B 2026 - our provisional answer
This year Nyske and I tried Paper B. First
impression is that this was a doable paper. There seems to be only one
direction to go for a solution. As always there was some minor disagreement
about the exact formulation of the claims, or what claims to include, but on
the whole we were pretty much in agreement.
Below is our amended
claim set. Below the claims are comments on some alternative directions.
1. Drip tray (1) for
collecting liquid underneath a kitchen appliance, the drip tray (1) comprising
a rectangular base (2) delimited by sidewalls (3), a rear wall (4), and a front
wall (5), said walls forming a continuous wall around the base (2), characterised
by the front wall (5) being lower than the sidewalls (3) and the rear wall
(4), characterised in that the front wall (5) comprises a recess (6) forming
an outlet,
wherein the recess (6) reaches down to a height (C)
that is smaller than the height (A) of the front wall.
2. Drip tray (1)
according to claim 1, wherein the front wall (5) has a height (A) of 10- 20 mm.
3. Drip tray (1)
according to claim 2, wherein the front wall (5) comprises a recess (6)
forming an outlet, and wherein the recess (6) is V-shaped or U-shaped.
4. Drip tray (1)
according to claim 1, wherein the drip tray (1) comprises a polyolefin and
also comprises triclosan.
5. Drip tray (1)
according to claim 1, wherein the drip tray (1) comprises polypropylene and also comprises triclosan.
5. Drip tray (1)
according to claim 1, wherein the drip tray (1) is connected to a skirting
board (10) by a snap connection formed by floor supports (11) of the skirting
board (10) fitting into receivers (7) extending from the base (2).
6. Combination of
skirting board (10) and drip tray (1) according to any one of the claims 1-5,
wherein the drip tray (1) comprises a rectangular base (2) delimited by
sidewalls (3), a rear wall (4), and a front wall (5), said walls forming a
continuous wall around the base (2), and wherein the skirting board (10)
comprises floor supports (11) for elevating the skirting board (10) from the
floor, characterised by the floor supports (11) having a height (D) that
is larger than the height (A) of the front wall (5) of the drip tray (1).
7. Combination of
skirting board (10) and drip tray (1) according to claim 65. Drip tray (1) according to claim 1, wherein the drip tray (1) is connected to a
skirting board (10) by a snap connection formed by floor supports (11) of the
skirting board (10) fitting into receivers (7) extending from the base (2)
of the drip tray.
78.
Combination of skirting board (10) and drip tray (1) according to claim 6,
wherein the drip tray (1) comprises an adhesive strip (8) for mounting the drip
tray (1) on a floor
Comments
Claim 1. The
recess seems to be the way to go. It’s novel and it provides a clear advantage
(well, talking about advantages, it ensures you will get a puddle on the
floor in case of a leakage. One man’s bug is another man’s feature, I suppose.)
New claim 1 is based on the combination of
original claims 1 and 3. It is allowed to remove the shape of the recess,
because of para 18. The height
limitation comes from para 12.
For maximal novelty insurance against D1,
one might add the feature from para 13 “wherein water overflowing via the
recess (6) will be directed onto the floor for detection while smaller volumes
caused by condensation will remain in the drip tray (1)”. If you go that
way, you’ll also need to amend liquid to water in line 1 of Claim 1.
Claim 3. We
removed the part that went into claim 1. In addition we completed the claim by
including the other shape option mentioned in the description.
Claim 4. The
claim suggested by the Client is not possible since polyethylene is not
disclosed in the application as filed. We can still protect the use of
triclosan in two ways, either the generic polyolefin with triclosan, or the
specific material polypropylene with triclosan. The former gives protection for
polyethylene, the latter gives protection for a combination that was among ‘the
best of the polymers we tested’.
Adding a dependent claim violates the Client
instruction not to add further dependent claims. However, this construction
seems to be the only way to fulfill the Client wish to protect the combination
of polyethylene and triclosan as well. Truth be told, our claim 5 does not seem
a strong fallback since D3 already discloses the combination of polypropylene
and anti-mould additives; triclosan being a known one.
Yet, another option is to keep original
claim 4 (without triclosan). However, polyolefin is known for drip trays (D3,
para 7), so this not a strong fallback.
Claim 6. The
non-unity problem in original claim 6 can be resolved by including the recess,
which is the innovative feature. The clean way to do so is to refer back to
Claim 1. It seems there is support for referring back to all drip tray claim,
and so we have done so. The features
already in Claim 1 can be deleted.
Claim 7. Original
claim 5 was not clear because it is not clear whether or not the
skirting board is claimed. There are two ways to resolve this: amending the claim
to clearly include or exclude the
skirting board. In the amended claim set above, we chose the first option.
Here we run into a bit of a contradiction
in the Client’s letter. On the one hand, the client does not want us to add further
dependent claims, but the client also tells us “please ensure that we achieve
protection for all claims mentioning the skirting board as well as for the drip
tray on its own”. We could claim the
drip tray on its own by including a claim like:
Drip tray (1)
according to claim 1, wherein the drip tray (1) comprises receivers (7) extending
from the base (2) for connecting to a skirting board (10) by a snap connection
formed by floor supports (11) of the skirting board (10) fitting into the
receivers (7).
Claim 8. We did not amend claim 8, although there is
support to claim the adhesive strip without the skirting. While for claim 7 one
could argue that having a specific claim for the drip tray would not add much
protection, since the drip tray with extension would be used with a skirting
board anway. It would actually make sense to broaden claim 8 to optimize
protection. However, as there was no hint in the client letter to address this,
we did not do this.
Novelty/Inventive
step
Arguing the novelty
and inventive step is fairly straightforward. It seems that D3 is the closest
prior art, since it is the only document in the field of drip trays that also
has the purpose of providing alarms in case of leakage.
A tricky aspect when
discussing novelty and inventive step is that all documents disclose some kind
of recess. In document D1 the wheels may damage the
front wall of the drip tray. This will cause a recess in the front wall.
Fortunately, the claim is novel since D1 also specifies that condensation can
escape from the drip tray, which means that the recess apparently reaches all
the way to the ground. Document D2 has openings in the side wall. However,
these are at the wrong place, and they teach away because they are sealable.
Finally D3 teaches cut outs. Here the cut out is made in the skirting not in
the drip tray itself.
In my opinion, this would still not be novel over D1, If C=0. This would fulfill C<A....
ReplyDeleteIf C = 0, there is no recess. The requires a recess such that C may not be 0
DeleteMind willing to understand is required, not mind willing to intentionally misunderstand.
DeleteBut isn't C<A then not implied by the recess forming an outlet? How else should this be realized?
DeleteMy hope is that they will treat not specifiying the height ratio as lack of clarity regarding the recess rather than not novel...
Deletewhere in D1 does it have a single embodiment with BOTH a lower front wall and a recess (if the damage is considered to constitute a recess)?
DeleteWhat happened to original claim 5? I'm a little bit confused
ReplyDeleteheight (C) that is smaller than the height (A) of the front wall.
ReplyDeleteClearly and unambiguously means C cannot be zero
For me new claim 5 "polypropylene and also comprises triclosan" is an extension of subject matter inline with GLH. V. 3.3 example 2
ReplyDeleteI did not include the U shape in claim 3...
ReplyDeleteYou would lose like 1 mark, max 2 for that, i wouldn't worry about it
Deleteheight (C) that is smaller than the height (A) of the front wall.
ReplyDeleteClearly and unambiguously means C cannot be zero
No need for U shape
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteAny shape was suitable but V- shape best effect
DeleteIs there any chance that functional feature could be incorporated like this meaning "suitable for":
ReplyDeletecharacterised in that
the front wall (5) comprising a recess (6) forming an outlet
for collecting water at levels below the position of the recess (6) in the front wall
(5) on the drip tray (1)
and directing water at levels above the position of the recess (6) in the front wall (5) onto the floor in front of the drip tray (1).
Generally only allowed when not possible tondefi e using g technical features, here C less than A is that feature. I think you can still get some marks but not full marks. Need to be careful with added matter though
DeleteThanks for sharing, it's good to see that the answer aligns with the general comments on the blog!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the amendments, did anyone else consider broadening the claim dependencies, as it struck me that there was basis in the general disclosure for doing so (e.g., making claim 3 dependent on claim 1 or 2, rather than just 1)?
Yeah, I did. But I did not do it for all claims where i thought it might be possible, because at some point I was running out of time and too scared that I would lose more points if broadened wrong than loosing for not broadening....
DeleteAgreed
DeleteThere was a specific request in the Client letter?
DeleteGlad to see that you also think limiting to height C is necessary for novelty.
ReplyDeleteThank you DP for your efforts!
Seconding Stefan on thanking DP for the efforts
DeleteAnyone else feeling quite depressed right now, as probably all the effort put into the exam was for nothing?
ReplyDeleteAre your claims not novel at all?
DeleteI left out the height ratio, so apparently claim 1 is not novel :(
DeleteAh yes that is probably not novel, but actually it might indeed be novel!! DP’s solution is only provisional and I don’t agree with all of it: adding a dependent claim for instance never ever was awarded any marks, surprised DP did add one!
DeleteThanks for trying to cheer me up, it is much appreciated. This was my first try, so maybe I can compensate...
Delete@Anonymous I am almost certain the height is not required for novelty. People saying it is not novel over D1 are clearly combining the "old" embodiment and "improved" embodiment which is not how novelty works. D2 has the recesses in the side walls which cannot constitute the front wall as defined in the claim. Therefore as long as you said the recess was in the front wall and did not remove the definition of the front wall from the claim, you will be novel
DeleteI’ve re-read D2 multiple times. The description indicates a recess on side walls but implies that all 4 walls are side walls, including the front one. The figure is not limiting but super tricky in my opinion
DeleteYeah, I kept the definition of the front wall and also stated that the recess is in the front wall. So maybe not all hope is lost (in contrast to paper A :D). This blog is kinda messing with my head...
Deleteyet to find any convincing argument that leaving out the height is not novel
DeleteIt was heavy since last night when i dreamed claim attacks...... I could't manage to finish ta single attak of IS. I l splitted claim 8 but missed Added subject matter. Hope to have scored enough mark
Deletethe recess is always in the wall, so how can it be at the same or higher than the wall? So for me all the recesses as long as they are in the wall are at height less than the wall. So any holes in the walls in the prior art can challenge this
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteBut then the opening in D2 would be novelty distroying if you don’t specify the height ratio. I might be wrong though. Actually even the tutors might be wrong
DeleteBut it is specified in claim 1 that the height of the front wall is smaller than that of the sidewalls. So a recess in the front wall will always reach down to a height smaller than the front wall (as it is a recess....).
DeleteStefan - in D2 there is no recess in the front wall which in the claim is defined as" being lower than the sidewalls (3) and the rear wall". Sure you can argue nomenclature of the sides, but there is only one lower wall, and it does not comprise a recess
DeleteIn D2 the front wall is one of the four side walls. Side being that of the base which has 4 sides.
DeleteSure, any one can be the "front", but where is it disclosed that the recess is in a wall being lower than the other walls?
Deleteonly the "front side" is lower. Where is it disclosed that the recess is in the "front side"?
DeleteI still don't understand why, for example, we would narrow down claim 4 to further include triclosan... claim 4 without triclosan is novel and inventive due to its dependency on claim 1. Why would we ever make an amendment to make it more narrow? Anything comprising polyolefin and triclosan is covered by the original claim 4. In real life we would just tell the client that this is a pointless narrowing amendment that restricts the scope of protection.
ReplyDeleteit might be a useful amendment they want post-grant, particularly for licensing etc.
DeleteThe features of the dependent claims serve as fallback positions in case Claim 1 is not inventive. So the feature of the dependent claims should be inventive on their own, even if Claim 1 turns out to not be novel or inventive.
DeleteHere, the polymers were already known for the drip tray and thus not inventive - it is even specified in the description that they are perfectly common and known. It is thus only the triclosan additive in the polymer that could be an inventive feature.
What about amending claim 4 as follows: Drip tray (1) according to claim 1, wherein the drip tray (1) comprises a polymer comprising triclosan. Justification as follows: Claim 4 has been amended to recite that the drip tray comprises polymer comprising triclosan. Basis for this amendment is found in the application as filed, for example in para [019] which teaches that both polyolefin and non-polyolefin polymers can be suitable. The para also teaches that polyolefins other than PP can be used, and identifies a number of suitable non-polyolefin polymers. Para [020] further teaches that the polymer can include an anti-mould compound such as triclosan.
ReplyDeleteFor me new claim 5 "polypropylene and also comprises triclosan" is an extension of subject matter inline with GLH. V. 3.3 example 2
DeleteAgree, selection from two lists. I think polymer comprising triclosan is more defensible. DP, what are your thoughts on this?
DeleteIt is possible to select from two lists if there are pointers, such as "preferred" arrangements, which there were here. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2025/clr_ii_e_1_6_2_c.html
DeleteIn my view, C<A is implicit when the wall comprises a recess forming an outlet, C=0 would require an opening, which creates discontinuation at the wall. need to wait for the report, though.
ReplyDeleteI agree...
DeleteI agree as well
DeleteYes, this
DeleteWhy is claim 6, referring to the drip tray of preceding claims, repeating the features of the drip tray? Should they not be removed now we are referring back?
ReplyDeleteThe answer they posted contains a few mistakes in the claims so I think it was maybe rushed
DeleteCan DP explain why they think the height was necessary to confer novelty over D1? There are effectively two separate embodiments in D1: the old arrangement that they are trying to fix (where it is not taught that the front wall is lower amongst other things, but arguably could have a recess when damaged), and the improved arrangement which the document is primarily directed to (where the front wall is lower but reinforced so cannot have a recess). There is no arrangement in D1 where the front wall is both lower and comprises a recess.
ReplyDeleteWithout the height ratio D2 would be novelty destroying
Deleteno it wouldn't, the recess is not formed in the lower front wall in D2
Deleteand the claim requires it to be comprised in the lower front wall
Deletefront wall being the shortest wall and front wall having a recess cannot be neutralized by D2, imho.
Deleteregardless of what is considered "front" and "side", the only lower wall in D2 does not comprise the recess, so must be novel
DeleteI have asked chatgtp for a solution and indeed it gave the solution of claim 1 as puplished by DP. But it also assessed claim 1 without specifiying the height as novel. However, the arguments for inventive step are weak for such a claim according to chatgtp because the core idea of the invention is not present in claim 1.
DeleteIn the end, who cares...AI might destroy this job anyway!
The reason I put the height bit in is because I wondered if D2 could cover a tray where one of the side walls was also lower than, say, the rear wall. D2 only says "lower" front side not "lowest" side. If so, and if the hole is in one such wall which is also lower than the rear wall, then the hole could be a recess. Maybe I overthought it!
DeleteFrom my understanding this would still not be novelty destroying, because claim 1 specifies that the front wall is lower than the rear and sidewalls...
DeleteYes but in D2 we do not know which is the lowest wall. It could be the one with the hole.
DeleteIn my opinion that does not matter, because either all walls are of the same height (If hose insertion is optional) or the wall with the hole is not the lowest wall...
DeleteI don't know why all walls in D2 have to be the same height. There is nothing in D2 to confirm this is the case. We cannot rely on figures absent measurements. No one is saying the D2 device is perfect - it could just be a badly designed one. The lowest wall could have the hole, and the hole could be considered to be a recess.
DeleteThe hole cannot be considered a recess because it is a through hole.
Deletewe do know which is the lower wall, it is the "front side" ([003]) which with reference to [7] and the figure is NOT the wall with the holes.
DeleteYes, the front side is the lower wall, but not necessarily the lowest wall in D2. Whereas in the application as filed, the front wall is the lowest wall. And if you have given a convincing argument as to why a hole cannot be a recess, you should be fine.
DeleteI agree
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, an enormous thank you to DP for benchmarking and uploading their questions. Our stress these days is at unsustainable levels and it really helps to have an early indication of how we might have performed from our tutors. I really appreciate this.
ReplyDeleteA general comment (not to DP’s solution): Correct me if I am wrong, but a (through) hole as in D2 is (by definition) not a recess…
When it comes to DP’s provisional claim set, I think your limitation might be too limiting, unless I have misunderstood something. D1 does not disclose a recess formed by the damage during mounting causing the drip tray to leak. This could happen in many ways, such as for example by deforming the front wall, and not necessarily forming a recess.
Good to hear that I am apparently not the only one being extremely stressed at the moment... Only one exam left though. And yes, I also very much the guidance that DP Provides, not only by their provisional answers, but also by simply providing a platform for discussion. :)
Delete*appreciate
DeleteI do not think the height ratio is required because the front wall is defined as being lower than the side walls. Also keep in mind that this is a paper also for non engineers. I would rather find it hard to believe that they expect a chemist to see that there is a chance that the recess can be zero and that there is always a recess if the front wall is lower. Thats a little bit much no ? As a chemist for me it was clear that a recess is always at a height smaller than A.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, I think there is a lot of overthinking going on here with the novelty arguments. We are meant to take these exams at face value
DeleteI agree with you, if C=A, there no recess. And the recess on the front wall (which has been defined is lower) is already novel
DeleteShort question regarding claim 1.
ReplyDeleteThe claim includes the features “the front wall comprises a recess forming an outlet” and additionally “the recess reaches down to a height C that is smaller than the height A of the front wall”.
Paragraph [012] states that the recess extends downward to a height C that is smaller than the height A of the front wall.
From your perspective, is this height relation technically necessary for a recess forming an outlet? An outlet could also be formed by a hole or opening in the front wall without necessarily requiring C < A.
Also, would you interpret [012] as disclosing this height relation as a mandatory feature, or merely as a specific implementation of the described embodiment?
I do not agree agree with D3 as CPA. D3 teaches away because the skilled person learns in D3 to apply the system that checks the battery charging status. This solves the problem of the battery runnig out of power. So the skilled person would just use this system to solve the problem. Therefore it should be D1. D1 also had a hint that its usually condens water that is collected there.
ReplyDeleteIf the cpa teaches in the direction of claim1 then claim 1 wouldn't be inventive. The cpa is the document which is directed toward the same purpose, here the detection of a leak, with the most overlapping features. D3 has all features of the preamble and directed toward detecting a leak. D3 = CPA
DeleteÜbersetzter Text
DeleteThe closest prior art is not the prior art with the most matching features, but rather the prior art that is the most promising stepping stone to arriving at the subject matter of the claim. The problem is not detecting leakage, but reliably detecting leakage at the end of the service life of kitchen appliances. The D3 offers a solution for this that leads the skilled person away from the subject matter of the claim. Therefore, the D3 is not the best stepping stone.
You could argue that the problem is providing cheap a leakage detection even at the end of the service life. But to make it cheaper the skilled person would have to remove the electronics. Then he arrives basically at a tray from D1 and D2.
DeleteLower cost is not a technical effect
DeleteThe official marking scheme will definitely give D3 as Cpa. However, viable inventive step arguments may also be made using D1 or D2.
DeleteIsn't recess in the wall always lower than the wall? By the definition
ReplyDeleteAgree. For me it is clear, especially when adding that the recess forms an outlet. Also it is defined that the front wall is lower than the sidewalls. Therefor the recess has to be in the wall not formed with the lowering of the wall.
DeleteHi DeltaPatents, do you think the examiner's are likely to treat amending original claim 6 to be dependent on claim 1 the exact same way as keeping original claim 6 as independent but adding the recess? It seems like both options are fair and reasonable approaches. Thanks for the answer otherwise
ReplyDeleteNot DP but I would imagine either approach will be marked fine as long as there is not lasting unity problem
DeleteI think most of the strikethrough is missing in the posted claims.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the others the specifying C < A seems tautogical for a recess in the front wall. I am also not convinced that this implies C > 0, although I suppose a case could be made that that would define a recess/opening *through* the front wall rather than *in* the front wall. I also so not see how this could help vis-à-vis D2: if you argue that a hole is a recess and that the sidewalls of D2 can include the front wall, than a hole in the front wall would still have C < A (and actually solve the objective technical problem). So, in summary, I think including C < A would not change the scope os protection, and hence should be awarded the same marks as not including it. That being said, I do think the solution I saw in the previous post (by Benchmarker, I think) specifying C > 0 based on Fig. 2 potentially superior.
I think claim 3 as filed depended on claim 2, so if you use that aa basis for adding the recess, you should alao argue basis for not including the subject-matter of claim 2.
On a side note: I am not entirely positive as to the exact meaning of "recess", and whether e.g. a hole or crack in the wall would be considered a "recess". (In my solution, I assumed not.)
Re claim 4: I wonder if "comprising a polyolefin and comprising triclosan" does not violate 123(2); I think only a polymer comprising triclosan was disclosed, and the claim would cover, e.g., a non-polymer bottom comprising triclosan and polymer walls not comprising triclosan. So I claimed "comprising a polyolefin, the polyolefin comprising triclosan" (and added a note that I felt a bit dirty limiting the claim that way, instead of including a dependent claim).
I also agree with D3 being the CPA, being in the same technical field of drip trays (like D1 and D2) and addressing the same problem of early detection of even small leakages.
Exactly! Same solution.
DeleteAlso agree with your assessment, but missed the 123(2) issue with triclosan.
DeleteThank you DP for the answer. I did quite the same using D1 as closest prior art and I make an error in claim 5. The problem is that I did the examan in 3 hour becuase I had a problem with wise flow that frozen after 1 hour from the start and I lost about 30 minutes to call the segretariat and to permit me to enter gain in the flow. I did a complain I hope that they can realize that I cannot finish my inventive step discussion regarding last claim because I don't have any time. Has any of you had the similar problem in your EQE life? I'm verry worried to be I'm worried I'll be penalized for this, 30 minutes less is a lot and then not to mention how nervous I was during the rest of the exam. Thank you in advance for your suggestions.
ReplyDeleteAs it is written now, the front wall comprising the recess can be in the back and the user will not be notified by any leakage, don't you agree. The recess should be on the wall, which is lower than the other walls, facing the user. Moreover, there is no place which says that C cannot be 0. Even if the proposed claim by DP is novel, it doesn't have all the essential feature to give the effect, being notification when leakage but not when condensation occurs. Correct me if I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteHo may claim 5 they have?
ReplyDeleteproviding alarm seems the techical solution to the otp which is how to prevent floorboard to get wet. Otp should not lead to the solution .
ReplyDeleteIn my option DP's limitation in claim 1, I.e. the height ratio is not required.
ReplyDeleteFirst at all: the Art 94(3) EPC Communication did nowhere mention regarding claim 3 that a recess - let alone with a v shape - is anywhere disclosed (including D1)
Claim 3 was only deemed not inventive due to not providing an technical Effect (if i remember correctly). If this Would be just because of the V shape, it would have been mentioned that the recess is somewhere disclosed.
Second: Assuming this recess being formed by a damaged tray in D1, then it Would also theoretically have a height C smaller than a height A. This would still not be novel. Following this Logic, a more Extreme limitation like a V shape Woud be required, which i do not think is what the EPO has envisioned.
So i do not think that a claim 1 with just the recess is not new. But who knows, this year's Papers were all controversial to some extent
Regarding claim 7, unlike in previous years, I believe we do not need to consider the scenario in which the term “preferably” is deleted. First, the client did not ask us to attack the fallback position for this claim, which is typically the case when such an analysis is required. Second, the disclosure of “below 18%” cannot be matched with the claimed value of 20%, as it is considered “far removed.”
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Guidelines, whether a value is “far removed” depends on whether the skilled person would seriously contemplate working within that range. Since A3 refers to values “below 18%,” the skilled person might reasonably consider values such as 17% or 16%, but would not consider values above 18%. Therefore, 20% lies outside the contemplated range and cannot be equated with the disclosure of “below 18%.”
Additionally, selecting a value of 20% would not be regarded as routine work for the skilled person, since A1 indicates that this value is associated with a specific technical effect. It should also be noted that the earlier requirement that the selected value must achieve the same technical effect when assessing whether it is “far removed” has been removed from the Guidelines, based on more recent case law (around 2019–2020, as I recall).
Therefore, the scenario in which “preferably” is removed cannot be attacked validly. Accordingly, it was sufficient to attack only the original version of claim 7.
Sorry, this comment was intended for Paper C. I’m not sure how to delete it, although I tried using the “delete” button.
Delete