Our attempt at Paper B 2024 - Biodegradable face mask
Difficult. This would be one word to describe this year's Paper B. Judging from the comments on our ‘first impressions’ blog post, many would still consider it an understatement.
The difficulty stems at least from the length of the paper. There were 30 pages and 5400+ words (English version) compared to 21 pages and 4200+ words of the 2023 paper. The theme was also very chemistry-related. We as non-chemists felt that candidates with specialist knowledge in this domain may have had an advantage in sorting out the patentability situation. Further adding to the difficulty was the fact that there were 11 claims in total including two independent claims (which in itself is not unusual, but adds to the complexity) and some legal issues relating to post filed evidence.
Unusually, the paper does not caution against adding additional dependent claims, which was the norm in recent papers. Is this to be understood as an invitation to add further dependent claims? Probably not, but explicit guidance in the paper would have been helpful.
Below is our attempt in broad outlines (with in particular the letter not being fully worked out).
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 02-03-2021 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname 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.
Edit: changed title from "our solution" to "our attempt" since we found that this year's paper offers limited guidance on identifying the optimal solution among various alternatives (including those which are mentioned in the comments to this and the 'impressions' blog post).
Nico, Sander
Claims
1. Biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask comprising
at least one filter layer
comprising cellulose fibres, wherein the cellulose fibres are made
of individually loosened native cellulose nanofibres.
Support: Combination of claims 1 and 3 as filed, which is further limited by:
- "individually loosened”: supported by [042] 1st sentence, [048]
- “native”: supported by [022], [023], [024], [041], [042], …
- Distinguishing feature over D1: “individually loosened”, technical effect/advantage high filtration capacity, [036], with enhanced mechanical properties, in particular air permeability [037], client’s letter 2nd paragraph.
- Distinguishing feature over D2: “native”, technical effect/advantage: green/biodegradable [043], [055], client’s letter 3rd paragraph.
- Why the limitation to “individually loosened”? According to [041], ordinary cellulose already consists of cellulose nanofibres, but in bonded form. Thus, it appears that D1’s face mask is also made of native cellulose nanofibres (but not made of individually loosened ones).
- Why not "a pore size in the range of ..." as limitation? The application as filed defines it as a "challenge" to provide such fibres, cf. [036], while it appears from [042] and [048]-[050] that the 'solution' to this challenge is the nanofibres being "individually loosened". In other words, we considered the pore size as a potential 'result to be achieved' with the 'individual loosened' being the underlying technical feature that achieves this result.
- Note that “biodegradable” alone does not distinguish over D2, since D2 is also biodegradable (cf. D3, Examiner’s communication point 3), but to a lesser degree.
- Perhaps “single” instead of “individually loosened” could be an alternative formulation for “individually loosened”, supported by [041] and [048].
- Does "made of" exclude the nanofibres being coated with gelatin? We're unsure, but choose to maintain this wording (instead of "comprising" as mentioned in [022]) for the mere reason that this wording is already used in originally claim 3 and, most importantly, the proposed claim 1 of the client.
- Why not specify that the nanofibres have a “cellulose-I crystal structure”? According to [042] and [048], this is the “native” crystal structure and thus inherent to “native cellulose nanofibres”. As such, the crystal structure limitation is already implicitly present in “native cellulose nanofibres”. Adding the feature would not further change the scope.
- Why not limited to “FFP2”. See client’s letter page 2, “We therefore need to have our invention solidly protected by the patent to stop competitors from selling similar products, such as FFP2 face masks comprising nanofilter layers made using other plant fibres”. The client thus wishes broader protection than only FFP2 masks.
2. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask
according to claim 1 wherein the
cellulose fibres are derived from cotton or hemp.
[[3. The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask
according to any one of claims 1
or 2 wherein the at least one filter layer is made of
cellulose nanofibres.]]
3[[4]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 1[[3]]
wherein the
cellulose nanofibres are derived from papermaking waste
residues which comprises at least 1% (in weight) of cellulose fibres.
Support:
- [045]: “As a by-product of that method of papermaking, waste residues comprising at least 1% (in weight) of cellulose fibres are generated”
4[[5]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to any one of
claims 1
to 3[[4]] which is a surgical face mask or a dust
face mask.
5[[6]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 4[[5]]
which is an
FFP2-type face mask.
6[[7]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 5[[6]]
wherein the
FFP2 face mask comprises a multilayer structure with at least
three layers comprising at
least one outer layer (A) with a thickness of about 40 μm
acting as a water barrier; at
least one inner (middle) layer (B) with a thickness of about
8 μm acting as a filter layer;
and at least another outer layer (A’) with a thickness of
about 40 μm for contact with the
skin.
Remarks:
- Claim 6 refers anew to “a” filter layer instead of referring to “the” filter layer of claims 1-5. However, the Examiner did not raise a clarity objection and we therefore refrained from further clarifying the claim.
7[[8]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 6[[7]]
wherein the
FFP2 face mask comprises five layers comprising the outer
layers (A and A’) and further
comprising two inner (middle) layers (B and B’), acting as
filter layers, separated by a
hydrophilic separation layer (C).
8[[9]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to any one of
claims 6[[7]]
or 7[[8]] wherein at least one layer is
manufactured by conventional techniques for making
nonwoven fabrics such as melt-blowing or spunbonding.
9[[10]].
The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to any one of
claims
6[[7]]
to 8[[9]] wherein the outer layers (A and A’) are made of nonwoven
cotton or hemp fabric.
10[[11]].
Process for manufacturing a biodegradable filter layer for a multilayer
FFP2-type
face mask, the process comprising: providing papermaking
waste residues which comprise at least 1% (in
weight) of cellulose fibres, milling using grinding
balls, and casting into a thin nonwoven layer by melt-blowing or spunbonding.
Support:
- [045]: “As a by-product of that method of papermaking, waste residues comprising at least 1% (in weight) of cellulose fibres are generated”
Remarks:
- Why not add “gelatin”? According to [046], “in our method of paper making, gelatin is admixed…” which suggests that that other papermaking waste residues may not need to comprise gelatin. In addition, the technical effect of being able to generate native cellulose nanofibres in a simple manner and without any need of chemical treatment seems to be independent of the gelatin, cf. [048].
Patentability
of claim 1
Note: the
following is a broad outline of the argumentation, but not fully worked out.
Novelty
Claim 1 is
novel over D1 since the cellulose nanofibres in D1 are bonded and not “individually
loosened”.
Claim 1 is
novel over D2 since the cellulose nanofibres in D2 are synthetic polymer fibres
and not “native” cellulose nanofibres.
Claim 1 is
novel over D3 for at least the reason that it does not disclose a face mask.
Inventive
step
D2 may be
considered as the closest prior art since it relates to a face mask made of cellulose
nanofibres providing protection against aerosols (nanoparticles smaller than
1μm, cf. [035]). D1 does not address aerosols, while D3 does not even concern
face masks.
The distinguishing
feature of claim 1 over D2 is that the face mask is made of native cellulose
nanofibres.
The
technical effect of the distinguishing feature is that the face mask is highly
biodegradable, cf. [055] which states that the nanofilter layer disintegrates
completely within 30 days, whereas according to D3 [004], D2’s cellulose
acetate nanofibre layer can take years to completely biodegrade.
The
objective technical problem may be formulated as how to obtain a more biodegradable
face mask.
D2 does
not contain any hint or suggestion towards biodegradability.
D1 does
disclose a completely compostable face mask. However, in view of the disclosure
of D1, the skilled person would replace D2’s cellulose acetate nanofibre layer
by D1’s layer of 100% organic filtering felt made of compacted cellulose fibres.
This combination, however, would not lead to a solution falling within the scope
of claim 1 since D1’s layer does not comprise “individually loosened” cellulose
nanofibres.
D3 merely
confirms that D2 is insufficiently biodegradable and does not contain any
teaching towards improving the biodegradability.
Remarks
on the patentability of claim 10
D2 also makes
sense as CPA since it discloses a process of making cellulose nanofibres (albeit
a chemical process which makes synthetic and not native polymer nanofibres).
D1 and D3
do not seem to lead to a solution falling within the scope of claim 1 as they
are entirely silent on manufacturing processes.
Significance
of the additional laboratory experiments and D4:
The additional laboratory experiments and D4 represent 'post-filed evidence' which together demonstrate that the use of individually
loosened native cellulose nanofibres
not only achieves a much better biodegradability, but also better breathing
comfort.
This
technical effect is already implied by ('encompassed by') the application as originally filed (cf. [042]
which states that the cellulose nanofibres of D2 have poorer mechanical
properties, which according to [037] relate to the breathing comfort, or cf. [056]
which also compares to commercially available FFP2 masks made from synthetic
polymers).
As such,
it is likely that the additional laboratory experiments and D4 as reference for
the used test methods would be allowable under the 'free evaluation of evidence' principle, GL G-VII, 11. This is recently confirmed by G 2/21.
However, the
laboratory experiments relate to FFP2 masks, while claim 1 is broader than that.
One can normally not rely on experiments pertaining to a specific embodiment to
demonstrate inventive step over a much broader claimed range. On the other
hand, if the advantage of better breathability is obtained in a FFP2 mask, it stands to reason that similar improvements are obtained in other types of face masks
compared to synthetic polymer nanofibres. It therefore would make sense to also
include the laboratory experiments and reference to D4 in the response letter
to the EPO as further demonstration of the improvements obtained over D2 (for
example, as part of the problem solution approach using the “improved breathing
comfort” as an additional technical effect, or perhaps as a separate section in
the letter).
To puzzled physico-chemist,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment.
Redoing B2024 from scratch without exam fatigue and time pressure, I now completely fail to understand how DP’s solution could even be an acceptable one. We have been intensively coached to depart from the client’s proposal, e.g., here, claim 1 + 2 + 3 + x where the sum is to be argued/corrected as art. 123(2)/84/52/54/56 EPC compliant. And now, the suggested solution above just ignores that entirely … is there still any point to subscribing to any type of EQE preparation coaching these days ?
ReplyDelete@ Anon redoing the exam
DeleteBut claim 1 + 2 + 3 + x results in an scope narrower than similar product comprising other cellulose fibres (not just cotton and hemp are used for papermaking )
and made of excludes all other components. If you add gelatin, you excludes embodiment without gelatin. All these deviate from the inventor's wish.
I completely agree with you. I have to admit that I didn't realise there was a phrase somewhere in the application about normal cellulose consists of nanofibres (nowhere in D1, I ctrl-F'd this term). But thinking about it for a couple of days, I came to the conclusion that this should not be interpreted as a feature that asks for more feature to confer novelty. Most evident of all, cl. 3 was not objected by the examiner as lacking novelty. So the examiner (representing the examining committee) thinks nanofibres are novel over D1. Although claim 3 is "made of" nanofibres, so is D1 which is 100% hemp, that is a more clear and non-mistakable statement that "made of" cannot be the distinguishing feature. So nanofibres must be novel for the examiner. And this is a test for answering a comm from the ED, not a test to find further fault in your own application, a trick in that way would be really unfair. Alternatively, one can argue that [41] is about "cellulose", while D1 is consistently about "cellulose fibres" and never mentioned the term "cellulose" only. From the application, "cellulose fibres" are a raw material from which "cellulose nanofibres" can be obtained. [41] especially points out that the nanofibres are strongly bound together. Saying anything comprising "cellulose fibres" also comprises "cellulose nanofibres" is like saying anything that comprises concrete also takes novelty from a product comprising sand. I'm not sure if that would be a valid line of argumentation. In retro-perspective, the phrase of "cellulose consists of nanofibres" was ignored by me for a reason, because it was in the context not to be understood as leading the reader to think nanofibres are a component of cellulose fibres, but only necessary for explaining the method below. I personally rather believe that the examining comittee didn't even think that this phrase is going to be brewed by participants like that.
ReplyDeleteI have a totally different Claim 1 from DP solution. I added "the three layers", "papermaking waste residues comprising gelatin" and "FFP2" into Claim 1. This is my claim 1:
ReplyDelete"Biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask comprising at least one filter layer
made of cellulose nanofibres,
wherein the cellulose nanofibres are derived from papermaking waste residues comprising gelatin,
wherein the mask is a surgical face mask or a dust face mask,
the mask is an FFP2-type face mask,
the FFP2 face mask comprises a multilayer structure with at least three layers comprising at least one outer layer (A) with a thickness of about 40 μm acting as a water barrier; at
least one inner (middle) layer (B) with a thickness of about 8 μm acting as a filter layer;
and at least another outer layer (A’) with a thickness of about 40 μm for contact with the
skin."
Should I start preparing the paper B for next year?
I don't think you should start preparing just yet. My feeling is that they will give points to alternate solutions too - and the arguments are worth 70 from the 100 points.
DeleteThank you very much, Johanna, I am curious about the marking. Because my claim is totally deviated from the DP solution, so my argument (including the effect, problem, and distinguishing feature) is also totally different from the DP argument. Will the argument part save me from failing?
DeleteIn the previous papers B, has anyone make it to pass (or compensated pass) if the claim is totally different from the final solution?
Totally missed that hemp should be taken out of the claim. How much do you think is this going to cost?
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn’t be hemp included? Was there an Art. 123(2) issue to deal with?
DeleteHey Roel, they did not publish the German version. Any idea why?
ReplyDeleteGerman version is the first item.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf it is indeed to be considered that D1 implicitly discloses "nanofibres", I personally could only accept two possible solutions that fulfil the requirements of A84 and A123(2):
ReplyDelete(a) "Biodegradable disposable FFP2 respiratory face mask comprising at least one filter layer comprising native cellulose nanofibres". D1 not clearly FFP2 so cannot be novelty destroying. Material and method so different so it is up to the examiner to prove that it is indeed FFP2. This is not against client's wish as they clearly want to sell FFP2 masks, but does not want to restrict to fibre from a certain plant, therefore the comment on "similar products".
(b) "Biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask comprising at least one nanofilter layer comprising native cellulose nanofibres". Basis for native and nanofibres already enough discussed, basis for "nanofilter layer" in §35 and §38 of the application. D1 mentions nothing in nanometer range, the filtration is only effective for above 3um particles, so definitely not a nanofilter. The term "nanofilter" should be considered clear as it is used everywhere in the application and in D2 as such. The application also has an explanation of the term in §35. The client's letter consistently talks about their invention having a "nanofilter" layer. The only example in the application results in a product with pores in nanometer range. As the material is nanofibres, it is hard to believe that any larger pore size can be made, so the mentioning of "nanofilter" does not restrict the client's invention in anyway but clearly distinguishes from D1. Possible problem for omitting "FFP2" as the nanofilter is disclosed in the context of FFP2. But there is also a big section dedicated to "biodegradable nanofilter layer" as such. One could argue this way or that way.
I think (a) is a better answer.
For the other features: multi-layer is mentioned by the applicant but way to narrow, and still need to add FFP2 for avoiding intermediate generalisation; "loosened" is unclear, as "loose" is a relative term, just as "tight"; gelatin / paper making waste also very restrictive, and probably problem with Art.123(2) if not all the features of §50 included, and again, everything in the context of FFP2 mask. So for the moment, I still don't see any other reasonable solution than to restrict to "native cellulose nanofibres" or "FFP2 mask comprising native cellulose nanofibres".
According to [029] of the application, an FFP2 mask has a filtration efficacy of 94% to 99% for particles of 2 μm to 5 μm. Thus, the feature “FFP2 mask” is directly and unambiguously derivable from D1, [011]: “face mask […] with a 98% filtration efficacy […] for particles of 3 μm or above”.
DeleteI think there is a understanding discrepancy of the disclosure in §29 and §30. I understand FFP2 masks must filter 94% of particles of >2um, thus D1 disclosing filtration of >3um is not comparable in anyway with this standard, because it does not say anything about 2-3um, and might in theory simply has a cut-off of 3um,while letting anything of 2-3um through. Having filtration ability of a particle of >3um does fall under the scope of filtration ability of particles >2um, the contrary, if D1 has >94% efficacy of any particles size <2um,e.g. 1um, >1um, then it implicitly filters all >2um thus fall under FFP2. My work has something to do with filtration so I hope this understanding is not too wrong. So D1 does not implicitly disclose FFP2 mask.
DeleteYes I think this is the best answer. Also the reason to take D2 as CPA and thus taking post-published evidence etc, so the whole picture complete. Sadly I did not think of this at the time of the exam...
ReplyDeleteHello, I have some comments about these two solutions:
Delete1. FFP2 alone may be not clear, since the structural feature making the mask meet the FFP2 filtration rate is missing (nanofilter layer). So it can not be used alone.
2 Nanofilter layer alone, indeed we have a chapter discussing the nanofilter layer.But only disclosed FFP2 masks comprising the nanofilter layers. It's rendered obvious that this layer can be used with other masks (e.g FFP3/surgical), but this is not directly and unambiguously derivable (Art.123(2) risk)
So, if you want to use these feature, it should be:
FFP2+nanofilter layer+native nanofibres
3.In addtion , this understanding is based on the assumption that "similar product" only includes FFP2 from other cellulose source but not includes surgical and FFP3 mask (I think the usage of "similar products here leads to ambiguities"). No one knows what is the real intention of the client.
Especially one dependent claim defines exactly the mask is surgical mask (I read this as an indication to protect also surgical masks)
about 1: FFP2 mask is disclosed in orig. claim 6, and not objected as unclear. This feature is a mere combination of original claims. Of course, claim 5 should be deleted (which I did even without restricting to FFP2 mask, becuase there is just no basis for surgical mask with nanofibres).
ReplyDeleteAbout 2, I agree, nanofilter may well have Art.123(2) problem. So possible FFP2 should be there too.
About 3: that's a good point, if FFP2 indeed excludes FFP3, because the product of the client can well be classified FFP3. But one might argue that FFP3 is a sub-type of FFP2 because all FFP3 fall under FFP2. However this would too much specialised knowledge that they did not hint to.
In the end, I'm happy that there is no single solution that convinces everyone, so there must be a problem in the material of the exam, not on us:D They should neutralise some points for all in view of all this confusion ;)
Shouldn’t the exam committee have made an announcement by now?? I just can’t imagine the kind of scoring instructions that will have to be applied to markers, considering so many different solutions …
DeleteBy the way,
DeleteIsn't filter layer comprising native cellulose nanofibres = FFP2 + nanofilter layer + native cellulose nanofibres, in the context of the description?
Using nanofibres to manufacture the filter layer inevitably results in a nanofilter layer (para.[050])and then the nanofilter layer makes the mask meet FFP2 standard (para [035])
Thus, in the given context of the exam, this two claims are basically identical
Hihi I am reading the Examination paper again and find another support for cellulose nanofibres is different from cellulose fibers
ReplyDeleteCommunication 3.2 the examiner states:
The term “cellulose fibres” is a generic term encompassing any fibres derived from cellulose, including any processed cellulose fibres, or any synthetic cellulose fibres obtained by chemical treatment of cellulose"
This reads to me:"cellulose fibers are fibers derived from cellulose" = cellulose fibers is not cellulose
Then, [41] stating cellulose consistis of cellulose nanofibres does not mean "cellulose fibers consist of nanofibres "
This looks like:
cellulose fibers are fibers derived from cellulose
Cellulose nanofibers are nanofibres derived from cellulose
In addition the used wording "processed" seems to be an indication that "native" is smth
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs if all the traps were not enough, paper B in EN is available in the compendium on the German page. How weird is that?! /Cau/
ReplyDeleteNow, it sounds like a joke for April fools' day
DeleteHow can they make so many mistake and many traps even after exam?
DeleteCould someone please cite the wording of para. [041] of the application as filed?
ReplyDeleteI just think DeltaPatents is wrong about this. The office action did not say anything concerning the original novelty of claim 3 and the application as filed speaks about how difficult it is to get nanofibres. Sentence 41 appears to be a mistake on the part of the exam makers.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I found it myself:
Delete[040] The production of nanofibres from cellulose is not a trivial task.
[041] Cellulose consists of cellulose nanofibres of about 25 nm in diameter. Owing to
strong bonding between the nanofibres, it is difficult to separate cellulose into single
nanofibres.
In my opinion [40] and [41] contradict each other. How can the production of nanofibres be difficult if normal cellulose already consists of these nanofibres. That makes no sense. [40] does not mention "single nanofibres". I think para. [41] is just a mistake.
Also based on actual data, [41] should have been "Cellulose consists of cellulose fibres ...".
DeleteSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocellulose
Normal cellulose does not consist of nanofibres.
It is getting more and more inconsistencies in this Paper B.......
DeleteRoel, why is it so difficult to get to page 2 of the comments?
ReplyDeleteThis is so funny. And in keeping with the actual paper! Will we be given a puzzle to solve to open the results document?
ReplyDeleteA short summary about the inconsistency in this paper:
ReplyDelete1. no one knows what the client wants: FFP2 only or other similar masks?
2. No one knows who is the expert in technology. Examiner appears to be correct about the biodegradability but the Inventor appears to be correct with the synthetic fibers. (They are both inadequate?)
3. No one knows what's the actual technical purposes. Inventor would like to provide a degradable mask but only provides additional evidence in air permeability.
4. No one knows the actual relationship between: cellulose, cellulose fibers and cellulose nanofibres.
5. No one knows the meaning of nativr . Is is known or not? Never heard before but there are terms like native cellulose-I crystal structure.
6. No one knows whether gelatin is essential. Gelatin is presented in all paper making residues. Is it possible to obtain nanofibres from paper making residues without gelatin? No disclosure at all.
7. No one knows whether the nanofilter layer with a specific pore size is the inevitable result of using nanofibres or not. It appears that using nanofibres with conventional technology without any specific care, you can obtain a nanofibres
8. No one knows what's the meaning of filter layer. Claim 3 has a filter layer made of (consisting of) nanofibres.But claim 7 indicates (nanofibres+nonwoven cloth) as filter layer
9. No one knowsthe meaning of "made of", D1 has a mask consists of 100% compacted fibers. BUT can also have gelatin
10. No one knows since when the cellulose acetate fiber lost its cellulose/I crystal structure. From treatment with organic solution (D3)or the specific TEF (D2)?
11. No one knows whether it's possible to obtain nanofibres not coated with gelatin.
Welcome to add more..
I think this paper is difficult in that no one knows what information is true what is false. You have no one to trust, also the description.
Thank you soooo much for making this list!
DeleteCan someone in DeltaPatents try to send this list to the EPO or something? Not sure what are the channels to reach the examining committee.
I feel it's like a pen and paper game, you need to find out who is lying..
DeleteI think it would be just fantastic if this list was forwarded to the examining committee... They should definitely bear in mind their inconsistencies when correcting paper B.
DeleteAdding more inconsistency
Delete12. No one knows whether the technical teaching of D1 is authentic or not. The title of D1 states that D1 is a mask against Could. But from the description, it's clear 98% filtration rate of 3um+ particles are not sufficient. Make people doubt the authenticity of D1
13. No one knows whether the technical effect of D2 is true. The application uses 3 pages discuss that FFP2mask uses synthetic polymer are disposable as filter layer is the source of plastic pollution. But the D2 states that mask made from cellulose acetate nanofibres (also synthetic polymer) can be reused to reduce plastic waste. What structure produces this effect? Can other synthetic polymer be reused like this? This renders the motivation of the application unclear and throw doubt to the authenticity of the application, since synthetic polymer is also biodegradable.
Adding more inconsistency
Delete
14. No ond knows what information can be trust in the application:
[011] Face masks are, by definition, disposable single-use articles that need to be
frequently replaced. (D1 and D2 both provides reusable mask. What function is disposable? We can throw it away?)
[016] ( Face masks) which can be easily manufactured to
replace production of the latter. (The nanofilter layer of the present invention are built using conventional technology, see claim 9. No simplification compared to conventional FFP2 manufacturing. Only simply compared to D2 which should'be been not known when drafting the application)
[027] non-reusable dust face masks called Filtering Face Pieces (FFP) (Must FFP be non-reusable???, this renders D2 like lying)
15. No one knows whether "(native) cellulose nanofibres" are CGI or not. It appears that this material and its physical properties are known to a skilled person. Starting from D2, will a skilled person be motivated from directly using known native cellulose nanofibres to replace synthetic one obtained using TFE? As demonstrated in the present invention, as long as you have nanofibres, you can use convention technology (CGK) to make the nanofilter layer.
Inconsistency 8 is incorrect.
DeleteI didn't fully understand the work "cast into"
I would like to add another point.
DeleteWhat does the sentence
"We therefore need to have our invention
solidly protected by the patent to stop competitors from selling similar products, such as FFP2 face masks comprising nanofilter layers made using other plant fibres."
really mean?
I interpreted it such that a restriction to FFP2 masks needs to be avoided at any cost, because then FFP1, FFP3, surgical masks and all other masks would not be encompassed by the claim. Further, I thought that having hemp in the claim is ok, because having a nano filter comprising hemp still allows to use additional, other plant fibres when making the filter layer.
I believe the examining committee reads this blog, so they should be aware
ReplyDeleteI also think they read this blog and should thus be aware. In my opinion, the only way out is to neutralize some marks. It unneccessarily cost so much time during the exam to deal with all these inconsistencies and contradictions with the goal of ending up with a potentially novel and inventive claim that I couldn't finish.
DeleteThere are so many inconsistencies in Paper B this year and extra long text.... Hope the examining committee can understand how we have been prepared this paper B with sacrificing our evenings and weekends to study paper B but ended up with so many inconsistencies.
DeleteWhy do I believe the Delta Patent amended claim 1 is not the expected one:
ReplyDelete1/ The application as filed is not a prior art reference and the content of its description cannot be used against the novelty/IS of its own claims.
2/ The application as filed cannot be considered to contain skilled person knowledge, unless the applicant clearly states so.
3/ In view of 1/ and 2/ above, [0041] of the application as filed cannot be used to give a certain meaning to a term (cellulose) found in one of the prior art reference.
General knowledge (in previous B and C exams and also in true life) is to be found in prior art references and other documents published (well) before the filing date of the application / effective date of the claims, not in the description.
I also agree that the paper was really difficult in that it is not clear what the solution is. However, I find the length of the exam much more critical. With an unclear solution the examination committee is able to give marks for alternative solutions as well, which means that candidates who came up with a reasonable answer and good argumentation should pass also with a solution which is not what the examination committee had in mind. But this paper was just too long to give the candidates a chance of doing it properly. The majority of the points in B are given for the argumentation, meaning that you HAVE to move on to writing that after a certain amount of time regardless whether your claims are perfect or not if you want to have a chance of passing.
ReplyDeleteWith this amount of text and documents it was just simply impossible to 1) read everything thoroughly, 2) decide on the claims AND 3) have enough time to write out the answer. Reading this amount of text thorougly takes too long even when doing it quickly and in a concentrated manner; I am a fast reader, was concentrated and have a chemical background, meaning the topic was not difficult, but still missed some sentences like [41]. However, as I just about managed to finish as it was, I probably would have lost more points if I had seen [41] since it would then have taken me a lot more time to figure out how to make claim 1 novel over D1, meaning that a part of my argumentation would have been missing. I also type fast... But with 3 documents and 2 independent claims the inventive step argumentation takes a lot of time.
So what bothers me most is that it was just not a fair setting - in order to finish in time, you were forced to either go to the first direction you saw with the claims or leave your argumentation part unfinished.
The best and more honest comment on this chat.
DeleteThank you Johanna,
Deletethis summarizes my situation perfectly. I saw [41], only to spend a ridiculous amount of time on figuring out a new claim 1. Not only did this lead to a wrong claim, but also took just too much time to finish the rest of the paper. Thus, awarding some additional marks on my claim 1 will most certainly not allow me to pass, as the rest of the paper simply is not done properly. But what would have been the alternative? Moving forward with a claim that I strongly believed not to be novel?
Hence, I think it would be just highly unfair to simply ignore [41], which might in fact be a mistake by the exam makers, as suggested by some in this blog.
Absolutely correct! This is what I was telling a colleague yesterday.
DeleteYou had to choose either to stop reading at some point and go on with flawed yet complete argumentation, or go on reading and write good claims with half a half completed perfect argumentation.
Which one will get you more marks? I suspect it's the first approach.
Actually you have to concentrate to make your claims new and cannot concentrate only on the argumentation. In case you concentrate only on the argumentation you will loose even in the argumentation part a lot of points.
DeletePlease compare examiners' report 2021:
《5.4 Novelty (12 marks) .....A claim that is not novel does not receive any marks for the novelty argumentation.
5.5 Inventive step (26 marks) It is an established practice that the arguments in favour of inventive step are structured following the problem-solution approach. ...... An inventive step argument for a claim 1 that is not new could attract at most 10 marks. If claim 1 is too limited, a maximum of 12 marks is available. No marks are available for claims 5 and 6, when they are not novel.》
But it is also established that they shouldn't penalize you twice. Actually, in the example you gave, they penalize candidates thrice.
DeleteBut again, in the example you gave, the claims are "clearly" not novel and inventive.
In this paper, it seems there are many ways to make claims novel and inventive, especially due to the unclarity and inconsistencies of the paper.
So, if your claim can, based on some legit interpretation, is novel and inventive, you shouldn't be penalized twice, if your claim is not the "best" claim you can give to the client.
I was so devastated when I realized that [41] is there because my rule number 1 in claim amendments was always to make sure that the claims are novel and if not, rather add an unnecessary feature just to be on the safe side. But in this case I did check D1, saw nothing about nano so felt sure that the document didn't directly and unambiguously disclose any nanofibers, then saw that claim 3 was even considered novel over D1 and with that the novelty over D1 was done. Oh well... Of course it is a massively annoying sentence to skip - rather skip one that just means you miss ANY other feature and lose 5-10 points instead of 20 or so. But I then told myself that I did do the best I could under the circumstances of the exam: Since I knew I had to move on to the argumentation because every not-written sentence is worth exactly 0 points, it was not possible for me to re-read the whole application to see every sentence that would mean an implicit disclosure in one of the documents. As said, I just about finished in time as it now was. Of course in real life mistakes like that - or any other that has been reported here in the comments! - should not happen, but the point is than in real life you do have more time and therefore a chance to do your work properly.
DeleteHi guys, I understand that you added "nano" and "native" to Claim 1 and that para [41] is tricky. I would like to know why you did not consider adding original claim 4 ("The biodegradable disposable respiratory face mask according to claim 3 wherein the cellulose nanofibres are derived from papermaking waste residues") and the essential feature of the paper making waste residues ("gelatin") into Claim 1 to make it more novel?
DeleteWell, adding claim 4 into claim 1 would result in a really narrow scope.
DeleteMoreover, a claim cannot be "more novel". Either is novel or is not.
So, if you think that adding "native" and nano" already brings patentability (which I believe, as the examiner did not bring any objection regarding D1 comprising nanofibres), adding claim 4 into claim 1 would be an unnecesary limitation (usually heavily penalized).
Don't scare the guy, what does "heavily penalized" mean? Claims are normally 30 marks, so even if you lose them all due to unnecessary limitations (which would be unfair), you can still pass with good arguments.
DeleteThey were testing many different points in the exam, so unnecessary limitations shouldn't be more than 5 marks penalty each, that's not "heavily penalized".
DeleteHello Johanna,
DeleteI see it exactly as you say.
Either you did not see [41] -> Extremely unfair if intended, as nowhere else in the whole paper is it pointed out that cellulose nanofibres cannot be new (not in D1, client letter and written opinion).
Otherwise on the other hand, if one did see it (like I did) it would lead exactly to the panic you just mentioned. All of the client's hints suddenly disappeared into nirvana because it was not possible to differentiate sufficiently without losing a large part of the desired protection scope. I put all the time available into distiguishing my claim 1 from D1 and completely neglected D2, as I had already found a rather poor differentiation here at the beginning. Now I don't have "native" in my claim and I'm afraid I'll hardly score any points for inventive step because the technical effect (mechanical improvement) also seems to be dubious/mixed from native and nanofibres in combination.
I almost wish I had read over [41]... And I bet that (no matter what they will present to us as the solution) native nanofibres (perhaps with an indication of crystal structure or PbyP feature)was planned as the solution.
paras 41 and 40 already destroy the novelty of "native" and nano". So without further limitation, the combination of native and nano lacks novelty. In my opinion, a claim lacking novelty should be worse than a narrower scope of claims. The purpose of the paper B is to overcome novelty. So I think a claim with "novelty" is a minimum criterion for overcoming the objection in Paper B.
ReplyDeleteI spotted "native" solution as one of the possible feature to amend claim 1 but I really struggled a lot to put in there, it seemed a big trap to me. Otherwise I didn't have any clue and no time to get back to riconsider "loosened" fibers as a possible amendment.
ReplyDeleteyeah let's resit, what would we are supposed to do in our lives better than resit EQE?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, let's just spend hundreds more hours because of a contradicting, unclear, and absurd exam.
DeleteNative nanofibres may be not clear but I think it's sufficient for novelty.
ReplyDeleteUsing a known material in a known product can be new and inventive as long as this combination was never used.
As argued before, whether 41 deprives the novelty still depends on the interpretation on the relationship between cellulose and cellulose fibers.
It makes no technical sense to a skilled person that a product made of cotton (consisting of cellulose fibers) deprives the novelty of a product made of made of cellulose nanofibres.
So you are arguing that cellulose fibres is not cellulose? Are you kidding me? :-D
DeleteCellulose fibres obviously is cellulose.
[41]: Cellulose consists of cellulose nanofibres.
Thus, cellulose fibres consist of cellulose nanofibres.
If they wanted us to reach the conclusion that cellulose fibres is not cellulose, then this is nothing but absurd. If they wanted us to find [41] and draw a conculsion contrary to the communication, then this is also just absurd.
The absurdity of this paper is remarkable.
Well, this is an endless discussion, but either paragraph 40 ("The production of nanofibres from cellulose is not a trivial task") is incorrect;
Deleteor paragraph 41 ("Cellulose consists of cellulose nanofibres") is incorrect.
But clearly both paragraphs cannot be correct. And remember the examiner did not raise an objection of novelty for claim 3 based on D1.
it is like saying: distilled water consists of H2O, but the production of H2O from destilled water is not a trivial task. It is absurd.
@annoymous
Delete[039] Cellulose is the most common biopolymer on Earth. Since it is formed via
photosynthesis in plants, it is a sustainable and renewable source of natural and
biodegradable fibres.
The definition of cellulose is the biopolymer itself. And cellulose fibers is a fiber form of this biopolymer.
Cellulose can also exist in other forms, for example as additives in food. You can't say we are consuming te fibers as food.
The cellulose content of cotton fiber is 90%, that of wood is 40–50%, and that of dried hemp is approximately 57%. (Wikipedia)
DeleteYou can also see from here that fibers and cellulose should be different concepts.
Hey TH, but even if you argue against cellulose fibres, what is then with the mask from [11] in D1?
Delete[011] A 100% organic hemp face mask...
Would you still argue that this hemp face mask does not contain cellulose nano fibres?
Please, do not use your own knowledge. We know you are a great chemist but these are the rules of the game. If they tell you apples are black, you need to accept it.
DeleteHence your own knowledge and Wikipedia references aren't relevant.
Of course the examining committee should have thought about this in advance, that some chemists are going to take the examination and therefore they will unintentionally use their knowledge if things aren't clear, and especially in light of the lengthy paper. I am not blaming you at all for using your own knowledge, but unfortunately using your own knowledge is against the rules, let alone that this puts everyone else at a disadvantage.
Also, assuming that one paragraph in the text is incorrect is not an assumption you should be making.
@anonymous,
DeleteCould you tell me your view on how the teachings of paragraph 40 and 41 are compatible?
I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying in an exam we cannot rule out the correctness of a sentence. It is the mistake of the examining division. There is no way out of this.
DeleteThat is why my solution was to make a narrow claim which is clearly novel and inventive, to avoid all the doubts and useless discussions. If they fail me for having a clearly novel and inventive claims, yet not the broadest scope, I will certainly appeal, as should everybody else.
@anonymous
DeleteUnfortunately, I am not a chemist and what I am doing is to prove that there are possibilities in interpreting the claim in other reasonable ways. People who interpreted this paragraph in a way different to you does not. necessarily mean he/she is incorrect.
A box made of PET is also different from a box made of PET fibers
This is not our point to diminish other approaches here.
I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying in an exam we cannot rule out the correctness of a sentence. It is the mistake of the examining division. There is no way out of this.
ReplyDeleteThat is why my solution was to make a narrow claim which is clearly novel and inventive, to avoid all the doubts and useless discussions. If they fail me for having a clearly novel and inventive claims, yet not the broadest scope, I will certainly appeal, as should everybody else.
Exactly.
DeleteAdditionally, assuming that the examiner is incorrect assesing the novelty of claim 3 is not an assumption you should be making.
Then, is a inescapable trap.... In order to do the exam, we were forced to assume or ignore parts of the exam.
It is just nuts.
It is my opinion that only the prior art can destroy the novelty of the wording of claim 1. The prior art cited by the examiner are D1 and D2. Sentence 41 of the application is not prior art and should not destroy the novelty of the claims. D1 does not disclose any nanofibres and the Examiner has also confirmed novelty of original claim 3 in view of D1.
Deletebasis for that?
DeleteWhere did you find that the background teaching of your own application cannot be used against you?
It is an inescapable trap, no doubt! That is why the only solution is to give free marks to everyone, otherwise you will either unfairly penalize chemists who HAD to use their own knowledge, or penalize others, who had no idea what on earth cellulose is.
DeleteThe issue is not if you are or not a chemist.
DeleteThe real problem is the contradictory statements.
With respect to all these debates in the discussion area.
ReplyDeleteI fully understand everyone would like to defend their approach, either by adding only native nanofibers or with FFP2+nano filter layer, or with individual ly loosened.
However, I would like to say that the stem problem is not the opposite sides understands the examination material wrong. The stem problem is that the examination paper is provided in unclear and unconcise phrases which allows different interpretation.
The endless discussion in para. [41] proves this point. Each sides can find evidence and cannot persuade each other.
The wording in the description is ambiguous and the candidate with different language skill/technical background would interpret the wording in different ways.
Punishing the approach in amending claim in this paper B is more or less punishing the personal reading skill instead of testing the professional knowledge in IP field.
Absolutely! I think we all agree on this, no?
DeleteSo, an Art.84 objection to this exam
DeleteI agree. We need to unite together
Deletewooowww.. good argument. You made me happy
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting if we can have good points to rebut the standard (expected) answer.
ReplyDeleteIn addition:
ReplyDeleteIf this is a technical truth that Cellulose contains nanofibres (which is not, based on general information about cellulose which can be easily found over the Internet), then the Examiner would not have had any problem to find and cite another prior art document or book published before the filing date of the application and prooving this technical truth.
In the context of this paper B, if the persons who designed this paper had wanted us to consider and admit that cellulose consist of nanofibres, then they would have included such information in one of the prior art document (why not in D3?), not in the middle of the application and in a way that clearly contradicts the rest of the application (and the content of the Office action and the client's letter, by the way).
I totally get your point. I just feel that this is incredibly unfair.
DeleteI find it funny how you can twist and turn the B part however you want, it just remains contradictory and unfair. Nevertheless, I am sure that the examination board won't care. They will decide on a solution, perhaps so that at least 50 to 60% pass and everyone else is out of luck.
DeleteHowever, the communication only states that claim 3 is not novel over D2. There is no statement at all that it is in fact nover over D1.
DeleteSo if you assume that the geniuses of the examination committee really had a perfectly laid out plan with this exam, what do you think they had in mind with par 41?
In the previous-years paper B, the novel features can be found in dependent claims. This year, paper B provides so many dependent claims but hides the novel features in different parts of the patent description. The most crazy thing is that this year paper B has so many pages and citations. It is totally unfair for people sitting this paper B. I think most of us would fail, and the passing rate could be less than 30%.
DeleteThey can't suddenly go from 70-80 to 30%. In fact if they would be strict maybe less than 10% would pass, depending on what answers they consider correct, which is the insane part, since many answers can be defended.
DeleteI am actually quite confident they won't be strict. We may all lose 30% of the claim analysis part, but they will probably be very lenient in novelty. I think if you get novel claims you will get all the novelty marks, then if you defend properly your position for inventive step then you will get most of these marks too, therefore passing with no issues.
The only problem is for people who couldn't finish their inventive step argumentation, these may unfortunately fail, because yeah, if you have no answer, you can't get marks.
This is my feeling.
Yes, I think this is why any result will be unfair. You cannot proof that you were not able to finish the argumentation because of the "difficult" claim amendment part.
DeleteMy pleasure to make you happy. Will I pass paper B for that?
ReplyDeleteAgree. However, the ones who couldn't finish their inventive step argumentation are probably the ones who spent too much time figuring out what this chaotic paper B was all about with the goal of ultimately ending up with a novel independent claim. Therefore, clearly the wrong people are penalized.
ReplyDeleteYes of course. We all agree this is an unfair exam, no matter what happens next.
DeleteBut you can also argue that candidates knew the duration of the exam and that the claims are only 30% marks from the start. So whoever decided to spend all their time on the 30% and not on the 70%, has made a bad decision. I still agree that we shouldn't have to make such a decision, but yeah, life isn't fair sometimes.
I agree, the examiner did not say the claim 3 was novel over D1; but the examiner niether said the claim 3 was NOT novel over D1. Both are "facts".
DeleteHowever, once again, you can interpretate both facts in the way you want.
Absolutely. We all agree this is an absurd and unfair exam.
DeleteI do not fully agree that the people who spent their time on the 30% of marks and did not focus on their reasoning which is awarded with 70% of marks made a bad decision. I think it is more the decision that a weak basis (i.e., a non-novel claim 1) may be rather hard to motivate in the reasoning or may lead to only a small number of marks being awarded. The goal of the exam shouldn't be to fill a certain number of pages with some arbitrary content but with a plausible reasoning on novelty and inventive step. For that purpose, a novel and inventive claim seems essential which was hard to find in this year's paper B in time.
DeleteWith all respect but no one cares what we agree about or not.
DeleteThe exam has 100 marks. Historically 30 for claims and 70 for arguments.
So if you have great claims but didn't write anything else, you probably will fail.
But if you have very narrow claims and which are not what was intended, but make sound novelty and inventive step arguments (again, sound arguments, so not nonsense), you certainly have way more chances to pass. There are also marks for using information in the paper (I'm not saying this makes sense, but it is what it is).
Therefore, in light of the above, although unfair, those who made the choice to perfect the claims but couldn't finish their arguments have less chances to pass compared to those who narrowed the claim too much but managed to perfect their arguments.
Not fair, no, but it is what it is. The exam overall wasn't fair, and anything happens from now on will probably not be fair for everyone.
To Anonymous March 21, 2024 5:39pm: A communication usually won't explicitely say that a claim is novel over the prior art. Examiners only target non-novel or non-inventive claims.
ReplyDeleteI am not the same anonymous. But I beg to differ. I have had communications which mentioned that a subject-matter is novel and/or inventive. The lack of mentioning lack of novelty may be considered as an indication that it is novel, but this is not a "fact" to be taken for granted. The examiner can always change his mind or cite new documents in the future. So, in conclusion, the examiner did NOT say it is novel.
DeleteThe only reasonable and fair solution is to neutralize the whole exam and give 50 points to everyone, which obviously the examination commitee will never do.
DeleteOtherwise, paper B 2024 will stablish a new record of appeals.
I don't think 50% free marks is ever going to happen. But a more possible scenario is around 20% free marks, or that they are very very flexible with marking. Any of these two options would already be good and reasonable in light of the current circumstances.
DeleteIf they give 20% or 30% marks because of the inconsistencies and clarity of the exam, everyone who did not pass will appeal.
DeleteThis is not like paper D, where it is possible to neutralize only one question or one part (which already hapent).
If the examination committe neutralize some marks, they have to neutralize the whole exam, because all parts of the exam are linked (amendments, basis for amendments, novelty, IS).
And this is without considering the time wasted trying to find a "model" solution.
So you're suggesting they will have a pass rate of 10-20%? That would be insane given 70-80% normal pass rates. If at least they won't give free marks, then they will probably be very flexible with marking.
DeleteDon't forget they don't want to receive many appeals, and also they don't want too many of us to repeat next year. They have the new EQE coming up, so they probably want to get rid of the old guys.
After this exam I highly doubt that they want to get us passed. I agree with what Pete Pollard wrote last year. Many in the committee might be thinking that the EQE is too easy to pass. They even uploaded all the printables only 15 min before the start of part B. In all other exams (A and C) they uploaded the material 20-25 minutes before the start of the exam. Of course 5 min more or less do not have a huge impact, but still, if you consider that this year part B did expect us to read much more than in any previous year you get the feeling it was uploaded extra late to make it even harder for us.
DeleteOne more thing to be considered while stablishing the novelty of "nano" over D1 is that:
ReplyDeletethe only difference between claim 1 and 3 as filed is the term "nano". So, if nanofibres = fibers, claim 1 and 3 cover the same subject matter, which does not make any sence. Specially, since they client should be the expert in the field, he would not want to have 2 claims covering the same subject matter.
Sorry Mike but all this doesn't matter. Nanofibers are fibers. You can analyze all you want and you would be correct, but still, to a non-chemist candidate, nanofibers are fibers.
ReplyDeleteof course, nanofibers are fibers..... but fibers are not nanofibers (specific versus generic).
ReplyDeleteI am seeing this a non-chemist as well.
Thoughts on a characterising portion that specifies that "the at least one inner layer (B) acting as a filter layer is a nanofilter layer (B) made of cellulose nanofibres of natural origin and has a pore size in the nanometre scale". In my mind this established novelty, albeit with reference to pore size rather than reference to individual loosening. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that reference to the fact that the fibres were originally loosened is clear in the context of the product claim. How would the skilled person ascertain this when provided with the mask alone?
ReplyDeleteIs it intermediate generalisation? violate Art 123(2)?
DeleteIs there not an argument that the term is clear in the context of para [035], i.e. that "in the nanometre scale" means on scales that filter out things which can evaporate into nanoparticles smaller than 1 μm (i.e., 1000 nm), including (preferably) 100 nm? This wording was taken verbatim from the description, and I selected it to be less limiting than "about 100 nm" since clearly 1000 nm is an embodiment (albeit less preferred) to be covered.
DeleteI think it would be considered a result to be achieved.
DeleteNot sure I follow that logic. The technical feature that gives rise to the result is the size of the pores on nanometre scales, i.e. not in many micrometres or millimetres, as is clear from para [033], [035] et seq of the description. I see the argument that this is less clear / explicit than specifying "around 100 nm" but less needlessly limiting and imo still clear in the context of the description as a whole. It seems to achieve substantially the same tech effect as specifying that the threads were individually loosened. It also avoids the issue of how the skilled person would know whether the fibres in the mask were originally "individually loosened" - I'm yet to understand this, unless I'm missing something.
Delete“Nanometer scale” isn’t clear either. A pore size of 1,000,000 nm (= 1mm) is also “in the nanometre scale”.
ReplyDeleteA term like "around 100 nm" is a clear term, but "nanometer scale" is not clear at all in view of the application as filed
DeleteCan someone indicate me where I can find a technical effect related to "individually loosened" fibre? paragraph?
ReplyDeleteI am really trying to understand the proposed solution by DP.
Thanks in advance
Is Paper B 2024 the most difficult paper B in the EQE history? I heard 2021 Paper B is also difficult. But which one is more difficult? 2024 or 2021 Paper B? Did Paper B ever accept different independent claim amendment? It seems like this year paper B lead to different claim solution. thank you.
ReplyDeleteLet's phrase it like this,
Deletewhen doing the 2021 paper B, I can at least understand partly what is expected from the examination board (intermediate isolation, computer implemented method, and Art.123(2) ).
For paper B2024, after two weeks, I don't know what professional skill is expected.
It is difficult in 2024 paper b
DeleteIm Deutschen war meines Erachtens die Formulierung "Cellulosefasern bestehen aus Cellulose-Nanofasern" entscheidend. Cellulosefasern sind deutlich dicker als die Nanofasern. Deshalb habe ich Anspruch 1 auf einen Faserdurchmesser von 25 µm (oder waren es nm?) beschränkt.
ReplyDeleteactually, paragraph 41 says "Cellulose consist of cellulose nanofibres", at least in the English version;
Deletewhich is different to "cellulose fibres consist of cellulose nanofibres" as you mentioned in your previous comment
Actually in the German version:
Delete[041] Cellulose besteht aus Cellulose-Nanofasern mit einem Durchmesser von rund 25 nm. Aufgrund der starken Bindung zwischen den Nanofasern ist es schwierig,
Cellulose in einzelne Nanofasern aufzuspalten.
Auch nicht Cellulosefasern.
For me, paper B is not yet visible on the EPO compendium unlike the others. I guess the committee is also debating about it
ReplyDeleteIt is available on the german site.
Deletewhen will we receive the final solution of Paper B 2024 from the EQE examination board?
ReplyDeletejuly
DeleteSee EQE website, "EQE 2024: Publication of results", which provides:
Delete"10.10.2023
Communication from the Examination Board for the European Qualifying Examination
with regards to the EQE 2024
In connection with the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court, particularly in reference
to representation under Article 48(2) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, the
Examination Board hereby formally notifies all concerned parties that the results of the
EQE 2024 will be available in July 2024, in accordance with the standard procedure.
For the Examination Board
The Chairman
Jakob Kofoed"