tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post8315182311629468368..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 1248/11 – Mixed-Uporhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-19861480186290637272013-09-26T09:06:58.142+02:002013-09-26T09:06:58.142+02:00I see that this is a decision of a chemistry Board...I see that this is a decision of a chemistry Board 3.3.05. I'm not saying that the subject matter was mis-classified, just that the Board seems to have taken a chemist's view of insufficiency, which is hardly appropriate to the subject matter in this case (as an anonymous observed upthread, just including in the mixing apparatus an Overflow tank for the initial inhomogeneous flow through the mixer.<br /><br />The Board seems to have read into the claim that the reservoir has to be a Cinderella Reservoir, big enough to accommodate ALL of the not yet homogeneous mixed flow, but not one cc bigger than necessary to accommodate that initial inhomogeneous flow. If that were indeed required by the claim, then I agree, one has not a clue how to size the Reservoir just right.<br /><br />But the claim includes the possibility of an over-sized reservoir doesn't it? That would "work", to deliver a dental prosthesis of top quality, wouldn't it? That prosthesis might be a Little bit more expensive to make than one where the Overflow tank is smaller, but the Board surely (?) does not decide validity by reference to financial considerations.<br /><br />Myshkin? MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-4719152631940597362013-09-24T09:19:51.728+02:002013-09-24T09:19:51.728+02:00Myshkin no. But who needs a summary? The Board...Myshkin no. But who needs a summary? The Board's reasoning is compact and does not take long to read. I'm really not sure I could do justice to it in a "summary".<br /><br />In the film, the monarch opines to Mozart "Too many notes". M was at a loss which notes to excise. Too many words in this decision? I think not. Ix----* don't know which ones to excise. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-24992283689337219582013-09-24T00:50:35.966+02:002013-09-24T00:50:35.966+02:00About 1.16, was that a serious attempt to summaris...About 1.16, was that a serious attempt to summarise the reasoning?Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-36458940199622414312013-09-23T08:04:08.720+02:002013-09-23T08:04:08.720+02:00Thank you Myshkin. I have read the decision but no...Thank you Myshkin. I have read the decision but not the EPO file. I see that the claim requires in particular means to "divert" the "initial amount" from the discharge opening of the mixer to the reservoir.<br /><br />Applicant came forward with a story about an experimental set up that tested whether orange goo, pre-loaded into the reservoir, would be entrained into a subsequent flow of blue goo through the mixer. Seems to me that this story hurt rather than helped the Applicant, for it suggested to the Board that Applicant found it necessary to pre-fill the reservoir before switching on the mixer.<br /><br />I stand by my Initial remarks though. Where does the claim say that the initial amount that flows into the reservoir is forbidden from having (when the reservoir is nearly full) the desired steady state mixed composition. I envisage a reservoir safely big enough that it is still receiving flow for a period after the flow has attained the desired mixed composition. If I build my reservoir that big, the subsequent flow to the discharge opening will definitely have the correct composition. I can build that, can't I?<br /><br />The Board at 1.16 says it can build something that does not work. Well bully for them. But what a fatuous Argument! Of course you can build something within the claim that does not work, if that is the task you set yourself. If that were the test for Art 83 though, there is not a claim yet issued by the EPO that satisfies the provisions of Art 83, EPC.<br /><br />I'm still missing something, maybe?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-13712703739698694732013-09-22T21:10:02.994+02:002013-09-22T21:10:02.994+02:00@MaxDrei:
The feature that the skilled person cann...@MaxDrei:<br />The feature that the skilled person cannot implement is "said mixer is adapted such that (...)". What adaptations are necessary to ensure that, for a particular set of components and a particular desired type of paste to be obtained by mixing those components, the initial amount is diverted from the discharge opening to the reservoir, and the subsequent content is extrudable from the discharge opening? See the decision for the detailed reasoning.<br /><br />@Anonymous:<br />Strictly speaking it might not be a lack of clarity, but a lack of support by the description. If the description had disclosed a technical concept fit for generalisation which makes available to the skilled person the host of variants encompassed by the functional definition in question (to use the Board's words in point 1.2), then Art. 84 EPC would also seem to have been complied with.<br /><br />I had a brief look at the electronic file. The first communication did raise a clarity objection. The applicant responded by adding the feature of original claim 2 "wherein said mixer comprises a reservoir for storing said initial amount" and arguing, predictably, that the applicant should not be forced to restrict the claims as it now defined the basic inventive concept in functional and structural terms. From the point of view of clarity of the wording of the claim I might agree. (Well, I do think the claim has a clarity problem in that it fails to clearly state that the initial amount is diverted to the reservoir, but this is another problem.)Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-71661094383499791422013-09-22T11:01:57.039+02:002013-09-22T11:01:57.039+02:00My initial impression on reading the claim was exa...My initial impression on reading the claim was exactly the same as MaxDrei's - never seen a butcher discard the first lump that comes out of his mincing machine? I guess the board felt obliged to deal with "fundamental" objection of insufficiency first ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-47258798127390168522013-09-22T10:57:28.968+02:002013-09-22T10:57:28.968+02:00It seems that the comments focus on the meaning of...It seems that the comments focus on the meaning of the claims. So am I wrong, or is this another of those claims that should never have been granted for lack of clarity? Art.84 seems to be used less and less in examination, though it would be such a good tool in "raising the bar", which I understood is the big hype nowadays at the EPO?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-17897379478155876382013-09-21T23:14:57.650+02:002013-09-21T23:14:57.650+02:00Help me somebody. Having read the Decision I am as...Help me somebody. Having read the Decision I am astonished that the claim went down as insufficient and astonished that it did NOT go down as obvious.<br /><br />To me the initial stream is what is not yet of the desired consistent composition for Extrusion and production use downstream. So you divert the initial stream until the stream has assumed its consistent correct composition. All that stuff i would have expected to be in the pre-characterizing part of the claim.<br /><br />What's left for the characterizing portion? A reservoir for saving the diverted flow. A bucket then. What else can one do with the diverted initial stream? Let it run out onto the floor?<br /><br />What am I not seeing straight, in this ridiculous claim?<br /><br />And how the claim is insufficient, I cannot imagine. What is the feature which the skilled person is unable to implement? The flow switch, or the bucket? MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-62934552639795863682013-09-20T12:28:40.911+02:002013-09-20T12:28:40.911+02:00it seems more complex than anonymous of 11.46 stat...it seems more complex than anonymous of 11.46 states. <br /><br />I understand from the description that the reservoir has the function to retain a portion of the initial mixture which does not present the adequate characteristics to be extruded, so that the rest of the mixture being directed to the exit will present the correct quality.<br /><br />Thus the board asked the correct question : how do you define the right position, volume, size... of the reservoir to ensure that only a correct mixture will be dispensed?<br /><br />The answer is not so obvious (in my eyes, I shall confess), and maybe the description lacks to give hints to the reader.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-26904822453486084422013-09-20T11:46:44.502+02:002013-09-20T11:46:44.502+02:00Hi
In my opinion this decision is wrong. The phras...Hi<br />In my opinion this decision is wrong. The phrase 'A mixer for producing a paste by mixing components' merely means that the mixer should be SUITABLE for producing a paste and not that the mixer should be constructed for producing each and every paste.<br /><br />It seeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com