B 2026: first impressions?
To all who sat the B-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to the very final B-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
For example, was the subject-matter
well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates? Was the paper
easier than in recent years, or harder, or at a comparable level? Did you
experience a lot of time pressure?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of
the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper B is only
available on 10.03.2026, 13:00 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post our provisional answer in a separate blog post as soon as
possible after we have a copy of the paper, preferably in all three languages.
Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, please send it to any
of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Please be reminded that you can view
and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the view/download
button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer
shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the
official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear.
Apart from any pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded.
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English.
In order to make responding to your
comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use
either your real name or a nickname. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your
(nick) name at the end of your post.
Please post your comments as to
first impressions and general remarks to this blog, and post responses to our
answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
We look forward to hearing from you!
First commenter?
ReplyDeleteI thought this Paper B was surprisingly easy - so easy in fact that I'm very worried that I missed something major...
Well that was a lot nicer than Paper A, that's for sure...
ReplyDeleteClearly drafted by a different person to Paper A (thankfully)
ReplyDeleteI also think it was rather straight Forward and everything fell into place nicely. However, with Claim 5 and 6 I am Not entirely sure...
ReplyDeleteClaim 5: I merely amended "connected" to "connectable" based on Guideline F IV 4.14.1
DeleteClaim 6: I merely reformulated as dependent on Claim 5.
I did the same for claim 5, but introduced the recess and the connection of the support columns (sorry, No Idea was the English wording actually was) to the device...
DeleteI ended up moving claim 5 to be dependent on former claim 6 (now claim 5), and changed the specifics of what was snapping to what to get around the disclosure in the prior art.
DeleteWas the recess inventive? Could not find anything else. Also the communication stated that the subject-matter of cl. 2-5 (the recess being in claim 3) "does not appear" to be inventive, but no concrete prior art references were given to back it up.
ReplyDeleteWas there a technical effect associated with the recess? If the answer is yes, then it is inventive.
DeleteI agree the recess was a bit iffy from inventive step perspective - realistically it seemed hard to argue that the prior art trays wouldn't achieve the same effect: contain small amounts, leak large amounts, and invariably leak from the front due to the lower wall! But there seemed to be unambiguous novelty at least, for the recess, and arguable IS on the basis of "directing" the water in a certain way. I did shite myself a bit at the end of the exam when I remembered the examiner had essentially raised an IS objection against claim 3 - but I think we all know that kind of broad-brush IS objection is open to argument.
DeleteRecess on its own is not novel in view of the opening in D2.
DeleteYes it is because the recess is in the front wall
Deletethe front wall in D2 is one of the 4 sidewalls....recess on one of the sidewalls, so can also be on front wall...yeah that was a bit confusing to me at first because the application distinguishes between front and side while D2 doesn't.
DeleteYes it is, the recess was specified as an outlet but D2 holes were water tight and sealed during use
DeleteIn my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
DeleteI agree with the above poster that the recess was required to define height C as being lower than height A, changing the client's added section to "such that" and framing it in terms used in the application.
DeleteThe side holes in D2 were for handles etc and were sealed in use.
When you add in the difference in height and the such that part all of the prior art teaches away from claim 1.
Specifying what the recess does i.e. the function, makes it inventive but not novel.
DeleteIt's already novel Stefan. A sealable opening is not a recess with a specific height. The recess is not disclosed in D2. D2 is just telling you not to try and generalise the recess.
DeleteStefan, how can the feature be inventive but not novel??
Deleteagree with above poster? how have you arrived at something being inventive but not novel!?
DeleteI obviously misspoke. I meant the function of the recess is relevant for the inventive step not for novelty. The fact that a side wall in D2 comprises an opening takes away the novelty of a recess in the front wall in claim 1.
DeleteThe figures in D2 show the opening on the lateral walls but the description of D2 indicates it can be on any one of the 4 side walls without making any disctinction of whethere it was a front wall. Super tricky stuff :/
I admit I wasn't sure whethere including the C height is necessary but my reasoning was that i prefer to end up with a slightly limited claim rather than with a claim that is potentially not novel.
In fairness I don't think including the height really limits it. The only other interpretation is that the recess goes backwards in to the tray for some reason which wouldn't solve the problem.
DeleteI tend to think the recess was novel over D2 because it was in the front wall. In principle any wall in D2 could be considered as a front wall, but claim 1 also specified that the front wall is lower than the other walls. So the combination in claim 1 defined that the recess is in the wall that is lower than the other walls. A recess in the lower wall did not appear to disclosed in D2.
DeleteWhat about the case where height C is zero? This would still be possible with a claim that specifies height A to be larger than C, but would not achieve the intended distinguishing between condensate and leakage...
DeleteStefan I still disagree. Claim 1 required that the front wall was shorter and had the recess. D2 had an opening but clearly not in its shortest wall, so D2 is not disclosing the recess
DeleteSee my comment above. D2 had the opening in the sidewalls, which can be a front wall in D2. The figure in D2 is diabolically misleading.
DeleteI included that the recess is an outlet in claim 1. D2 does not disclose an recess being an outlet, since it is a ⋆༺☆water retainer☆༻⋆ used for ☆~retaining~☆ water. Does not make sense to have an outlet in such a product.
DeleteEasy stuff. Recess is clearly the invention, and it’s inventive over all three prior art.
ReplyDeleteI went for the recess and think it was inventive in view of the documents...
ReplyDeleteI did not find particularly easy, but manageable compared to paper A.
ReplyDeleteI think I am ok with the amendments but I struggled a lot with identifying the closest prior art. On one hand D2 deals with every leakage (including condensation), but D3 seems to solve the early detection problem but does not deal with condensation.
ReplyDeleteI went with D3 because, like the invention, it relating to alerting to leakage. D2 did not provide any alert/alarm solutions.
DeleteYes. The purpose of the present invention was fundamentally concerned with speed of detection. D2 taught a deep container - no mention of the speed urgency of early detection
DeleteI went with D2 for Claim 1 and D3 for the second Feature of Claim 6...
DeleteIn the end I went for D3 as well, but took me a lot of time to conclude there and I am still not 100% confident.
DeleteYes, D3 is CPA
DeleteAgree on D3 - the purpose of the invention was to allow detection of the leak which aligned with the purpose of D3. D1 and D2 had hints away from CPA in my opinion.
DeleteCPA was a bit challenging - I personally went with D2 over D3, but did make a lengthy statement at the end regarding how any document could have been started at and it would still be inventive. The recess and its purpose are inventive over any of the documents, so I will find it interesting to see how they mark the CPA section.
DeleteI also went with D2 for claim 1. Structural modifications required when starting from D3 seemed a lot more to me.
DeleteWhen I took Paper B, the intended solution had different CPAs for different claims. Likely the case here.
DeleteD2 and D3 were both solving very different technical problems. I went with D1 as it was at least solving the same issue as the characterizing part of claim 1 without going in a direction that would have actively taught away from the recess.
DeleteAll drip trays deal with condensation; that is their raison d'etre
DeletePurpose immediate detection of leakage yet allow normal condensation water to be retained
DeleteThe description of the application definitely provided basis for generalising from V-shaped recess to just recess, but did it provide basis for separating the 10-20mm height from the recess?
ReplyDeleteYes. One of the paragraphs said any height could be used providing the front wall was lower. I think it was para 18.
DeleteYes, in my opinion it did, because it was stated somewhere that they height is Not really important. And why would the recess only work with this height?
DeleteRight, V-shape best result but not essential
DeleteYep. Only thing with the V-shape was to make sure that the embodiment with the skirting board was only dependent on the dependent claim with the V shape and not just 'any preceding' if you kept claim 5.
DeleteA nice paper this year, other than the exam report being a little terse.
ReplyDeleteI think the solution was to incorporate the recess into claim 1 and claim 6, minus the V-shape. I also added that the recess did not extend all the way to the bottom of the front wall, based on FIG. 2 (using the rules for amendments from figures in the Guidelines). D3 CPA, D2 and D1 teach away. A recess may be implicitly disclosed in D1 due to the damaged front wall, but not in the embodiment with a lower front wall than side walls, and is disclosed as a negative thing, so D1 not a good starting point even if it arguable has more features in common.
Interesting, you kept claim 6 as separate independent claim?
DeleteI decided to not keep it independent and instead make it dependent on claim 5, because I thought the combination of recess and skirting board was only disclosed in the specific embodiment with the receivers / connection configuration as defined in claim 5.
Benchmarker in claim 6 i left the combination of skirting board + drip tray depdending on claim 1
DeleteYes, I agree. As noticed above, it seemed a bit short, so I also wondered whether I overlooked something. I considered specifying that the recess had a height C lower than A but greater than zero, but in the end did not do that, mostly because I could not find a nice basis for that, nor any hint that something along those lines was expected. I did not think of using Fig. 2 as basis.
DeleteAnd yes, D3 as closest prior art, so the invention solves longevity and false alarms.
I made claim 6 dependent on claims 1-5 ('automatic' unity, and only one independent claim per category). I also made claim 7 dependent on the drip tray claims, as there was no connection to the skirting board.
I made claim 5 dependent on claim 6 (and renumbered) to solve the lack of clarity, but the 'connectable to' mentioned above might have been better.
Why would a recess be inextricably linked to the receivers and skirting board?
DeleteI left it as an independent claim, mainly as claim 1 defined a drip tray, and claim 6 a drip tray and skirting board (i.e., claim 1 is an apparatus claim, claim 6 a system one). Ultimately, I think either way would be okay though, as long as you justify why.
DeleteThanks for the above Benchmarker. Can you comment on how you think it will be marked if you chose D2 as the CPA? I know it taught away, but D3 had electronic detection means and arguably required more structural modifications than D2. I also noted that D3 would detect any level of liquid (due to the wires being on the base) so would alert the user to any level of liquid build up (including condensation forming a layer of water on the base) which is the opposite of what amended (to include the recess) claim 1 is trying to do.
DeleteSkirting board shoud have a height which allows to check the water leakage from the recess outlet I think. Otherwise is not enabling
Delete@J, I am not a marker, so please take this with a pinch of salt, but there would typically be a lower, but non-zero number of marks available for inventive step arguments starting from the wrong CPA, as long at there are at least some reasonable reasons for starting there. For example, last year the maximum number of IS marks was 25 instead of 30 if you started from the wrong document.
DeleteNot agree, D3 is not the most easy springboard and it needs much more modification to reach the invention. The aim of invention is to detect leakae withoud electrical systems (description) so D3 bad starting.
DeleteThe purpose of invention was to realiza a leakege detecting drip tray without battery or electric system which doesnt last fo years. D3 teches away. Not CPA
DeleteI think D3 taught away, since the application explicitly said in two different paragraphs that those alarm systems are too complex. Regarding the drip tray, D1 and D3 both dealt with the device damaging the structure, which made it unsuitable as CPA in my view.
DeleteD3 also detect any amount of leakage even condesation. False allarm. The invention let a small amount of water due to condensation without false alarm (no leakage). D3 teaches away
DeleteJ is right in my opinion
Delete@Steven and Anon. Well, we will see when the exam report comes out.
DeleteMy argument for D3 was that it was the only document relating to leak detection, which was the purpose/field of the invention (and in particular the recess feature). The fact that the application mentioned the type of drip trays used in D3 in a disparaging way shouldn't alter this - it would be a strange interpretation of the PS approach if prior art couldn't be CPA if its problems were discussed in the application.
Also, the fact that a document teaches away from the solution doesn't mean that it can't be CPA - especially if the other documents also teach away in some manner. D2 emphasises sealing the drip tray and maximising water contained in it, which teaches away from the type of recess used in the application.
In my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
DeleteInteresting point with regard to defining the recess as being lower than the front and that D1-D3 all technically have recesses on their front walls. I didn’t think of that but did include the definition of C being lower than A in claim 1 as it made it easier to argue against the IS objection in the letter which outlined the recess as being non-inventive.
DeleteAgree with benchmarker re. D3 as CPA. Ultimately it is the purpose which defines the CPA, and the only prior art with the same purpose as the invention (which was in paragraph [7] from memory?), namely, to allow detection of the leak, is D3. The consideration of the number and nature of structural modifications is always a more ancillary consideration which almost always defers to purpose
DeleteDid anybody use G1/24 in view of arguing that D1 does not disclose a recess in the front wall?
DeleteI don't agree with D3 as CPA, D3 can't contain water just detect leakages with electric system. Invention is to detect leakages over an amount and let other free to dry without false alarm. Description of D3 also describes front wall must be 30 mm or less.
DeleteHow did you manage to get G1/24 in?
DeleteI went with D1 as CPA as it was at least solving the same issue as the characterizing part of claim 1 without going in a direction that would have actively taught away from the recess.
DeleteD2 and D3 were both solving different technical problems in different ways. Also means there's an interesting discussion of D1+D3 in the P-S step. D2 just felt like it was trying to achieve the exact opposite of what the applicant was.
D3: [005] A particular advantage of the drip tray is that even a small leakage can be detected
Deleteimmediately to prevent the floorboards from getting wet.
I went with D3 as the CPA also based on purpose , and described D3 as the most promising springboard because it is directed to a similar purpose. I also argued that to start from D1 or D2 would involve hindsight reasoning because D1 and D2 are not equally valid springboards (referring the problem solved not being recognised in D1 and D2). I then cited, inter alia, T 2759/17; Case Law (2025) I.D.3.2 and also chapter I.D.3.7.2, together with GL/G-VII, 5.1, as well as a relevant T decision citation relating to "equally valid springboards".
Deletebut detecting the water is the technical effect to me, the purpose of D3 and the otp is to prevent floorboard to getting wet.
DeleteAnonymous @2.41pm - why can't it contain water? From memory it said it could still hold water, just that it could detect with even very small amounts. There was also no height requirement on the front wall other than it being lower, so not sure how the 30mm height is relevant. D3 is the most promising springboard having the same purpose. Structural modifications are not as important as purpose for deciding CPA
DeleteThe purpose of D3, or rather a particular effect deriving from the drip tray, is that "even a
Deletesmall leakage can be detected immediately to prevent the floorboards getting wet" (see [5]). This purpose is also described in para. [1] of D3 in that the drip tray is "for detecting a leakage underneath a kitchen appliance".
The originally disclosed purpose of the present invention is to provide a drip tray which
retains condensation and ensures that leakage is detected immediately. See para [7] of the
present application.
I'm afraid I must agree with previous posters re. D3. In response to John, the purpose cannot be read so narrowly into one specific effect of D3. Much earlier in D3 (don't have the exact paragraph to hand...) it states that the aim is to allow detection of leaks which is the same as the claimed invention
Delete@2:56 the aim was to detect leakage but not small amounts of liquid due to condensation. There's no reason D3 can't do this in theory, but there's also no reason to ever consider adding a recess when there's an optional switch to kill the water supply in D3. Personally I didn't see D3 as actually suffering from the problem of leakage.
DeleteIn assessing CPA you should refer to MAIN purpose/problem/effect of claimed drip tray. How to detect leakages is not the main purpose to consider but how to prevent the floorboards from getting wet.
DeleteAnyone left combitation ot dript tray according to claim 5, and skirting board? Claim 5 clarified by drip tray connectable o sutable to be connected?
ReplyDeleteyes, same
DeleteQuite a straightforward paper thanfully, but requires lots of argumentation, intermediate generalisation, essentiality test, R43(2)(a), two times novelty and inventive step ...etc.
ReplyDeleteI've added the feature of the height C being less than A from the description because D2 had an opening on a sidewall that can be interpreted as a recess.
Furthermore, I had two independent claims: c1 covering a drip tray and c5 covering a skirting board connectable to said drip tray. The combination is therefore covered as per client request but i had to argue that the drip tray and skirting board are interrelated products.
DeleteAll the same here, defending compliance with R43(2)(a)
DeleteBut the client did not ask for protection of the skirting board alone? They only asked for (1) the drip tray and (2) the combination of drip tray and skirting board...
DeleteAgree with Marc, not quite sure why so many people tried to claim the skirting board alone?
Deletethe combination is covered by: "A skirting board connectable to the drip tray...".
DeleteAlternatively, you can keep the term "combination" but it is less elegant in my opinion. In any case you still have to argue why the claim satisfies R.43(2)(a)
Agree with Marc. It's ugly, but that's Paper B.
DeleteStefan - agree with the R43(2) requirement still being relevant, but what was raised was an Art 82 objection and the client asked for skirting board+tray and tray alone. Claiming the skirting board alone requires further limitations on the skirting board to meet both the requirements of Art 82 and R43(2) than claiming the system where you can have unity from same inventive concept being the recess in the tray, rather than having to find some unifying concept between the tray and board
DeleteI did not claim the skirting board alone!
DeleteI just removed the term "combination" and replaced "connected" with "connectable the drip tray of claim 1".
Art.82 and art84 objections stem from the same issue: the drip tray and the skirting board being two separate products. By amending the claims and proving that they are interrelated you solve the Art.82 and 84 issues at once.
I also added that the height C is smaller compared to A. It may be a limitation but I thought that it does not work otherwise. Did not think of the "not extending all the way" part but it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteIsn't though implicit that when there is a recess on the front-wall where recess has height C and front-wall has height A, then C < A without needing to go further? My reasoning was this as I did not include the height. -FK
DeleteI also added that heighy C is smaller han height A
DeleteIn my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
DeleteI don't think it's implicit. Recess cover A and C being identical and the recess simply being backwards in a different plane.
DeleteI agree that " front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front" But I think that's different from "frontwall (itself) comprising a recess", could not really understand how can A=C, when a particular wall has the recess. Because the wording was "front wall comprising a recess" which should prevent having a recess in a different plane.
DeleteClaim 5 was not clear "connected to" skirting board, needs "connectable" or suitable to be connected. Claim 6 combination od skirting board + drip tray according to claim 5. without snap clamping (not essential)
ReplyDeleteWell that was a doddle lol. Why can’t the Exam Board make the difficulty consistent across the papers and year-to-year? Papers A and D were hard this year and B was relatively easy. I did Paper B from 2024 recently and found it to be an almost insurmountable task in the time given.
ReplyDeletether was 3 prior art document, seems easy.
DeleteIngresso with you
DeleteThe recess was the thing to add to claim 1 in my opinion, I kept that the front wall was lower than the other walls because that was in combination the solution to the problem of the homeowner not seing the water coming out, the recess made it more visible when there was a leakage, there was something about it in on paragraph, dont rememer the number but it was somewhere in the beginning.
ReplyDeletemade dependent claims för heights, adhesive thing, and for receiving things adapted to be snappable connectable (not english speaking and not proud of it but couldnt word it any better) to legs of skirting board. I could not figure out how to claim the skirting board so I made no claim for it. Missed the prior art reasoning due to not having the time, but I finished novelty and basis for amendments. Could this be a pass or am i F-d? I have bonus point from previos years so 45 points would be enough. I really hoped I passed, I´ve been doing this each winter for ages now. Hair has turned grey and kids have moved out...//Linda
In my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
DeleteThe client was asking to protect the drip tray and the drip tray + skirting board, and not the skirting board independently. For that reason, I did not see the necessity of going down the road of two independent claims, two inventive step argumentation, and R.43(2).
ReplyDeleteI also thought that such a skirting board would lack novelty over D3.
I found it necessary though to further limit the system claim by incorporating the receivers, as that was an essential feature for mounting skirting board and the drip tray according to any one of claims 1-5.
It took me long time understand if the client wanted to have an independent claim to the skirting board. In the end, I decided not to. I lost alot of time there though....I initially limited further with the receivers but then removed it. I think in the combination claim, I think 4 or 5 it says that the drip tray further has receivers?
DeleteI did the same and also limited the drip tray to the recess to establish unity.
DeleteClaim 6 didn’t have an independent skirting board, it had the combination of skirting board and drip tray, as in the embodiment of figure 3. Easy to unify them using the recess.
DeleteClaim 5 needed to be amended to take out the skirting board, meaning claim 1 and 6 are now clear and unified and for different subject matter.
I think it was equally valid to have claim 1 and 6 as two independent claims, or make 6 dependent on claim 1.
In my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
Deleteit is novel as long as the recess is defined as comprised in the front wall, not being the front wall itself...
DeleteWho else amended claim 1 to specify that the drip tray includes a recess forming an outlet based on the dependent claim? I did not specify the shape. As for the combination claims, I directed them to claim 1. So unity is achieved... Anyone else? I did not specify container size or so...
ReplyDelete> who else [...]?
Delete*literally everyone* ;-)
🎉
DeleteIn my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
DeleteAnonymous @2.19pm there is no need to post the same comment multiple times...
DeleteI struggled to understand whether the client was also asking for an independent claim directed to the skirting board. This was not clear from the English version. So I was constantly thinking about R. 43(2) as well. I limited the independent claim with recess and the receivers. Then, decided not to to have an independent claim to the skirting board and amended claim 1 with the recess (not of any shape)...
ReplyDeleteMuch nicer. I kept claim 1 and 6 as independent claims and added the recess to both. Argued that unified because both solving same technical problem and are alternate solutions/interrelated. Then used D3 as CPA for both claims 1 and 6.
ReplyDeleteWho else broaded the dependency of the claims (i.e. Claim 4 according to anyone of the preceding claims instead of Claim 1)?
ReplyDeleteyep, you could do that several times here for some nice easy marks
Deleteyes I did that too
Deleteditto! There was good basis for doing so.
DeleteI did although I regret this. It costed me a great time trying to argue that all combinations where disclosed and don’t think I will get any points from it.
ReplyDeleteD3 detect any amount of water even condensation. Aim of invention is to detect leakages over an amount whitout false alarm and electric devices and let condensation dry whiotout alarm. How could consider D3 as CPA??
ReplyDeleteI spent around 15 mins to determine CPA, and went with D2 due to requiring much less structural modification. Fig.1 of D3 is misleading in itself since the walls and base comprise alarm system components like battery, wires etc, as far as I recall.
DeletePurpose of the invention is to detect leaks... D1 and D2 do not do that, they only look to prevent overspill of the drip tray. D3 could therefore be considered CPA because it is also same purpose of detecting leaks. Not sure if this is correct, seems like you could argue from any of D1-D3!
DeleteI went with D1 for this reason. D2 and D3 are going off in wildly different directions to the point where you'd never even consider adding a recess and the "problem" is already solved in a different way. D1 doesn't, so it could be necessary to adapt it.
DeleteAgree, purpo immediate detection of leakage yet allow normal condensation water to be retained. Thus objective reliable leakage detecting drip tray.
DeleteI actually went for D1 as CPA, defining the OTP as reliably detecting leakages vs condensation (solved via recess). D2's tray is deeper and its front wall is only lowered for a hose, with no detection means. D3's front wall houses electronics (discouraging modification to the wall) and can't reliably distinguish condensation as its circuit is arranged on the base. D1, while hiding the drip tray in one embodiment, frames undetected leakages as a problem and shares most features in common.
ReplyDeleteOn reflection and seeing the comments here, I feel that my approach was a bit weaker than D3 as CPA. Interested to know if anyone took a similar approach or has any thoughts
Right and front wall of D3 is descrived to be considerably shorter 30 mm or less! Cause it is not intended to contain water but just detect
DeleteI actually used D1 as CPA for independent claim 1 based on collecting condensation (not possible with D3 without alert).
DeleteAnd, I used D3 as CPA for independent claim 6 based on minimum modification (D1 and D2 require more modifications).
I done this and I stand by it. The problem is already solved differently in D3 to the point where you'd never even consider modifying it to include a recess. D2 just tanks it like a champ. D1 is the one where the problems / damage may still occur and require adaptation to overcome.
DeleteD3 as CPA since the Purpose immediate detection of leakage yet allow normal condensation water to be retained
DeleteClaim 6 and skirting board solve a different tech problem to make leakage visible whitour cover the front part of drip tray with recess. Alone is useless. Client letter says he wants to protect the drip tray and the combination with skirting board, not the skirting board alone.
ReplyDeleteGood thing that claim 6 literally was a combination of skirting board and drip tray then…there was no independent skirting board claim
DeleteIn my view, it is essential to define height C as being lower than height A. A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front. If the recess is not defined by specifying a height lower than that of the front side, the claim may not be novel over D1, D2, and D3.
ReplyDelete" A front side that is lower than the other three sides inherently creates a recess at the front." In my opinion, this is true but fundamentally different than having a recess at the frontwall (emphasis on the frontwall). -FK
DeleteI think such specification would be too much for the format of the Paper B. The recess in the frontwall solves the problem...
DeleteSteven
ReplyDeletei agree
Deleteyes
DeleteVerily
DeleteLet's see what Deltapatent comes up with
DeleteAn erudite contribution. Agreed.
DeleteEd Balls.
DeleteLet's see what Deltapatent comes up with :)
ReplyDeletecan anybody remember the wording of the clients amended claim 1 and did anyone keep any of that wording but include a recess?
ReplyDeleteI can't remember the wording but it effectively defined the functional result of the recess. I'm pretty sure the wording had basis, just needed the structural feature of the recess to not be a result to be achieved. Mark schemes haven't penalised retaining functional language in addition to the structural feature responsible for the effect so long as there is basis
Deletechanged it to a "such that" after the recess and height and rephrased it in terms of the description. Doesn't add much other than clarity but also isn't limiting.
DeleteThe paper is available in the wiseflow...
ReplyDeletei can only see the printable parts
DeleteOops, you are right, same... Only printable parts are available.
ReplyDeleteIs the addition of "that the front wall comprises a recess forming an outlet." (orig claim 3 without V-shape) not already establishing novelty over D2? The front wall in claim 1 is defined as being lower than the sidewalls. Therefore, excluding the embodiment in D2, where the holes are in the sidewalls that are higher than the lower sidewall...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it does...
DeleteYou can argue it's implicit but "recess" is vague and covers a fictional embodiment where A and C are the same height and the recess goes "backwards" rather than "down" and doesn't solve the technical problem. It's probably nitpicking given how recess is defined in the paper, but I put it in anyway.
DeleteI kind of convinced myself that height is not needed. Recess can also be made in a way that it is only performed on a certain part of the wall with respect to its thickness. For example, inner portion of the wall has the recess with C<A but does not deliver the effect because remaining part is solid as rock. I do not think that height is essential, nor would I think that adding or not-adding the height will be penalized.
DeleteI don't think it does.
DeleteIn paragraph [004] of D2, the openings are provided in the sidewalls. This can be interpreted that all 4 walls are sidewalls, especially that paragraph [007] in D2 disloses a lower front side of the continuous wall.
I might be wrong though...D2 doesn't have enough meat to draw a clear cut conclusion.
Anyone else spend 5-10 minutes blinking at the screen and gaslighting themselves in to thinking they'd obviously missed something?
ReplyDeleteOf course that's normal :)
DeleteYep, the difference in difficulty level with A this year is unbelievable.
DeleteWith D too but I guess that's usually the case
Which CPA did you consider?
ReplyDeleteD1
DeleteD3
DeleteD1. D3 won't leak.
DeleteD3
DeleteD2
DeleteD3 since the purpose is immediate detection of leakage yet allow normal condensation water to be retained
DeleteD3
DeleteI ended up with D1.
DeleteD3 already solves leak detection by an electrical alarm/switch, so starting from D3 makes it harder to explain why the skilled person would look consider looking for a different, passive overflow-based detection mechanism in D1 or D2.
By contrast, D1 is already a passive drip tray with the same basic lower-front-wall geometry, so it is the cleaner CPA if claim 1 is about tray structure rather than electronics when you take into account that it's an exam and you have to write CPA + prior art inventive step arguments. If you start from D1 then D2 and D3 teach away.
If you start from D3 then D1 and D2 are just less functional and useless.
Backwards engineering it somewhat, but I think both are fine depending on if you see the recess as a "system for leak detection" or "technical feature of drip tray geometry".
I opted for D1 fot the following reasons: Field of invention same of D1 D2 D3 (drip trays), main purpose/problem same of D1, D2, D3 (drip trays prevent the floorboards from getting wet); few structural changes: modyfing D1 just need adding a outlet recess on front wall. Modifying D2 needs adding outlet recess on front wall and eliminating opening 5. Modifing D3, needs adding a outlet recess and eliminate alarm, battery and wires.
DeleteD2, because it stated the problem of rising costs to insurance companies...
DeleteBut I honestly think that D3 should have been CPA due to electronic detection being described as problematic...
D3
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody have a claim 1 amended to a recess plus the height feature height C of the recess is lower than A plus the receivers, as these were essential festures in paragraph 12 when limitimg to c and a
ReplyDeleteI specified the height like you, just to be safe. Even if it was not necessary, it does not limit the scope of protection in any way. As for the receivers, I don't think those were essential.
DeleteSo I added the height bit too as I thought it helped with distinguishing it from D2 which had the holes but these holes were above the front wall (otherwise water would just flow out). Am now worried about added matter, but hopefully fine as same feature described in Fig 1 as well as Fig 3.
DeleteWhat did people do for the polyolefin dependent claim?
ReplyDeleteAmended to polyolefin + the anti fungi compound with the specific name.
DeleteNothing, since amendments to specific combination not suggest in application as filed, would offend Art 123(2)
DeletePlayed with the wording. The idea was fine, just written badly.
DeleteSame here
DeleteMy approach was to leave in whatever the client wanted as long as it does not violate anything or narrows in an unnecessary way... So kept the specific anti fungal component, but broadened to the Initial polyolefin...
DeleteI removed polyethylene because it wasn't disclosed, but the combination of polyproylene with the anti mould compound specified was fine as it is possible to select from two lists if there are pointers for doing so. In this case the polypropylene and specific anti mould compound were both preferred with satisfies the selection from two lists rule (there are a couple of relevant T decisions I quoted but can't remember of the top of my head)
DeleteSame as above, kept in but re-wrote slightly
Delete
DeleteAmended to polypropylene + preferred anti-funghi compound. I considered that this specific combination is disclosed since they are both referred to as being part of the preferred embodiment. The client wanted us to protect PP or PE + the prefereed anti-funghi compound, but PE is not disclosed in combination with that specific anti-funghi compound. Any other specific combination would not be OK for 123(2).
I'd have to check the wording of the paper again to be sure I didn't make a mistake though
Agree with French candidate, since the client asked for PP+anti fungal. It is possible to not contravene 123(2) since they are both preferred options from two lists
DeletePolyolefin and/or triclosan optionally wherein the polyolefin is polypropylene
DeleteI opted for D1 fot the following reasons: Field of invention same of D1 D2 D3 (drip trays), main purpose/problem same of D1, D2, D3 (drip trays prevent the floorboards from getting wet); few structural changes: modyfing D1 just need adding a outlet recess on front wall. Modifying D2 needs adding outlet recess on front wall and eliminating opening 5. Modifing D3, needs adding a outlet recess and eliminate alarm, battery and wires.
ReplyDeleteYou can achieve the same technical effect of the recess by simply inserting a recess into D3. You don't have to remove the alarm system from D3 to achieve this technical effect. It's compatible with the circuit and alarm and battery of D3, it's just that the alarm system becomes redundant. As such u don't need to remove the alarm system.
DeleteCPA is always the document directed toward the same field, here the detection of a leak. D1 AND D2 make no attempt to detect a leak
A 3:54 Field of invention is Drip trays for kitche appliances. Detection of leak is an effect purpose to me but not the main purpose effect whic is to prevent floor to getting wet.
DeleteMaking a recess on D3 does not allow you to reach the claiming solution because you always have fals alarm even for condensation which does not allow you to let condensation dry and leakage outlet on front of tray.
Yoo have to remove alarm battery and wire to make invention enabling come on.
DeleteAnonymous 3:54, I hope you didn't forget to add circuit and alarm in the preamble of claim 1 too :)
DeleteYou also don't need to remove the sealable opening from D2. Just seal it up as they are only handles for ease of use. Seal the openings as taught, add a recess: technical effect achieved
ReplyDeleteIsn't sealing them up removal of feature? My thinking was D2 needed more modification than D1. D2 needed sealing of holes and sealing means need to be procured, in addition to creating the recess. D1 only needed creation of recess.
DeleteSo anything on which you can make a recess outlett is suitable. That's not the criteria. Standing the same technical fiels and the same main purpose, the minumun amount of changes are obtained just selecting D1. If there is mush more to consider is another thing.
DeleteIf your drip tray give you an alarm before lever of water reach the recess, you can wait the tray to fill and water being direct on the floor by outlet recess to detect it.
DeleteCan anyone tell whether I'll get any points for clarity while mistakenly referring to it as "unity"?. Probably out of nervousness, the clarity section of my paper has the heading "Unity (Art. 84 EPC)" and I also wrote that a objection of lack of unity had been raised against claim 5 (which clearly is ot true). On the other hand, I correctly referred to "clarity" at the end of the section, saying that the obejction of lack of clarity has been resolved.
ReplyDeleteYou will, relax
DeleteThe patent(...exam) must be construed by a mind willing to understand, not a mind desirous of misunderstanding - jokes aside you'll be fine!
Delete@DP team: Any estimation as to when you will provide your provisional answer?
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else notice the (wrong) double negation in par. 005? In de it says: kann die Sockelleiste das Wasser aufstauen und
ReplyDeleteverhindern, dass das Leck nicht erkannt wird. (Translation something to the effect of: The baseboard can trap water and prevent the leak from not being detected.)
I view this as quite problematic since this is the description of the Advantage of the baseboard....
Definitely complain by the end of today to draw their attention to this :)
DeleteI envisage quite a high pass mark for this as I think, while D3 was CPA, D1 and D2 both provide good starting points for a convincing inventive step attack. At the end of the day, the aim of the paper is to assess one’s ability to convincingly argue and get a broad set of claims granted for your client, and if that can be done starting at any prior art document then you should be rewarded. None of the documents hinted at a recess so no possible combination of documents (irrespective of where you start) would result in the amended claim 1. I think the examiners might regret setting an exam where one could argue convincingly from any of the prior art documents.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about an amendment of claim 5 specifying that the drip tray "comprises" a skirting board? Not sure why I put it this way but I tried argumenting that by connecting the skirting board to the one could say that it is "comprised", which admittedly does not sound particularly convincing in hindsight. Still I think it overcomes the problem of reference to another entity.
ReplyDeleteI reworded it to something of the lines of “comprises receivers extending from the base configured to receive floor mounts of a skirting board” not sure if this solves the problem… rushed this amendment a bit
Delete