The present appeal was directed against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) to refuse the application under consideration.
In its first communication, dated July 8, 2004, the ED had objected that the claims on file violated A 123(2) and also lacked conciseness due to the presence of two independent method claims 1 and 13, in violation of R 29(2) and A 84.
On January 18, 2005, the applicant filed a new set of claims in order to overcome objections under A 84. The claims now contained a single independent method claim 1, a single independent apparatus claim 13 and a dependent machine readable disc claim 12.
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 23 read:
1. A method of assigning, via a graphical user interface, values to object parameters (70,72) of objects (54) of a simulation mode1 (30), the method comprising: displaying a diagram panel (401) within a user interface, the diagram panel (401) including respective graphical representations (152-164) of objects (54) of the simulation mode1 (30); displaying an access panel (260; 262) within the user interface enabling user input of values to be assigned to object parameters (70,72) of objects (54) of the simulation model (30), the access panel (260;262) being distinct £rom the diagram panel (401); and assigning user input values received via the access panel (260;262) to object parameters (70,72) of the simulation model (30), characterized in that displaying (284) an access panel (260;262) and assigning (292) user input values received via the access panel (260;262) comprises: detecting user identification of a set of object parameters (7O,72) for inclusion within an access panel (260;262), the set of object parameters including object parameters (70,72) associated with multiple objects (54) of the simulation model(30); in response to the user identification of a set of object parameters (54) of the simulation mode1 (30) for inclusion in an access panel (260;262), displaying (288) an identifier (264,266) for each object parameter (70,72) of the user identified set of object parameters within the access panel (260;262); receiving user input via the access panel (260, 262) of values (268) for one or more of the object parameters (70,72) represented by identifiers (264,266) in the access panel (260;262); and assigning the respective values received via the access panel (260;262) to said one or more object parameters (70,72).
11. A method of performing a simulation utilizing a simulation model (30), comprising: assigning, via a graphical user interface, values to object parameters (70,72) of objects (54) of a simulation model (30) in accordance with any preceding claim; and utilizing the values assigned to the object parameters as initial input values for object parameters (70,72) in the simulation model (30).
13. Apparatus for assigning, via a graphical user interface, values to object parameters (70,72) of objects (54) of a simulation mode1 (30), the apparatus comprising: user interface means operable to generate a user interface display including: a diagram panel (4 01) including graphical representations (152-164) of objects (54) of a simulation model (30);and at least one access panel (260;262) enabling user input of values to be assigned to object parameters (70,72) of objects (54) of the simulation model (30), the access panel (260;262) being distinct from the diagram panel (401); and means for assigning user input values received via an access panel (260;262) to object parameters (7O,72) of the simulation model (30), characterized by further comprising: means for detecting user identification of a set of object parameters (7O,72) including object parameters (70,72) associated with multiple objects (54) of the simulation model(30) for inclusion within an access panel (260;262), the user interface means being responsive to said means for detecting user identification of a set of objects, to display an identifier (264,266) for each object parameter (70,72) of the user identified set of object parameters within an access panel (260;262), said means for assigning user input values being responsive to receiving (290) user input via the access panel (260, 262) of values (268) for one or more of the object parameters (70,72) represented by identifiers (264,266) in the access panel (260;262) to assign the respective values received via the access panel (260;262) to the object parameters (7O,72) represented by identifiers (260,262).
23. Apparatus for performing a simulation utilizing a simulation model (30), the apparatus comprising: means for assigning, via a graphical user interface, values to object parameters (70,72) of objects (54) of a simulation model (30) in accordance with any of claims 13-22; and simulation means operable to utilize values assigned to object parameters as initial input values for object parameters (70,72) in a simulation mode1 (30).
In a second communication, dated January 31, 2007, the ED maintained its objections.
In its response, the applicant pointed out that claims 11 and 23 had to be considered as dependent claims.
The refusal was delivered in the form of a “decision according to the state of the file”, as requested by the applicant.
As is so often the case with decisions according to the state of the file (which the Board would prefer to call “decisions by reference”, see [2] of the reasons), the Board found the decision to be insufficiently reasoned. There is an interesting paragraph on the R 29 objection:
[10.2] Claims 1 and 13 as filed on 18 January 2005 relate, respectively, to a “method of assigning... values to object parameters ...” and a corresponding apparatus. Claims 11 and 23 relate, respectively, to “a method of performing a simulation... comprising: assigning... values to object parameters... in accordance with any preceding claim” and again a corresponding apparatus.
In the second communication, the ED considers claims 11 and 23 as independent claims, the reference to preceding claims notwithstanding.
According to R 29(3) EPC 1973 (and, equivalently, R 42(3)) [sic, the correct reference is R 43(4)] “[a]ny claims which includes all the features of any other claim” is considered a dependent claim. This formulation is reproduced in the Guidelines for Examination C-III, 3.4. In view of this the ED’s position is at least unconventional and the applicant, when referring to the standard interpretation of what constitutes a “dependent claim”, must have had a fair expectation of having overcome this objection.
The case was remitted to the ED for further prosecution.
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.
The file wrapper can be found here.
1 comments:
I wondered why the Board did not simply state that they are dependent, but a look at the full decision shows that once again a decision on the state of the file was issued on a standard form when this was not possible (without a guaranteed substantial procedural violation).
This has been a recurring theme for years now. When is the EPO going to learn? If educating the examiners on this point proves too hard, why not remove the button for generating these decisions?
Post a Comment