D2 2025 Our provisional answer
Our provisional answers to the D2 2025 are below (Note: D1 answers here, first impressions blog here)
Question 1(a)(i): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle saddle
connector (BSC) with damping means (DM) in the form of spheres made from rubber
(O)
P-MY is earliest application for BSC + DM =
(O) - filed on 28 May 2021 by Sando Bike
Will have been published soon after 28 Nov.
2022
There are no earlier disclosures of BSC +
DM of any kind.
The search report from MyIPO found no
documents of relevance, so claim is novel.
The connector allows for a surprising
better riding experience while still suppressing hard shocks, which supports
inventive step. Valid patent protection has been obtained.
Status: granted in October 2023, so can be
used to stop manufacture and sales of BSC + DM= (O) in Malaysia.
PCT-MY filed on 26 May 2022, claims priority from P-MY
Filed by Bikey, but prior to filing, in Aug
2021, P-MY was transferred to Bikey, including the right to claim priority, so
was filed by successor in title
PCT-MY was filed within the 12m priority
period of P-My, and contains same description as P-MY.
Claim 2 is directed to BSC + DM= (O), the
same invention, and priority is validly claimed.
Claim 2 of PCT-MY has effective date:
28/05/2021
PCT-MY entered EP phase with claim to BSC +
DM= (O)
Status of EURO-PCT-MY is deemed withdrawn,
due to failure to file the search results for the priority application
The invitation was issued on 4/04/2024 and
would have given a 2m time limit to respond, by providing the requested search
results, which were available.
4/4/2024 + 2m --> 4/6/2024 (Tue)
The Loss of Rights was notified 6 months ago, well
outside of the allowed 2m period for requesting further processing. No remedy
is available.
Consequently, no protection can be obtained
for any subject-matter via Euro-PCT-My
EP-DIV filed on 30 April contains same
description as PCT-MY, so BSC + DM= (O) is disclosed.
EP-DIV was filed before 2m time limit to
file search results expired, so parent was pending.
EP-DIV does not include a claim to BSC +
DM= (O), equivalent to claim 2 of PCT-My, so at present there is no protection
in Europe for this subject-matter.
There is no information that PCT-MY entered
other national phases. The 30m period for entry in US expired in 28/11/2024 and
TW is not a PCT state.
So only protection for BSC + DM= (O) is in
Malaysia
Question 1(a)(ii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter pyramids made from
rubber (P),
P-MY is earliest application for BSC + DM=
(P) - filed on 28 May 2021 by SandBike
Will have been published soon after 28 Nov.
2022
Status: granted in October 2023, so can be
used to stop manufacture and sales of (P) in Malaysia
PCT-My
Claims priority from P-MY and includes
disclosure of P-My
As (P) disclosed in P-MY and PCT filed by
successor in title, within 12m, this subject-matter is entitled to priority and has
effective date 28/05/2021.
EP-DIV was filed before the Euro-PCT-My was
deemed withdrawn in June 2024, so was pending and validly filed.
The claim to inherits the effective date of
this subject-matter in the parent: 28/05/2021.
Prior art
EP-B and EPB will have been published in
Nov 2019, but are not relevant as they do not relate to damping
The Article published in March 2022 is too
late to be prior art.
There is no relevant prior art relating to
rubber damping and the claim to BSC + DM= (P) in Ep-DIV is novel. The connector
allows for a surprisingly better riding experience while still suppressing hard
shocks and so is inventive.
EP-DIV can therefore lead to granted patent
protection for BSC + DM= (P) in Europe
No protection elsewhere, in US or TW, for
same reasons as explained for (O).
Question 1(a)(iii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: cubes made from
rubber (R)
There are no applications which disclose or
claim BSC + DM= (cube)
PCT-My claim 1 directed to a BSC with
rubber DM (of any kind) encompasses (cube)
But as only (O) and (P) were disclosed in
P-MY, claim 1 as a whole not entitled to priority. The claim has partial
priority to (O) and (P) but a remaining conceptual part of the claim directed
to other types of damper has effective date: PCT date: 26/05/2022
The brochure published in March 2022
disclosed DM= (cube) and is novelty destroying 54(2) prior art.
There is no patent protection for (cube).
Question 1(b)(i): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift
system comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and a switch to be
mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears via an electrical
wire (A).
Status: withdrawn before publication so
cannot lead to protection in Italy. Can serve as a priority right for a
subsequent application filed until 6/6/2019
Priority is validly claimed and the
effective date of claim 2 is 06/06/2018.
Compared with traditional bicycle gear shift systems, which have no electric motor, system with (A) has advantage that the cyclist can always operate the switch with the same force, irrespective of the gear engaged. Consequently, claim 2 is also inventive.
EP-ABC has been granted. Claim 2 gives
valid patent protection
Question 1(b)(ii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift
system comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and a switch to be
mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears via a wireless
radio connection (B).
EP-B is the first application to disclose
and claim BGS + motor and wireless switch (B) Effective date of claim: EP-B
filing date: 20/09/2018
There are no earlier disclosures of such a
BGS system with motor and switch and the claim is novel.
Inventive step is supported by the fact
there is the advantage that the cyclist can always operate the switch with the
same force, irrespective of the gear engaged.
Consequently, EP-B can lead to granted
patent protection for (B).
EP-ABC was filed by Camp Spa on 14 May 2019 claiming priority from EP-B (and IT1). Claim 3 is directed to (B). Ownership including priority right of EP-B was transferred to inventor Allesio Allesi on 2 May 2019 , before EP-ABC was filed. As such priority is invalid (application not filed by successor in title).
However,
the applicant of EP-ABC is presumed to be entitled to claim the priority. Thus
as it stands, also EP-ABC can lead to patent protection for B. However, the
entitlement to claim priority can be rebutted.
If entitlement
is successfully rebutted, EP-ABC gets the filing date for (B). This makes EP-B
Art.54(3) prior art (filed before, published after) relevant for novelty only.
Since B is disclosed, claim 3 of EP-ABC would not be new (but EP-ABC is granted
at this moment).
When the priority entitlement gets successfully
rebutted, Claim 1 of EP-ABC would also not be new (species destroys genus). But
Camp can remedy that with a disclaimers (disclosed disclaimer G2/10 as it is
also described jn EP-ABC (as EP-B is Art.54(3), lack of inventive step cannot
be argued).
Prior art
EP-B was filed earlier and got published
later, so is Art 54(3) prior art relevant for novelty only. B is disclosed, so
claim 3 is not novel over EP-B.
Status: EP-ABC has been granted. But has not been validly granted: see Q3 for improvements.
Question 1(b)(iii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift
system comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and a switch to be
mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears as such (C).
IT-A filed by Camp Spa is the first and
earliest application to disclose BGS system + shift motor
+ switch for selecting gears on handlebar
(C), via a wire connection (A) Status: withdrawn before publication so cannot
lead to protection in Italy.
Can serve as a priority right for a
subsequent application filed until 6/6/2019
However, this claim is broader than the
disclosure in IT1, which only discloses a switch that is connected via a wire.
Claim 1 therefor encompasses sjm that is not unambiguously disclosed in IT-A
Consequently, the claim has a first
conceptual part entitled to priority (wire connection) and a remaining
conceptual part: switch is connected to motor by means other than a wire
connection, which is not entitled to priority:
This part has effective date: 14/05/2019
Ep-B has an earlier effective date:
20/09/2018 and got published later So is 54(3) prior art.
Ep-B discloses a means other than wire. so
is novelty destroying for that part of the claim.
EP-B is not prior art for the first
conceptual part or for claim 2.
Question 1(c): What is the current patent
situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift system
comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and means for selecting the
gears, the means including a GPS sensor (D).
DE-GPS is the earliest application and
Bikey’s 1st application for BGS + Motor for shifting and means for selecting =
D
Effective date of claims is therefore
18/12/2024 22-03-2024.
Prior art
EP-B and EP-ABC published earlier and are
Art 54(2) prior art
These documents do not disclose a means for
selecting gears including a GPS sensor, so claim 1 is novel.
The technical effect of the selecting means
is that the correct gear can be selected based on the slope of the road and the
speed of the bicycle. The overall effort by the cyclist is thereby reduced
enormously, as the cyclist always rides in the optimal gear.
Consequently claim 1 is inventive.
The dependent claims are also novel and
inventive.
DE-GPS can lead to granted patent
protection in Germany for (D).
Question 2(a). As the situation currently
stands: are we free to produce and sell bicycle gear shift systems according to
our two prototypes?
Prototype 1 : BGS system with motor for
shifting gears and means for selecting via GPS, without handlebar switch.
P2 infringes claim 1 of EP-ABC and claim 3.
P2 would also infringe the claim of EP-B,
after grant, so you are not free to manufacture in Germany, assuming EP-ABC has
been validated in Germany, or sell in any EP country where protection is in
force.
Question 2(b). As the situation currently stands:
is Selle S.A. free to produce and sell their existing and planned lines of
bicycle saddle connectors?
As explained in Q1, there is currently no protection for BSC + DM = (Cube) or (O) or BSC + DM = rubber in the territories of interest: Europe, US, TW.
So, yes: Selle is free to produce their saddle connectors with Cube and (O) damping in France and to sell these products in the markets of interest.
Question 3. What can we do to improve our
position?
Opposition: inform the EPO that EP-ABC
cannot validly claim priority from EP-B, since it had been transferred to the
inventor before EP-ABC was filed.
Provide evidence of the contract to
overcome the rebuttable presumption of entitlement to priority and submit EP-B
as novelty destroying prior art for claims 1 and 3.
This evidence is late-filed, but as it
prejudices the maintenance of the patent, the Opposition Division will admit it
into the proceedings.
The OD is also permitted to examine facts
and evidence of its own motion, including a fresh ground of opposition: lack of
novelty.
Increase territorial scope of protection.
To get protection in TW, file a TW application claiming priority from DE-GPS before priority period expires on 22/03/2024 + 12m --> 22/03/2025 (Sat) extended to 24/03/2025 (assuming TW law has similar closure extension rules and that the TW office is closed on Sat, is open on 24/03/2025).
Also possible to file US application and EP
application claiming priority, or a PCT application, which could be
nationalized in any regions of interest within 30/31m from priority to give
protection in the US and important sales markets in Europe.
After grant in EP, validate in Italy to
stop Camp Spa from manufacturing.
Protection of BSC + DM=(O)
Not possible to get protection for (O) from
PCT-My.
The divisional application EP-DIV contains
the description of P-My, which discloses (O). File a further divisional EP-DIV2
with a claim directed to (O).
The claim has effective date of P-MY, and
is novel and inventive (see analysis of P-MY)
Granted patent protection for (O) can be
obtained in EP.
After EP-DIV2 has been published, file
translation of claim in French with French Office to establish provisional
protection in France.
Pay all necessary fees for EP-Div2 and
request accelerated processing under PACE.
After grant, validate in France and other
EP countries of interest, or file a request for unitary effect within 1m from
grant, to stop Selle manufacturing and selling O.
Nothing can be done about cube.
EP-B: Buy or obtain a license to EP-B. As
Mr Alessio has been so helpful, it seems likely that this is possible
Question 4. After the improvements:
(a) will
we be free to produce and sell bicycle gear shift systems according to our two
prototypes?
Yes, claims 1 and 3 of EP-ABC will be stuck down.
After obtaining (a license to) EP-B, you
will be free to manufacture Prototype 2.
(b) will
Selle S.A. be free to produce and sell their existing and planned lines of
bicycle saddle connectors?
Selle will be free to produce and sell BSC
+ DM = (Cube), but not (O).
Diane Tweedlie (main editor), Jelle Hoekstra, Roel van Woudenberg
We welcome your comments!
What are your thoughts on the variant with cubes of rubber bering equivalent elements to a damper of pyramids or spheres of rubber that fall within the scope of the claim under Art. 2 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that those options are structurally too far apart to be called equivalent. In the exam there is usually an indication that distinct embodiments are seen as being equivalent if you are expected to discuss equivalency. That was not the case here. So, I guess it was not expected in this exam.
DeleteThere is also explicit information: "pyramids achieve even better damping results.". Equivalence usually requires substantially the same way & effect: "even better" is thus not equivalent. (Also, equivalence is not well-harmonized, so that it can -in my view- only be in the EQE if it is explicitly presented as a fact as it was in D2 2005 - which was also one of the very few times and the last time it was on the EQE)
DeleteHow many marks are carried by the indication of the first filings?
ReplyDeleteDifficult to know. The committee quite regularly indicates in the model solution that for each option it should be mentioned what was the first filing.
Delete... and when discussing priority, it is a very key element that you checked and indicate that priority is claimed from the first application. In quite some D2s, it is also an issue that for some claims in some applications, priority is not claimed from the first application, causing the priority claim to be invalid.
Delete"PCT-MY has two claims. Claim 1 is directed to a bicycle saddle connector with damping means made from rubber (Q) and dependent claim 2 specifies that the damping means are in the form of spheres (O)." Since claim is directed to a damping means made of rubber Q, and claim 2 depends from claim 1, should this not be interpreted as having all the features of claim 1 plust the shape of dependent claim 2, resulting in claim 2 being directed to damping means made of rubber Q, but in the shape of spheres?
ReplyDeleteYes, I think so
DeleteI have just realised that there are two interpretations to this :
DeleteClaim set 1:
1. Claim 1 is directed to damping means made from rubber Q (i.e. not limited to a specific shape, but to a specific rubber of manufacture).
2. Claim 2, depends from claim 1 and therefore relates to damping means made from rubber Q having a spherical shape.
Claim set 2:
1. (Claim 1 is directed to damping means made from rubber) = The whole scope abbreviate as "Q".
2. Claim 2, depends from claim 1 and therefore requires (Claim 1 is directed to damping means made from rubber) wherein the shape is spherical.
Because the abbreviations "O", "P" and "Q" were listed directly after the word "rubber", it can be interpreted as "Rubber O", "Rubber P" and "Rubber Q".
In that case, P-MY discloses and claims damping means in the shape of spheres, made from rubber O. Separating the features "spheres" and "rubber O" would not result in intermediate generalisation as, according to the first interpretation, "spheres" and "rubber O" were only disclosed in combination.
Because of the delay in loading the assignment of Paper D2, it was quite a rush to catch up on time lost. If one read "spheres made from rubber (O)" it could be easily interpreted that the damping means has 2 separate features in combination: "spheres" made from "rubber O".
*separate the features "spheres" and "rubber O" would have resulted in an intermediate generalistion... (sorry, typo).
DeleteI certainly also interpreted it as "Rubber O", "Rubber P" and "Rubber Q"! This was completely misleading!!
DeleteIn 1(c) it says that Effective date of claims is therefore 18/12/2024 wrt DE-GPS. But priority date of DE-GPS is 22/03/2024 according to the Q3 answer. Am I missing something here?!
ReplyDeleteNo, well spotted. A copying error. I will change the answer
DeleteMy answer follows most of this, without me providing detailed inventive step discussions :( I also did not mention provision of evidence for the priority transfer to Alessio, but argued that it should be presented at the oral proceedings and appealed if late evidence is not accepted. Failed to mention to apply in Taiwan because I didn’t have the time to check why being a WTO member allows priority claims although not a PCT nor Paris criteria state.
ReplyDeleteI missed the partial priority I just argued that the Claim1 of EP-ABC was broader, and also missed to mention the licensing of EP-B and Taiwan. But I got the main points. Just a question I suggested to file a PCT application from the German application claiming priority, should have I said to remove germany as designation?
ReplyDeleteNot if you want an EP that is later validated in DE. The self-designation problem of DE only applies to direct entry from PCT into DE.
DeleteSee e.g., Euro-PCT Guide 2.12.006:
"As regards the EPC contracting states, the problem of self-designation exclusively concerns Germany (DE), and only if protection via the grant of a national patent in Germany is sought, i.e. if the application actually enters the German national phase. The designation of Germany for the purposes of a European patent is not considered a self-designation and is thus not affected. Consequently, there is no reason for withdrawing the automatic designation of EP. If a non-designation of Germany is not indicated upon filing, the international application can still enter the German national phase; however, if this is effected, the earlier German national application will be deemed withdrawn."
Note: this information will be included in the 2025 edition of the GL/PCT-EPO (in A-VI, 2.1), when the Euro-PCT Guide will cease to exist. See pre-publication of 3-2-2025 (niot part of EQE2025 syllabus).
DeleteThanks for the answer.
ReplyDeleteCan you please say why providing the notary agreement should be sufficient to rebut the presumption of priority, if Alessio has waited months (even after publication of EP-ABC) for registering the transfer of Ep-B and has also not done anything to dispute the validity of the priority for years? G1/22 explicitly addresses that even different applicants may be assumed to tolerate the successive filing of the subsequent application, as having an interest in the validity of the priority. If I were Campagnelli, I would argue with teeth and nails that Alessi is only now changing his position on priority because he wants to make affairs with Bikey (who needs to justify the late filing, likely with the recent encounter with Alessi), while what matters is that Alessi (implicitly) consented years ago to the filing ( according to G1/22 is what mattered, later developments do not count).
Is there any case law or guidelines passage supporting that just filing the contract will be sufficient to rebut the presumption?
I see this issue in a similar way.
DeleteBasically the transfer of EP-B to Alessi should only have become valid after it had been proven to the EPO (at least the German wording of R. 22(3) EPC states this quite clearly imho ("erst")).
The Enlarged Board was very clear: there are no formal requirements for a transfer of a priority right (other than for a transfer of a patent (application). proof of the transfer can be given in any suitable form. Future case law may give examples. A notary agreement seems totally adequate.
DeleteThank you for your reply. I still see an issue with respect to the implied consent that the Enlarged Board also instituted in the same decision, though. I agree that the priority was formally transferred to Alessi, but for the rebuttal of the presumption isn't it also needed to show that Alessi did not consent to the subsequent filing at the filing date of EP-ABC? He would have known, at least from the register, of the filing of EP-ABC, yet he did nothing for six years.
DeleteGB - It makes no legal or practical sense for C to try and argue that they sold/gave AA the rights of a patent application, but that this shouldn't apply. They sold/gave EP-B away, so from the date they signed the agreement, they had no right to EP-B. The fact that someone doesn't register the transfer doesn't nullify a contract!!
DeleteImagine buying a car or a house from someone, only for them to then argue 5 years later that because you didn't update the government register of properties they should still be entitled to the car or house and you get nothing! Despite a legally binding contract!
Aaad - a subsequent filing extends the term of protection of the invention, and would even give rise to claims for inventor's compensation under certain circumstances. Hence, Alessi could have had interest in a valid filing of EP-ABC, which is what the EBA said when discussing tolerating subsequent filings. While I agree that a patent is an object of property as a house or a car, it comes with some peculiar aspects, which make the analogy not fully pertinent, in my opinion. . BTW, Italian law also includes the concept of "usucapione", acquiring possession of a good without explicit consent of the proprietor by acquiescence of the proprietor to public ownership of the good by the acquiring party.
DeleteReferring to the guidelines, E-XIV.3, "the transfer becomes effective before the EPO on the date on which the above-mentioned requirements are met. The newly registered applicant/proprietor is entitled to exercise the right to the European patent application/patent before the EPO from this date".
DeleteThis suggests that Alessio was only entitled to EP-B from 2020, and therefore, Camp claim of priority with respect to EP-B was valid at the time of filing EP-ABC
Slylark, i think that section merely inplies that AA is not entitled to act in preceeding relating to EP-B before he registered the transfer, which makes sense because other EPO would not know he is the true owner. Entitled to act before EPO =/ entitled to EP-B
DeleteBut I could be wrong
Do not mixup transfer and registration thereof of the patent application (Rule 22) and the priority right (no provisions in the EPC., neither for the transfer nor for the registration, see G 1/22). G 1/22 clarified that, as there is no provisions in the EPC, we have to assume the broadest possible way to transfer rights under any national law, which led (with other considerations, esp that cooperation of the original applicant is usually needed if a later application claims priority) to the presumption that the later applicant is entitled to use the priority right. G 1/22 also clarified that this presumption is rebuttable, i.e., can be challenged if appropriate evidence is given that a transfer took place (and when it took effect): that is why the notary deposition is there, of a dated transfer - it allows to rebut (or to proof that the transfer did occur)
DeleteThanks for providing your suggested answers. Feels good to read, part 2 went much better than part 1 for me. Nothing that stands out as unexpected or strange in the provided solution. I'm really happy this year had a longer D2 relative to D1 again.
ReplyDeleteRegarding question 2(b) (As the situation currently stands: is Selle S.A. free to produce and sell their existing and planned lines of bicycle saddle connectors?)
ReplyDeleteThe proposed answer reads: "Yes, Selle is free to produce their saddle connectors with Cube and (O) damping. As explained in Q1, there is currently no protection for BSC + DM = (Cube) or (O) or BSC + DM = rubber."
Shouldn't the answer include that patent protection for BSC+DM = (O) is presently in force in Malaysia instead of stating that currently there is no protection for said subject-matter?
I agree. It should be clearer that there is no protection, apart from Malaysia. Or e.g. there is no protection in the countries/regions of interest: EP, US, TW
DeleteAny neutralization or compensation?
DeleteConcerning Q3: DE-GPS was filed on 22.3.24. To claim priority one needs to file until 22.3.24+12M= 22.3.25 which is a Saturday instead of the stated Thursday. Shouldn't therefore the time limit extend to 24.3.25 (Mo)?.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I put down.
Delete**IF** TW has similar closure extension provisions as the EPC/PCT and IF TW office is closed on 22-23/3/25 and open on 24/3/25. I think you cannot know (not in EQE syllabus), so with or without extension probably both accepted.
DeleteI thought 1.(b).(iii) as such (C) refers to only gear C less the other features? I may have misread but the other documents, besides EP-ABC only, refer to gears in general, not gear (c)?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, always check the calendar. I'll update the answer
ReplyDelete@ anonymous regarding (C): I interpreted (C) as being an abbreviation for the invention as a whole: gear-shift system with motor for shifting gears and switch (of any kind) to be mounted to handlebar. I don't see any suggestion in the text that (C) would refer to a gear.
ReplyDelete@ anonuymous @Diane Tweedlie , I agree with Diane. (C) related to the whole invention, this was clear as the use of (A), (B) etc was used throughout to refer to the different inventions.
DeleteI thought rubber (O) refers to a new type of rubber, hence gear (c) is a more specific type of gear
DeleteAlso thought they were referring to different types of rubber.
DeleteI agree that the way the abbreviations were used was ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteIn the question they refer to different inventions, for example: “damping means made from either spheres made from rubber (O) or pyramids from rubber (P)”. They also refer to “damping means made from rubber (Q)”.
This can be interpreted to mean:
1. Damping means made from rubber (O), wherein the damping means has a spherical shape.
2. Damping means made from rubber (P), wherein the damping means has a pyramid shape.
3. Damping means made from rubber (Q) without a particular shape.
In other words, in the above inventions, 3 different types of rubber are disclosed: rubber (O), rubber (P) and rubber (Q) and at least two different shapes: spherical and pyramid.
The abbreviation "O" can also be interpreted as follows: O = combination of a spherical shape made from generic rubber.
I believe the way these features are referred to in the paper is ambiguous and both interpretations are possible.
Because the abbreviations (O), (P) and (Q) are introduced after the word "rubber" in each scenario, I believe it is fair to interpret the "O" as relating to the rubber, i.e. that it refers to a specific type of rubber. If it was expressly mentioned that the combination of the features (generic rubber and shape) will be referred to as "(O)" in the client’s letter, it may have removed the ambiguity, but it was not expressed in such clear terms.
In the 2016 paper, for example, Paper D2 also dealt with coffee capsules made from the same material, i.e. "plastic" having different shapes, but the way they phrased the question is not ambiguous. In 2016, it is mentioned that one invention relates to a "plastic coffee capsule having a rib of triangular cross section (triangular rib), and a plastic coffee capsule having a rib of elliptical cross section (elliptical rib)". The information in the brackets, in this case refers to the feature that immediately precedes it.
In the 2022 paper, where an abbreviation includes a combination of features, it was expressly mentioned what is included in the definition of the abbreviation used, for example:
“…The granules are made by compacting the filler powder. This feeding process, which we call CLEAN…” By clearly defining the meaning of the definition at least once in the paper, the reader knows what features it includes.
The ambiguity resulted in different interpretations and different answers.
I also had some difficulties when i started with reading the letter with the given abbreviations and initially thought that rubber (O), rubber (P) and rubber (Q) must be 3 different types of rubbers. But then realized that in that case the brackets do not make sense,... And I then checked the claims (I aways tell candidates to first check the claims....) and then it becasme clear: they relate to O = "spheres made from rubber" (with the O reflecting the shape of a sphere) , P = "pyramids made from rubber" (with the P reflecting the first letter from pyramid - why change symbol from shape to word...), Q = "damping means made from rubber" (did not understand why Q), R = "cubes made from rubber" (the realized that the letters were introduced in alphabetical order and had no particular relation to the shape or name, but arbitrary -- had never seen that before... also not very intuitive :( ...).
DeleteAnd later: A = "switch to be mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears, wherein the switch is connected via an electrical wire to the motor", B = "switch to be mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears, wherein the switch is connected via a wireless radio connection to the motor", C = "switch to be mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears" (so genus of A and B...), D = "(unspecified postion) means for selecting the gears, the means including a GPS sensor", E = "switch to be mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle, wherein the switch is connected via a wireless radio connection to the motor"
The download of the assignment was delayed and candidates may have been rushing to make up for lost time. In that case, one tends to accept the information provided on face value.
DeleteIn the 2016 paper, a similar situation was phrased in a way that leaves no room for interpretation.
Since the use of brackets was ambiguous, would markers make consession for different interpretations?
It would be very disappointing if your answer is correct, but differs from the answer of an alternative interpretation of the question.
@A Bezuidenhout: can you give your alternative interpretation and sketch your answer? If others have a similar interpretation and answer, it may be beneficial to share that - the committee and examination board indicated at various tutor meetings that they also read our blogs and may take input from that already into account when they prepare for the premarking.
DeleteOne interpretation is that in P-MY two inventions are disclosed:
Delete1. A damping means made from rubber O, wherein the damping means has a spherical shape.
2. A damping means made from rubber P, wherein the damping means has a pyramid shape.
If you see the shape of the damping means and the type of rubber as two separate features, it affects everything, really. It can then be interpreted that in PCT-MY the applicant combines 1 feature (spheres) with a different type of rubber (rubber Q). Since this combination was not disclosed in the priority document, the “same invention” requirement is not satisfied and the priority claim is not valid.
Another consequence is the disclosure of cubes made from rubber (R). This can be interpreted as a disclosure of a combination of a particular type of rubber (rubber (R)) in a particular shape.
It seems that more than one person have understood the information in brackets to refer to the term immediately preceding the bracketed information. Ambiguity would have been removed if it was mentioned (like in previous papers) that the combination of features are referred to as “O” or “P” or “Q”.
I also interpreted it as O meaning the type of rubber. I think this is wrong and the examiners wanted the other interpretation, however good to know I'm not the only one who made that mistake.
DeleteI think if would be unfair not to accept both interpretations. I have asked a few qualified EP patent attorneys, and people of other professions too, about how they would interpret the abbreviations and their responses varied. Regardless of their interpretation though, all agreed it is confusing.
DeleteIn previous years when an abbreviation was meant to cover more than one feature, it was clearly mentioned in the question so that there is no confusion.
Just based on normal punctuation rules, an abbreviation in parentheses is provided directly after the term that it relates to. An example found in a punctuation guide provides: "Whatever the material inside the parentheses, it must not be integral to the surrounding sentence. If it is, the sentence must be recast." So then it would be reasonable to interpret the meaning of the abbreviation (O) to relate to the type of rubber and not the surrounding sentence, i.e. shape+rubber.
This issue could have been so easily avoided if the question read: "damping means made of rubber which is a sphere (O)" like the 2022 paper did when the inventions related to plastic coffee capsules with different shapes - mentioned somewhere on here already.
I also interpreted it as 3 different rubber types.
DeleteI also think that, based on grammar and typical writing style, parenthetical text is placed in brackets directly after the term it refers to. If the intention was that the parenthetical text refer to more than one term or to a combination of features, it should have been mentioned.
ReplyDeletebased on your definition "2(b)" would have a different meaning all together?
DeleteThanks a lot Diane, Jelle and Roel for your answers. I have a question: I put my evaluation of the current status of Euro-PCT-MY in the answer to question 2(b). Do you think I will lose marks for not placing it in the right place?
ReplyDeleteThat is usually not an issue, as long as it is recognized and understood and not creating ambiguities - your answer to a D2 is marked as a whole.
DeleteThank you very much Roel!
ReplyDeleteMy submitted answer did not include question 2, and I cannot remember whether I answered it or not.
ReplyDeleteI am aware that it is probable that I accidentally overlooked the question.
However, I clearly remember that the exam in the separate tab updated and felt a bit "shorter". Could the question disappearing been an error from EPO side?
Anyone who experienced the same?
Regarding "File a further divisional EP-DIV2 with a claim directed to (O)." Would it have been possible to instead amend the EP-DIV claims in response to ESR (time limit not expired yet)?
ReplyDeleteAs stated in your answer, EP-DIV does not claim O, but it is disclosed in the description (which is identical to P-MY, hence discloses O or P). In addition, I considered that although O has not been searched in EP-DIV ESR, O and P provide the same common special technical effect of "surprisingly better riding experience while still suppressing hard shocks" thus "combining with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept." and satisfying R137(5) EPC? If O was added to the P claim as an alternative "O or P" or as a separate independent claim, it should be unitary and also comply with R43 as they provide two alternative solutions to the same problem, or did I miss/misunderstand something in the application of R137(5)?
Thanks!
Hi everyone, I have started a PETITION to urge the EPO to offer the EQE twice a year, thereby minimizing the negative psychological impact on our mental health when we fail one part of the exam (and thereby the whole exam!hence forced to wait one complete year to retake - as if lifetime is endless).
ReplyDeletePlease I urge you to sign the reasonable (vernünftig, raisonnable) petition and to share it with colleagues, friends, trainees, and whoever you think can accelerate taking a decision by the EPO.
Thank you DeltaPatents for allowing us to share our concerns about the exam. While many companies in this domain are very much profit and business focused, you are humain and quality focused. Thanks from the heart.
Petition:
https://chng.it/V29hwhJQ8n