump at where the expansion layer is. I realize par. [012] of Appl. is in relation to claim 5 scenario
but could you consider that hump part to be a rough surface thinking that the the track is laid on "substrate" that consists of
the (real) substrate surrounding the hump portion and the hump?
(maybe stretching it a bit but is the language clear)
Par. [012] application says: "A fuse track of a fuse according to the present invention may be very thin.
If the surface of the substrate on which the on which the fuse track is provided is rough, and the fuse track
is very thin, this may lead to significant variations in the thickness of the fuse track along its length.
This may lead to the undesirable situation that the fuse blows at a value of overload current deviating significantly
from the predetermined current. The surface of the substrate should therefore be quite smooth."
In D1, the AlCu would be there and to improve the fuse's quality the epoxy resin layer would be needed. And the skilled person
would be motivated to try to improve the D1 fuse by adding a cover layer [but is not thought unless looks at D3 upside down?].
That is why I also wondered if the relationship between the fuse track, cover layer and the substrate needed to be specified
in bit more detail in that claim to make certain the D3 fuse upside down does not read onto it. Possibly using functional language.
3. is "a cover layer (25) covering the ..." a method step? If so, is it fixed with just "a cover layer (25) for covering"?
or use the terminology appl uses in [008]: "a cover layer (25) provided to cover the fuse track"? I do realize what the client means to say with that but if that wording is taken literally would examining division object as in some older papers.
B mock p. 9 said "4. The subject-matter of claims 1 and 3 is unclear. The features “generating gases upon ignition”
(claim 1) and “a gas is generated by a composition” (claim 3) are process steps, whereas the claims
refer to a product. This is not allowable under Article 84 EPC, because all features of an apparatus claim have to be device features if possible."
The example ex. report to me does not seem to comment on that claim 1 issue as it's left that part of claim 1 untouched. Was it fixed by just adding claim 3 language to claim 1?!
"- a gas generator (1) comprising a housing (20) and a gas-generating composition generating gases upon ignition;"
I picked D3 as CPA, so I agree with Delta Patents. But in hindsight, I think the examiner wanted D1. It was an uphill struggle to make a nice flowing inventive step argument from D3 as none of the nice quotable pointers were present in the documents (is the invention better or just an alternative? Who can say?). If I'd started from D1 I could have used the Tables to prove there was a tech effect. My OTP would have been "how to provide a fuse suitable for protecting high-sensitivity electronic components". Then it would be easy to argue that D2 or D3 could be added but it would not be the invention.
DeleteI hope that they don't dock many marks for the "wrong" CPA, as really it's not about which is the academically closest (they're all fuses modified with the same purpose in mind! And none of them suggest the flowing blocking cover slip, so who cares which you start with?). It's really about spotting what quotes the examiner has inserted to construct an argument from...
Good point, I agree that it is easier to identify the technical effect on the basis of using D1 as the closest prior art, i.e., 'how to obtain a fuse with is suitable for protecting high-sensitivity electronic components', so that is an argument in favor of D1 as CPA.
DeleteOn the other hand, we considered at least D3 to already suffer less from reflow and thereby already, in terms of purpose, to be closer to the invention as claimed, which normally is an important consideration in selecting the CPA (more so than the features themselves).
In any case, it is good to hear dissenting opinions :)
A 'wrong' CPA will result in a loss of marks for identifying the CPA and the corresponding argumentation, which are typically not many marks. However, there is the 'knock-on' effect in that the remaining argumentation also differs. Some parts of the original argumentation may still apply (e.g., discussing D2 as secondary document) while other parts may not, so the overall point loss very much depends on the particular paper/situation.
Please don't see my persistence in defending D1 as deliberate badgering!
DeleteIf we do the grandmother-test, she would choose D2 because that's the only one with a cover. But at least we agree that it's not D2. Still, if you cannot trust your granny, whom can you trust?
But your argument would also lead to D2 instead of D3. If "already reduces reflow" is really your main consideration: all three of them try that. Then you might as well say that D2 is closest as one would only need to change the glass into epoxy. Both D2 and D3 need to still get to the claimed AlCu range, so they don't differ there. From that viewpoint, D2 would even be closer, or at least more close than D3, because they both have the purpose of hampering reflow, they both lack the claimed AlCu range, but D2 at least already has a cover, and some D2 embodiments do not have walls, while D3 has that weird expansion track complicating your low-profit-margin-disposable-object's design.
I'm rather confident in D1 because all the right "marking-table-hitting arguments and quotable bits" were present for D1, and there wasn't much to quote when discussing D1 as secondary.
Hi. Didn't take the paper so this is based on what I remember.
ReplyDeleteGiven that model claim, could one say:
- d3 discloses cover layer covering the fuse track (emb1 epoxy resin expansion layer covering fuse track: back cover - front cover analogy so underneath is also covering. Covering can mean just part is covered)
- d3 discloses that another metal could be used -> even though d1 does not disclose cover layer on fuse track would the sk.p. not try the 15% AlCu fuse track in D3 (falls on claim range, idea to improve all fuses so would take)? And thus arrive at the solution -> no inventive step.
Then I wondered if the claim language to the layer in model claim had been more like in b2009: "fuse track between substrate layer and cover layer..." -> this is not disclosed in d3. In d1 sk.p. would not find such layer. However, if the sk.p. still took 15% AlCu from D1 and used that in D3 -> would still arrive at solution via inventive step but with different solution(?)
So, is the question whether sk.p. takes the 15% AlCu from d1 or not. And that because there's no 'cover layer' on d1 fuse track sk.p. would not try 15% AlCu in D3?
To reply to myself: having now seen the paper again, Nico's and delta patent's and everyone's comments to D3 as cpa seems logical. All the pointers were in the paper. I can see how the i.s. argumentation would go from D3. Perhaps it's better not to overthink the paper.
DeleteThank you for the discussion and explanation on this. Will be interesting to see how the marks are spread eventually.
I only put in claim 1 in the characterizing portion that the fuse further comprising a cover layer for covering fuse track made of epoxy resin. I do not mention the range 10-20% (this was inserted in claim 2).
ReplyDeleteI took D1 as cpa.D1 teaches ot have a protective layer for electrodes not for fuse track nda this protective layer allowas ot protect electrodes from corrosion, so for another purpose (not reducing metal reflow)
D3 teaches to have fuse track formed on the expansion layer. Therefore expansion layer is not suitable for covering fuse track. So in my opinion teaching away from our invention?
D2 uses a cover layer in glass, material which is not suitable for soften and flows into the gap. The wall of epoxy resin are used to protect electronic circuit (not for metal reflow).
What do you think?
Hi Claire. I did exaclty the same as you did. I admit that an indication for adding the range 10-20% as a characterizing feature in claim 1 was implicitly suggested by the client but I thought it was not a necessary feature to prove inventivness. I also picked D1 as c.p.a. because it is the most promising starting point to reach the solution covered by claim 1. D3 is structurally different and it would require the skilled person to remove the expansion layer and add the epoxy resin cover. Also, D3 kind of teaches away from the present solution (not really though). For sure, D1 requires less modifications and it anticipates the first embodiment.
DeleteMy opinion is that this solution covers a broader scope while, at the same time, proving solid grounds for defending the inventivness.
I think there is still hope :)
The 10-20% limitation is suggested by at least two things:
DeleteThe client stating that further experiments have shown that 5% and 25% of Cu actually do not work as well as previously thought, and in fact, that they are almost 'unworkable' or at least not desired.
In addition, the client already included the limitation of 'the quality score of the fuse is at least 60' in the draft set of claims. Such amendments are normally indicative of the client's wishes, but may for various reasons not satisfy the EPC requirements. In this case, the 'Q>60' limitation does not satisfy Art. 84 since it is not a standard parameter but rather an internal one [009].
However, 'Q>60' is reached by a Cu range of 10-20% (see table 2) which is well-supported by the client's application (2nd-to-last sentence of [008]) and thus can be used to replace the 'Q>60' feature.
I did the same as you too. The epoxy resin in d3 does not melt - if it did and was underneath it would run away from the gap not fill it.
DeleteAnd the glass in D2 does not melt -if it did, it would not provide the advantage of d2 (the microexplosion). D2 has an expoxy resin wall that must not melt otherwise the explosion would break the other components and the fuse would not work, further teaching away from an epoxy resin layer that melts and fills the gap. Hopefully there is scope for respectable arguments in more than one direction.
Hi, after reconsidering the whole thing I fear that claim 1 with epoxy resin but without the range 10-20% lacks support ...
DeleteHi, how many points do you think we will lose for not having added the range into claim 1?
DeleteI checked the examiner's reports from past papers (e.g., 2010). An indepentent Claim not compliant with 123(2) without potentially offending with the 123(3) is punished with a -12.
DeleteThat moment when you realize you are the only one who picked D2 as the cpa...
ReplyDeletenoop, i took d2 too, because it is the only document that covers the metal stripe (from top) using glas. additionally i did not put in the CuAl in claim 1...
DeleteMe, too, taking D2 as CPA, so you are not alone... Still I also discussed PSA based on D3 alone...
DeleteTina
I also selected D2 due to structural similarity (only doc where the cover is on the metal strip) and did not limit the Cu content ( only changed in dependent claim 2 to 10-20%).Tables I and II in the description showed for that the selection of the epoxy cover alone ( with several different ranges of Cu% content ) provides TE.
DeleteZs
@ D2 : doing the same (calim 1 and changed claim 2) with the result that i had a clear argumentation-structure showing inventiv step. I hope that this will be sufficient for 50 points at least...
DeleteI did the same as 'Zs' above, so Claim 1 with epoxy resin and without any range, and Claim 2 with range 10-20%.
DeleteI also argued that D2 is the CPA, because it also concerns a fuse for protecting electronic circuits, with a cover layer covering the fuse track and serving to prevent metal reflow (by vaporising the metal instead of creating a physical barrier). The PSA flowed quite nicely from there, I thought.
Ruben
You are not the only one! I picked it too, and actually still stand by my decision.
DeleteI actually think that on top of the DP amendment you need to add that the epoxy resin is configured to soften and flow. I think this as:
ReplyDelete1) D3 had an epoxy resin that blistered and was able to stay water-proof. Therefore not all epoxy resin flows. And so the claim without this feature covers non-functional embodiments and is not inventive.
2) If you start with D1 and add the cover slip of D2, then you would also add an epoxy resin wall on each side and over the top to completely “cover” the fuse track and capture the shards. Thus without the soften and flow feature the claim is not inventive.
3) The feature was in the paragraph with all the others, so you don’t have to worry about basis etc. It wouldn’t be hard to find in the exam.
4) It can’t be viewed (by the EPO) as an unnecessary limitation. In the real-world a patent attorney would avoid this functional feature to catch people with a similar structure but different inventive concept. But in the exam, the inventive concept is the flowing cover slip. It can’t be an unnecessary limitation in the EQE to have a claim limited to the inventive concept.
Ha, that's interesting! I did not add it because there are no examples of epoxy covers that cover fuse tracks that do NOT soften and flow... But I can imagine your reasoning really well.
Deletestill not convinced why 10-20% should be needed...
ReplyDeleteclient indicated in his letter that >35% remains unknown. actually even the range between 20-35% (not including the end points) may have favorable technical effects.
i am with you and not convinced by any range in claim 1,
Deletethe core of claim 1 is epoxy layer that melts and flows,
it has to be achieved that metal flow is reduced...
List of some reasons for limiting to 10-20%:
Delete• client says 5% and 25% lead to unreliable behaviour of the fuse, so if we argue we're claiming a good fuse, we should not claim 5% or 25%
• client wants to get Q-score over 60, which only follows from claiming 10-20%
• experiments with 5% or with 25% do not show the surprising effect in the examples
See, in the examples there was this super-effect associated uniquely with 10-20%. In B-land, this always means you need to limit to that (never saw it differently, did a lot of B for national qualifications before training EQE).
Or you need only to claim it -as dependent claim
DeleteThis is what I did. Modifying claim 2 with AlCu composition in range 10%-20% Cu and further stating preferred at 15% (as in description). Not sure it was the right move but let´s see.
DeleteThe fuse with Cover Layer corresponds to embodiment 2. There a Range of 10 to 20 is disclosed.
Deleteit is not discloed that the range 10 to 20 is necessary, so it can be left out. The range does not contribute inventiveness, 15% are disclosed in another document (D1 if i remember right).
DeleteTherefore i agree that the range can be put in claim 2, but i think it will not cost much marks either way.
I chose to argue that the term "smooth surface" is well recognized in the art, as suggested by client, D1 also used this term...
ReplyDeleteI actually went to town on this dependent claim. I figured that the substrate has 6 surfaces (can see that in the Figures) and making 5 out of 6 of them smooth would be pointless. So I specified that the smooth surface (I went for the parameter that DP used above) was the surface on which the fuse track was provided. Otherwise it's not really a helpful fall back position, because if you put it into claim 1 you'd need to make those changes to avoid objections of missing essential features or not having the technical effect for 5 out of 6 options within the scope.
DeleteAdmittedly even while I did it I knew that the examiner probably isn't looking for that, as it is a bit unfair to expect us to scrutinise a dependent claim to that extent. But still, if the dependent claim has any purpose at all, it is to be a useful fall-back without further modification...
i also wrote an independent claim for the range 10-20% instaed of original claim 2 (15%)
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn't see discussed here yet is whether to update the dependencies to all preceding claims. I think there were marks available for this in the previous paper with radio beacons in skis (or another one).
ReplyDeleteI did, and I did "intermediate generalisation tests" for all of them to justify it. Let's hope you were supposed to this year...
(Such a catch-22... Do it and risk a penalty? Or don't do it and risk missing points?)
It only pertains to claims 3 and 4 anyway:
3. A neck portion is the technical measure to get the preconfigured current, so it's already inherently present in all claims anyway. And it's described as a general preference for fuse tracks. I felt it was justified to link this to all preceding claims.
4. In the description, smoothness is described as a general preference for the substrate in any case, so I felt it could be linked to all preceding claims also.
actually I made all dependent claims dependent on all previous claims and spent a lot of time and pages arguing why all these feature combinations are originally disclosed; hope that's worth some points
DeleteI also made all the dependent claims refer back to all previous ones. For my amended claim 1, [8] was pretty much a statement of invention, and said "optional neck" so no issues for that one. For the smooth surface it wasn't originally disclosed any more or less with the epoxy cover slip & Cu range of amended claim 1 than in was with the 15% and the neck. So I figured it had to be ok to make it depend on all and argue that it was disclosed as generally applicable (otherwise it couldn't even refer to claim 1!).
DeleteI also expanded the dependencies, but did wonder whether the risk was worth the reward. I think there definitely was basis, it was just a bit tedious to argue.
DeleteLast year, it was required to argue why the new dependencies after the amendments did not introduce new subject-matter (as can easily happen). So Jenny, it should get you marks if you did it correct.
DeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI took D2 as CPA.
I've added SRI below 15 to the cl.1 instead of Q index
and changed range in cl.2 : 10-20%
Do you think it has any chance for 50points? :(
Wouldn`t claim 3 be basis for a general cover layer? While it is there just claimed together with a neck portion, these two features seem to have nothing to do with each other functionally and structurally. The cover layer covers the fuse track whether it has a neck portion or not.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI took also D3 as c.p.a.
The restriction to the Cu content appears too narrow to me - particularly in the light of the examples, a Cu content slightly below or above the range would certainly also provide the effect. Thus the protection would be nil.
I didn't, therefore, include this restriction.
I also didn't put the epoxy resin for the following reasons:
Original claim 3 hat the epoxy resin combined with the neck but not with the Cu content.
Original para. [008] had the Cu content but not the neck (it is explicitly stated optional). It is in my view, an indication, that theses features are not linked and the epoxy resin doesn't need to be in claim 1.
The characterising portion in my proposal is:
when an overload current passes through the fuse, the fuse track heats up, melts, and ruptures, thereby forming a gap such that some of the heat is transferred to the cover layer which then softens and flows into the gap. (basis: [008])
In view of the characterising portion any layer, which can provide that function, is suitable for covering the fuse track. Therefore, also a definition by functional features is allowable.
The problem: provide an alternative solution for avoiding backflow, i.e., blocking the back flow by filling the gap with a melt of the covering layer material.
D3 teaches an expansion layer which enlarges the gap.The expansion layer may be covered by epoxy. However, the epoxy doesn't flow since first it could not prevent the gases from escaping and second it would be too soft to bend the fuse so as to widen the gap. It is further known from D2, that an epoxy may also be so strong that it doesn't deform under the influence of heat. Thus, if not explicitly stated that the epoxy flows, it cannot be considered an implicit property of epoxy.
i totaly disagree with DP answer, wherein the 10-20% limitation in claim 1. the range is neither necessary for novelty nor for inventive step as long as the layer is on the metal and the layer is made from epoxy.
Deleteseems that there will be a lot of appeals this year, since all papers were constructed in such a poor way.
Could you not have the 5-25% range in the claim? While 5% and 25% themselves are discouraged by the client, we do not know what happens between 5% & 10% or between 20% & 25%. Table 2 provides sufficient basis for having 5-25% together with epoxy resin, and the SRI/Q-factor is improved compared to the prior art example for all of the examples (which includes 5% and 25%). For broadest possible protection, I think saying that the Cu is between 5 and 25% is the best option.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if I'm missing something...?
I did and thought exactly the same!
DeleteI was told that it was said last year by the committee that you got full marks if you got the client what he wants, as indicated by his draft claims set. So, if he want Q over 60, a Cu-weight% that meets that is what you need - not more, also not if it would be possible; not less, unless impossible to get.
DeleteIn my opinion the closest prior art should be D2, because the cover in claim 1 ensures that the fuse track is broken irreversibly. D2 is the only one that talks about irreversible breaking of the fuse track. Therefore, if you want to make a fuse a fuse track with an irreversibly broken fuse track would you not look at the only piece of prior art that does exactly that?
ReplyDeletethat's exactely my opinion, by the way you do not need any range when you argue starting from D2.
DeleteHi Anonymous
DeleteI put in the range because as mentioned in the client's letter, 5 and 25 didn't work. Therefore, I think one could say, that without the limitation the claim wasn't enabled over its entire scope.
M
hopefully it will lead to pass even without the range!
DeleteSorry, it is not correct that client states it does not work with 5 and 25 but a poorer quality results.
DeleteThe cleint however states to get broadest possible protection, thus any range is not necessary in claim 1.
The way I interpreted the client's letter is that if a fuse is unpredictable at what current it blows, then essentially it does not work. Equally, if it only blows at a higher current than it is supposed to, it also doesn't work. After all, paragraph states that fuses are used to protect the components of an electronic circuit from damage caused by excessively high electrical current.
DeleteM
In light of all of this, I hope that they're reasonably generous to the various solutions. After all, there are many ways to skin a cat. Personally, I think the functional definition of the cover layer is good, and deserves to pass. But I don't think that (on its own) it is the optimal solution.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I know the functional feature is verbatim in [8], but I think it would have to be a strong argument to convince the examiner that at least epoxy resin is not inextricably linked. (It says "a cover layer 25 made of epoxy resin is provided to cover the fuse track 23" right before that feature, and it's clearly related, it's the only material disclosed to be able to do it...). I know the claims have a cover layer and epoxy separately, but you never see soften/flow separately from epoxy resin.
I also think that without the structural features and just the functional one you could probably argue that it is a non-obvious solution, but it would be hard to argue an actual benefit on preventing re-flow across the claim scope. Admittedly a crap fuse with a mechanism that would never be thought of by the skilled person is still inventive, but I can’t see that being the optimum answer in paper B…
Why is "average surface roughness" a clear term? It is not defined/described how that is determined in [012] and sounds to me like a term that is very unclear, as a I can well imagine that the results of different ways of measuring roughness can be very different. How long is the coast of Britain?
ReplyDelete[003] of D1 describes "The average surface roughness Ra is a well-known parameter defined in accordance with the International Standards Organization (ISO)."
DeleteAC
I amended claim 1 to refer simply to a metal alloy, i.e. not specifically AlCu, absent any reference to the Cu content (characterising feature epoxy resin cover layer).
ReplyDeleteI went with this approach because tables 1 & 2 disclose an embodiment of the invention in which the fuse track is formed of a second metal alloy, specifically NiCr, and the tables teach that the quality score of the NiCr is increased and reflow reduced by the cover layer (even if the improvement is marginal).
In my view then the specification provides express basis for the fuse track being formed of either AlCu or NiCr, and I argued that, particularly because the prior art discusses various metal alloys, and one of the prior art documents even appears to teach that metal alloys are similar in performance, that a generalisation from "a fuse track formed to AlCu or NiCr" to "a fusetrack formed of a metal alloy" is permissible.
Has anyone any thoughts on this approach? Did anyone else generalise AlCu at least to "AlCu or NiCr"?
Normally, you are not allowed to amend to a genus (e.g., (any) metal alloy) based on the disclosure of a limited number of species (e.g., AlCu or NiCr) in the application as filed, as such a generalization is not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed.
DeleteI believe the application as filed did not disclose use of 'any metal alloy'?
I also doubt that it was the intention of the client to cover also the NiCr 'comparative example' as the client indicated by his/her preliminary amendment that he/she wishes to obtain protection for embodiments yielding a quality score of at least 60 (NiCr is 29).
Thanks for your note Nico. Despite the principle that one cannot broaden species to genus, I attempted in my response to justify my generalisation by reference to T52/82:
Delete"an amended claim does not contain subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed if the preamble to the claim has been amended by substituting an appropriate more general term, which is apt to define a feature common to both the closest prior art described in the application as filed and the invention which is the subject of the application, for a specific term which is not apt to define that feature of the prior art."
My argument in this respect is that the subject application discusses a fictional prior art document in which the fusetrack is formed of "a metal alloy such as ...[NiCr]". My argument in this respect is that the discussed prior art document discloses the use of "a metal alloy" more generally, with the "such as" defining a mere example.
I accept that my arguments are perhaps a bit close to the wind, and with hindsight I perhaps regret making the generalisation. That said, whilst I appreciate my amendment/argument was risky, even following further consideration on balance I do reckon that T52/82 provides support for my amendment.
However, the client's letter expressly asks for the "broadest possible" scope of patent protection. Given that there seems a really comfortable argument that the specification of the application provided basis for at least an amendment to "AlCu or NiCr", surely to satisfy the client's request a broadening amendment is appropriate. Moreover, even whilst I accept the client clearly deems an AlCu alloy with a 10-20% weight of copper most desirable, surely that the client has asked for the broadest scope of protection, and not merely a commercially useful scope, indicates that an amendment specifying the Cu weight is inappropriate.
I will be interested to see the mark scheme in due course!
@ delta patents: first thank you for your great work
DeleteBut I have two points to mention:
1) D2 seems to be the only document that has a cover layer (on the AlCu layer). D3 has a layer beneath, that is structurally not close, is it? D1 covers electrodes (from top side, thats even closer than D3, I guess)
2) Why adding two features in the characterizing part with different technical effects (quality vs. back flow preventing)? I guess back-flow preventing is the key of the invention, ttus incorporating epoxy layer. A limitation to 10-20% seems not necessary since you do not need to argue with the range, do you?
paragraph 8 (if I remember correctly) of the spec states that fuses are used to protect the components of an electronic circuit from damage caused by excessively high electrical current. The client's letter said that fuses out side of this range either are unpredictable or blow at a higher current than they are supposed to. Therefore the technical effect is not achieved outside this range. I believe that this is why the claim needed to be limited to 10-20%.
DeleteThe client's letter is not the description of the application. The description is silent about "that fuses out side of this range either are unpredictable or blow at a higher current than they are supposed to". the range is not substancial, thus limiting the claim without range should be allowable" see GL F-IV 6 ff and H-V 3.2.1 ff
DeleteSure, but I think in the EQE world, the information in the client's letter is provided for a reason. This is what I took away from the Strasbourg course at least.
Deletein view of the client letter: it clearly states "broadest possible protection".
DeleteAny comments on why D3 was chosen as CPA by Deltapatents, and D1 is indicated as the right one in the Examiner´s Report?
ReplyDelete