How To Pass P3 - Dependent claims and description

1,770 views
1,600 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,770
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
173
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How To Pass P3 - Dependent claims and description

  1. 1. <ul><li>How To Pass P3 </li></ul><ul><li>Iain Russell </li></ul><ul><li>Chartered and European Patent Attorney </li></ul><ul><li>Brookes Batchellor LLP </li></ul>
  2. 2. The original presentation included various images and slides which have been removed from this version for copyright purposes. I will happily and immediately remove any copyrighted images upon request. Please visit www.aquatina.net for more information on the Aquatina ® which is referred to throughout these slides with kind permission.
  3. 3. How To Pass P3 – Diary Dates <ul><li>17 August 2010: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P3, spotting the invention and claiming it </li></ul></ul><ul><li>31 August 2010: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependent claims and the rest </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3 September 2010: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P3 application deadline </li></ul></ul><ul><li>14 September 2010: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exam technique and detailed review of P3 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>28 September 2010: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P3 2008 and conclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4 November 2010: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P3 2010 Exam </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Session 2 <ul><li>Today: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review of session 1 and Homework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependent Claims </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Omnibus claims (not strictly dependent!) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Break/Discussion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Description” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>General tips </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pub </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Review of Session 1 and Homework
  6. 6. Session 1 <ul><li>Last Time: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P3: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preparation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exam Technique </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spotting the invention: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integer Tree </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Top-down </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bottom-up </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Claiming the invention: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FAQs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Aquatina ® </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Homework </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Homework <ul><li>Homework 1: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aquatina ® Lid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CD shoe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Soup/hair protector </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Homework 2: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hole punch </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Delay in getting slides on CIPA website: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E-mail answers to me </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remember… prizes! </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Dependent Claims
  9. 9. From Session 1… <ul><li>4 hours </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 hours (reading paper; claim 1) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 hour (dependent claims) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 hour (all other requirements) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>50 marks to pass </li></ul><ul><ul><li>40 marks (independent claim(s)) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>25 marks (dependent claims) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>35 marks (all other requirements) </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Dependent Claims <ul><li>Mr Tibor Gold MBE </li></ul><ul><li>Dependent claims: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are they for? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dos and Don’ts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dependent claims for Aquatina ® </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad (Critique) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. What are they for? <ul><li>A very large percentage - some say over 50% - of granted patents are (at least) partially invalid, because of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incomplete/imperfect prior art searches; or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incomplete/imperfect inventive step examination </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. What are they for? <ul><li>Niels Bohr is supposed to have said: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Prediction is a chancy business, especially of the future.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Or: you can never be sure what nasty prior art lurks out there…. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Therefore: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prudence dictates that one should provide a set of fallback positions that could save an application or granted patent. </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. What are they for? <ul><li>Whether during prosecution, opposition or post-grant proceedings, amendment gives patentee a chance-not-to-be-missed to strengthen the patent </li></ul><ul><li>But there are statutory restrictions to what can be done: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fewer in prosecution, more post-grant </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The importance of support in the original disclosure </li></ul>
  14. 14. What are they for? <ul><li>A well-graded set of dependent claims may not only provide a set of potentially validating material but also serve as further warning to would-be infringers who think they can invalidate the main claim. </li></ul><ul><li>Case Study: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I was involved in patent litigation where my client, the defendant, was able to knock out claims 1 -14 but not claim 15 and a few others. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This situation caused my client to accept that it needed to seek a licence, and the patentee to grant one on reasonable terms </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Dos and Don’ts <ul><li>A sub-claim should: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contain a genuinely optional feature ( repercussive effect on the claim(s) it depends from): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Anything in fact essential casts a big doubt on the root claim </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Set forth an advantageous technical feature for which you can advance a credible novelty and inventive step (“IS”) argument over the art known to you and over the common general knowledge </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Dos and Don’ts <ul><li>A sub-claim should: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Set forth only one secondary inventive concept </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Be supported by the description: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Beware of intermediate generalisations not supported by the disclosure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If multiply-appendant, be plausible in its permutations so as to ensure that each is feasible </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Dos and Don’ts <ul><li>A subclaim should NOT (by a mirror image of the Dos): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contain anything essential and not genuinly optional (repercussive effect) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Claim trivial features which are known by/obvious to a PHOSITA; in other words, should not be directed to anything that could not save the patent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bracket together in the same claim features which are not interrelated or do not interact with each other </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Dependent Claims – Aquatina ®
  19. 19. Aquatina ® : Dependent Claims <ul><li>Claim 1 (reminder): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container comprising a receptacle which is movable between an extended deployed configuration and a retracted storage configuration. </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 2: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to any preceding claim * , wherein the receptacle is collapsible **.    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Sloppy: Should be “according to claim 1”. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>** - Remember repercussive effect – are we intending claim 1 to be broader than this? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 3: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to any preceding claim, wherein the receptacle comprises an externally threaded mouth *   cooperating ** with the container’s lid ***. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Lots of features. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>** - Sloppy: method-type feature in an apparatus claim. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>*** - No antecedence. Also, is the lid part of the claim?    </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 4: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to any preceding claim, wherein the receptacle is blue *. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Does this add patentable subject-matter? (The answer’s not unquestionably “no”, but does it in this case?) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 5: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to any preceding claim, wherein the receptacle comprises a base and wherein the base is flat and circular * . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Lots of features in one dependent claim. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 6: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to any preceding claim, wherein the wall of the receptacle * is water-impermeable ** . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Antecedence and repercussive effect on claim 1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>** - Does it add any inventiveness to the claimed invention? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 7: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Apparatus * according to claim 5 when dependent upon claim 3 or claim 6 when dependent upon claims 3 and 5 **, comprising a compressible bellows section fixed *** between the mouth portion **** and the base part *****, the bellows section comprising means for reducing the size ******. </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 7: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Sloppy change of preamble </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>** - Horrible dependencies. Claims are very badly ordered </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>*** - Wrong choice of terminology. It’s not really ‘fixed’ between them. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>**** - Incorrect antecedence/terminology. No prior use/definition of “mouth portion” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>***** - Incorrect antecedence/terminology. No prior use/definition of “base part” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>****** - Functional language OK, but this is clear. Reducing the size of what? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 8: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to claim 7, wherein the bellows section comprises a rigid central wall section and a plurality of concertinaed wall sections *. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - There are six in total on the actual product and we’re pretty much “floating” in this claim. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Where are the concertinaed sections in relation to all of the other features in the claim? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 9: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to claim 8, wherein there are three, four or five * concertinaed wall sections. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - We’d have quite clear support for three concertinaed wall sections (on each side of the central wall section), but are “four” and “five” properly supported? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 10: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to any preceding claim, wherein the receptacle comprises a lid *. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Is this correct? Does the receptacle “comprise” the lid, or does the container comprise the receptacle and also a lid? The lid is not really part of the receptacle itself… </li></ul></ul></ul>
  30. 30. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 11: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container according to claim 10 when dependent upon claim 3 *, wherein the lid has a corresponding internal thread **. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Again, quite sloppy. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>** - Corresponding to what? It’s clearly meant to mean that it corresponds to the external thread on the mouth of the receptacle, but it's not completely clear from the claim itself. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 12: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[Independent claim] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A method of using a container according to any preceding claim *. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Unclear: No method steps actually recited. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Aquatina ® : Bad Claims <ul><li>Claim 13: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A method according to claim 12, comprising extending the receptacle, filling the extended receptacle with water, satisfactorily quenching one’s thirst with the said water * and retracting the receptacle**.   </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* - Pompous-sounding wording that often finds its way into claims. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>** - This claim as a whole is unnecessary in P3. It’s members of the public who are going to be infringing this claim. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 2: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the receptacle has flexible wall portion(s) movable between its configurations by manual manipulation. </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 3: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container as claimed in claim 2, wherein the flexible wall portion(s) are formed as compressible bellows sections [in a concertina formation]. </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 4: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container as claimed in claim 3, wherein a rigid wall portion is provided among the bellows sections. </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 5: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container as claimed in claim 4, wherein the rigid wall portion is disposed centrally between an equal number of the bellows sections on either side of it. </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 6: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container as claimed in any preceding claim, wherein the container has an open mouth provided with means for sealing engagement with a closure member. </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 7: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A container as claimed in any preceding claim, wherein it is adapted for holding liquids by being made of a water-impermeable material. </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. Aquatina ® : Good Claims <ul><li>Claim 8: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Omnibus claim: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A container substantially as described herein, with reference to the accompanying drawings. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are they still all that useful in real life? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arguable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But, there’s usually a mark for them in P3 so include one . </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Discussion/Break
  41. 41. “Description”
  42. 42. From Session 1 and 2… <ul><li>4 hours </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 hours (reading paper; claim 1) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 hour (dependent claims) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 hour (all other requirements) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>50 marks to pass </li></ul><ul><ul><li>40 marks (independent claim(s)) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>25 marks (dependent claims) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>35 marks (all other requirements) </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. “Description” <ul><li>“ Description”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ 4-3-1” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Start (4 components - 8 marks): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Title </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Field </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Background </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Statements of invention and advantage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Middle (3 components - 22 marks): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>List of Figures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Labelling the Figures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Specific description </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>End (1 component - 5 marks): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Abstract </li></ul></ul></ul>
  44. 44. Start
  45. 45. Start – Title <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 mark </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The body of the specification should start with a title. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The title ought not to be narrower in scope than the independent claims . </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Title - Aquatina ® <ul><li>Claim 1: A container for liquids… </li></ul><ul><li>Title: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad: A compressible water bottle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better: [A] container for liquids </li></ul></ul>
  47. 47. Title - Microwave <ul><li>Claim 1: A method of heating food… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aside – Useful claim? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Claim 12: Apparatus for heating food… </li></ul><ul><li>Title: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad 1: Heating Food </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad 2: “Microwave” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better: Method of and Apparatus for Heating Food </li></ul></ul>
  48. 48. Start - Field <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 mark (2 so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The introductory portion of the description ought to explain the field of the invention sufficiently to assist the search examiner in determining the technical classification . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not narrower than the independent claim(s). </li></ul></ul>
  49. 49. Start - Field <ul><li>Standard: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“The [present] invention relates to…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“This invention relates to…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Add-on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“More particularly…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Without loss of generality…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other? </li></ul></ul>
  50. 50. Field – Aquatina ® <ul><li>Claim 1: A container for liquids… </li></ul><ul><li>Field: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The present invention relates to a container for liquids. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Add-on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More particularly, the present invention relates to a container for liquids in the form of a collapsible water bottle. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>*Tibor Gold suggested NOT to use this add-on in P3 because of possible limitations on the scope of the claims. </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. Field - Microwave <ul><li>Claim 1: A method of heating food… </li></ul><ul><li>Claim 12: Apparatus for heating food… </li></ul><ul><li>Field: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for heating food. </li></ul></ul>
  52. 52. Start - Background <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 marks (five so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The introductory portion of the description ought to acknowledge the known and relevant prior art and set the scene for the invention. </li></ul></ul>
  53. 53. Start - Background <ul><li>Relevant prior art: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is “relevant”? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Same (or possibly ‘close’) technical field </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Disclosure: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t acknowledge more than we know about </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discussion: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t be derogatory </li></ul></ul>
  54. 54. Start - Background <ul><li>Problem: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t create fanciful/overstated problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t “snowball” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Example (bad) – Aquatina ® : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The world is about to become engulfed by discarded plastic bottles. This will lead to mass hysteria and worse. The present invention will literally save the lives of millions of innocent people by providing a readily reuseable and transportable water bottle. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Start - Background <ul><li>Problem: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keep reader in blinkers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t give away too many hints: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Example (bad) – Aquatina ® : </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Current water containers cannot be reduced in size so that they can be easily transported, for example in a trouser pocket or backpack, and then expanded so that they can be reused. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  56. 56. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 marks (8 so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It was expected that the description should then include a summary of the invention, which provides some justification for the chosen claims including, to a general extent, the dependent claims. </li></ul></ul>
  57. 57. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This justification may include an indication of any benefits or advantages provided by the independent and dependent claims. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Care should be taken to distinguish between the use of the terms “the invention”, “aspects of the invention”, “preferred features” and “embodiments of the invention”. </li></ul></ul>
  58. 58. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Notwithstanding the obvious benefits to the client of setting out a cogent introduction and summary of invention, which provides an initial justification/arguments in favour of the novelty and inventive step of the drafted claims, for the purposes of the examination this section is helpful to the Examiners when reviewing the drafted claims, particularly where unexpected wording is used. </li></ul></ul>
  59. 59. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Although this examination paper is drafted with a particular result in mind, the Examiners acknowledge that other solutions sometimes arise unexpectedly; a well constructed introduction may well prove invaluable in those circumstances. </li></ul></ul>
  60. 60. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Also, candidates would continue to be well advised to carefully review their arguments set out in the introduction against their drafted claims and summary of invention section to ensure that they are consistent. </li></ul></ul>
  61. 61. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This may be useful to candidates as an internal check to help ensure that they do not fall into the trap of failing to claim what they clearly understood the invention to be. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It is important to discuss in the preamble the specific advantages set out, and not simply to talk of the invention in any [context]. </li></ul></ul>
  62. 62. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Independent claims: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aspects: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Full: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Claim 1: According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a [copy claim 1]. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Other independent claims: same formulation, but further aspects. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compact: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Claim 1: According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a [copy preamble of claim 1] according to claim 1. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  63. 63. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Dependent claims: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conditional wording </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The [preamble of claim 1] may comprise a [copy from claim 2]. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preferably </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preferably, the [preamble of claim 1] comprises a [copy from claim 2]. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Optionally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Optionally, the [preamble of claim 1] comprises a [copy from claim 2]. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  64. 64. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Full vs compact: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Full: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Write out full claim </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Slower </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Double-check </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compact: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Refer to claim </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quicker </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OK for independent claims </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tricky for dependent claims </li></ul></ul></ul>
  65. 65. Start – Statements of Invention <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quite a few candidates are resorting to a preamble which just refers to claim numbers. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Whilst this is acceptable and might save time, candidates should be careful to ensure that this brevity does not lead to inadequate supporting discussion. </li></ul></ul>
  66. 66. Middle
  67. 67. Middle – List of Figures <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 marks (10 so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A list of figures ought to be provided. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Candidates are reminded that the drawings generally show embodiments of the invention and ought to be described as such. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent reference numerals ought to be used in the description and different drawings when referring to the same feature. </li></ul></ul>
  68. 68. Middle – List of Figures <ul><li>Possible introduction: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[Preferred embodiments of] the present invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which drawings should I include? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Answer: relevant ones. </li></ul></ul>
  69. 69. Middle – List of Figures <ul><li>Useful terms for views: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Side </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Underneath </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploded </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sectional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part-sectional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part-cutaway </li></ul></ul>
  70. 70. Middle – Labelling the Figures <ul><li>2 marks (12 so far) </li></ul><ul><li>Page numbers </li></ul><ul><li>Figure numbers </li></ul><ul><li>Reference signs </li></ul>
  71. 71. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>18 marks (30 so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The body of the specification should continue with the description. </li></ul></ul>
  72. 72. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A specific description setting out the structure of the apparatus in some detail, followed by its mode of operation, was looked for, with variations or other embodiments described separately and subsequently and in as much detail as possible. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Again, candidates are reminded that the specific description generally describes embodiments of the invention and the wording of the text should therefore reflect this. </li></ul></ul>
  73. 73. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The use of the word ‘preferably’ in the specific description can lead to doubt as to whether the feature being referred to is actually a necessary part of the particular embodiment being described. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘Preferred features’ should be set out in the introduction /summary of the invention and the dependent claims. </li></ul></ul>
  74. 74. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Candidates are reminded that a purpose of the description is to satisfy Section 14(2) [IR: this should, presumably, be Section 14(3) – clear and complete disclosure] and to ensure that the application does not fall foul of Section 72(1)c [IR: being pedantic, this should be Section 72(1)(c)]. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It would be advisable, therefore, that all the claimed features are clearly disclosed and that the terminology of the claims can be followed through to the specific description. </li></ul></ul>
  75. 75. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For simple mechanical cases, at least, one test of a specific description is whether it can be understood without the drawings. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some candidates did little other than refer to the drawings. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perhaps less practised candidates opening their specific description with the words “Figure 1 shows…” lead themselves into the trap of a description which relies too heavily on looking at the drawings. </li></ul></ul>
  76. 76. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Specific description: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Describe the product as-is </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t use “preferably”, “could be” etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shouldn’t need to look at the drawings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some candidates just refer to the drawings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However, don’t rely only on the drawings </li></ul></ul>
  77. 77. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Specific description: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Example (bad) – Aquatina ® : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The reader is referred to Figure 1 which shows the container. Instead of it being as shown in Figure 1, it could have… </li></ul></ul></ul>
  78. 78. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Specific description: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structure: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Apparatus </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Alternatives </li></ul></ul></ul>
  79. 79. Middle – Specific Description <ul><li>Specific description: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference numerals: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Needed in P3 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t put them in brackets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Numeral list: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Helps you keep track, but not part of answer </li></ul></ul></ul>Feat # Mouth 14 Base 12 Lid 10
  80. 80. End
  81. 81. End – Abstract <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 marks (35 so far) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The abstract commences with the title, and then indicates the technical field, the technical explanation of the invention and the principle use of the invention. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The abstract should indicate the figure which should accompany the abstract when published. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where a feature of the invention included in the abstract is illustrated in a drawing, the feature must be followed by the reference for that feature used in that drawing. </li></ul></ul>
  82. 82. End – Abstract <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some candidates omitted an Abstract. They cannot gain any points allocated to an Abstract that isn’t there. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Too many candidates included the unnecessary phrases “The invention comprises…” or “According to the invention”, in their Abstract. </li></ul></ul>
  83. 83. End – Abstract <ul><li>One of my bugbears </li></ul><ul><li>You must include an Abstract and its six components: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Title </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technical field </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Explanation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Principal use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Figure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reference signs ( without brackets) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  84. 84. End – Abstract <ul><li>Example – Aquatina ® (bad): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The present invention relates to a container for water or the like comprising a receptacle which is movable between an extended deployed configuration and a retracted storage configuration. The container will save millions of lives and is completely different from any other container. The present invention also covers a method of drinking from the container. </li></ul></ul>
  85. 85. General tips
  86. 86. General tips <ul><li>Examiners’ Comments 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Notes to the Examiner rarely useful and do not gain marks. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Write on every other line. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each claim on a new page or leave large gaps. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Practise writing on lined paper with their writing instrument of choice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ball point pens are recommended. </li></ul></ul>
  87. 87. General tips <ul><li>Try to use plain English if you can: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“… an A and a B, whereinbetween is provided a C” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ a C is provided between an A and a B” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The word “said”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some Examiners don’t like it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some aren’t bothered </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Your choice if you want to use it </li></ul></ul>
  88. 88. General tips <ul><li>Ghost words: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Predetermined </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Threshold </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatically </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Repercussive effect </li></ul><ul><li>Antecedence: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>… but “ the length of the rod is…” can be OK </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative: “the rod has a length and the length of the rod is…” </li></ul></ul>
  89. 89. Conclusion <ul><li>This session: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Homework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dependent claims </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Description” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>General tips </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Now: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pub </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knights Templar, next door! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Next session: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Exam Technique </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Special guest presenter: Tony Luckhurst </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>P3 2007 – BRING PAPER </li></ul></ul>
  90. 90. Thank You! <ul><li>Website: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>www.howtopassp3.com </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.bb-ip.com </li></ul></ul><ul><li>E-mail: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>

×