How to Pass P3 a CIPA Study Guide Iain Russell
2010
Author’s Prelude‌ I would sincerely like to thank Tim Roberts without whom I would never have had the opportunity to write this guide. I would also like to thank Doug Ealey for taking the initiative to prepare his study guide for the P2 exam, without which I doubt this guide would exist, and my colleagues whose patience and assistance has been invaluable. Finally, I would like to thank Tibor Gold who has kindly reviewed and edited this guide, Iain Ross who has worked wonders with his publication and formatting skills and the JEB for taking the time to review the guide and make suggestions for improvements. Please feel free to visit the website that accompanies this guide at www.howtopassp3.com and e-mail me at help@howtopassp3.com if you need to. Iain Russell London, July 2010
2. Claiming the Invention If your client was a mechanic who had devised an improvement of a spark plug in a car engine, you should claim the spark plug itself and not the engine comprising the spark plug. However, what would happen if your client came up with the idea of using some sort of existing engine in a lawnmower? You can’t claim that engine ‘for use in a lawnmower’ because that product was already suitable for use in a lawnmower! Similarly, you probably can’t get away with just calling it ‘a lawnmower engine’ and then listing all the known features. You might sometimes get away with this in practice, but it does leave your patent open to attack; for a notable exception – and it is an exception – where such an attack failed, see the Workbench case referred to in Paul Cole’s book at pages. 277-296. Another issue is how you decide on the exact wording to use for the preamble. Again, there is no hard and fast rule. For example, I had a job interview in which the task was to draft a claim to a stapler. I started out by drafting a claim to ‘An apparatus for temporarily fixing a plurality of sheets of paperlike material together, the apparatus comprising…’, but then decided that ‘A stapler comprising’ would do just as good a job and in fewer words. My interviewer asked why I opted to call it a ‘stapler’ instead of the other verbose expression and I responded: ‘well, that’s what it is’. He was pretty happy with that. The moral of that story is that although you don’t want to draft the preamble too narrowly, remember to take a step back and think about what you’re writing. Be very cautious about using the word ‘system’ in the preamble as it can be quite ambiguous whether it relates to apparatus- or method-type features. From the 2005 Examiners’ Comments: A few candidates used the word ‘system’ for ‘apparatus’, perhaps because that was the word the client used. Traditionally this has been frowned upon as being ambiguous (particularly where highly functional language is used) and in the present instance ‘apparatus’ is preferred. Also, be careful about using the word ‘in’ in the preamble as it can often cause confusion as to which entity you’re claiming. For example, are the following claims limited to the car engine: In a car engine, a spark plug comprising…
and A spark plug in a car engine, the spark plug comprising…?
It would normally be better to claim either: A spark plug for [use in] a car engine, the spark plug comprising…
or A car engine comprising a spark plug, the spark plug comprising…
This gives you the preamble of the claim. 8
The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
2. Claiming the Invention
2.2 Essential features You then need to ensure that the claim includes the functional or structural features that are essential for achieving the advantage. You have to put your thinking hat on here and ask whether something is essential to achieving that advantage or not. For instance, using the above headset example [chapter 1, page 3], Bluetooth may not be essential to the advantage of being able to have a hands-free conversation on your phone. If not, your claim should not be limited to it. However, with reference back to chapter 1, a claim simply to ‘A hands-free mobile phone headset’ is just claiming the problem or result to be achieved. Something like ‘A mobile phone headset comprising a transceiver operable to communicate wirelessly with a mobile phone’ would be more sensible. Again, one of the tips I have received from an examiner that I’ve already mentioned above is that: The question is what is the minimum structure necessary to achieve the problem solved by the invention/the advantage of the invention? [emphasis added] Although it is important – imperative even – to include enough structure in your claims to support the associated advantage, features that do not relate to that advantage can lead to unnecessary limitations (and a loss of marks) as highlighted in the 2009 Examiners’ Comments. [T]his year, some candidates unnecessarily limited their independent claims by including features which do not relate to the ‘invention’ they are claiming. Typically these features are mentioned but then not subsequently referred to in the remainder of the claim. The question therefore arises of why was that limiting feature included at all? It is recognised that this is something that is sometimes can be difficult to spot and to be self-critical over. To help with this problem, candidates may consider trying to sketch out their claims since this often reveals features which have no interaction with others in the claim, and so are not contributing to the definition of the invention. This can be helpful in two ways: the first is that the feature may not be necessary at all and can be removed; the second is that the feature needs to be present, but its interaction with the other features has been omitted and needs to be included… Can’t say a lot more than that.
2.3 How features interact Think about how those essential features interact with each other to achieve the advantage. I frequently had what I call ‘floating blobs’ in my claims. By a ‘floating blob’, I mean something that has no relationship with the other integers in the claim. An example of bad ‘floating’ would be something like: A vehicle having a set of pedals and a wheel…
Are we describing pedals such as bicycle pedals that are used to drive the main propulsion How to Pass P3 • 2010
9
5. Abstract 14.173:
The abstract must have a title which encapsulates the invention.
14.174:
The abstract title can be different from the title given to the application on filing. The latter is unlikely to make a suitable abstract title if, as is generally the case, it is expressed in broad terms to avoid disclosure of the invention in the Journal before the application itself is published. If the abstract title is unsuitable (for example if it is too long or too vague) the examiner should amend it. Examples of titles which are regarded as unsuitable are: (a) any title including such expressions as ‘improvements in or relating to’ or ‘and the like’ (b) titles such as ‘chemical compound’ or ‘control circuit’, which give little or no indication of the invention (c) over-long titles which are apparently intended merely to indicate that the specification contains claims in certain categories (process, apparatus, etc), e.g. ‘Gas-permeable seamless pipe structure and method and apparatus for production thereof’, or ‘Method of bleeding a hydraulic system and means therefor’ (d) over-long titles which contain matter, for example relating to possible fields of application of the invention, more properly to be found in the body of the abstract (e) titles including a trade mark.
14.175:
The text of the abstract should comply with r.15(2), (3) and (7), which read: (2) The abstract must contain a concise summary of the matter contained in the specification. (3) That summary must include – (a) an indication of the technical field to which the invention belongs; (b) a technical explanation of the invention; (c) the principal use of the invention. (7) The abstract must not contain any statement on the merits or value of the invention or its speculative application.
14.182:
An abstract should normally contain not more than 150 words, as it is unlikely to be considered to be concise if it extends beyond 150 words. There is space on the front page which will accompany the printed specification for little more than 200 words, and abstracts should be reduced to this length, unless a longer text is essential. Unnecessary phrases such as ‘the invention relates to’ or ‘and the like’ may be deleted, and an unduly long introductory statement which only indicates what is old and wellknown may be curtailed or deleted. While the removal of such superfluous matter is of particular importance when the abstract is longer than 150 words, it may also be deleted even if the abstract is short.
30
The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
5. Abstract 14.183:
It is not necessary for the abstract to indicate the kind of protection sought by the claims. Thus for example if an apparatus has been described in the abstract and the specification includes claims to a method of using the apparatus and/or to an article produced by the apparatus, there is no need for the abstract to indicate this if the technical features of the method and article are implicit in the description of the apparatus. The legal phraseology or the sentence structure used in patent claims, should be avoided in abstracts. Thus an abstract that is identical to, or closely resembles, an independent claim should not be filed, nor should an abstract use words commonly associated with patent claims such as ‘said’ and ‘means’.
14.188:
Drawings particularly for the abstract are not required and should not be filed. The applicant is required to indicate on the abstract which figure, or, exceptionally, figures of any drawings of the specification should accompany the abstract when published. If he has not done so it is up to the search examiner to decide which figure(s) should be used. The search examiner may decide that one or more figures other than those suggested by the applicant may be used instead or additionally if he considers that they better characterise the invention. Normally not more than one figure should accompany the abstract. Exceptionally two figures may be used provided that, when sufficiently reduced in size to be accommodated on the front page of the application, they, together with the reference characters thereon, would still be readable.
14.189:
It should be clearly apparent from the abstract what the or each accompanying figure represents. To aid identification of features mentioned in the abstract, relevant reference numerals which appear in the selected figure(s) should be freely used in the abstract. Numerals which appear only in other drawings should normally not be used, although exceptionally, a numeral which is considered necessary for an understanding of the abstract but appears only in these other drawings, may be referred to. Such reference should be bracketed, e.g. (29, Fig 16), without any additional wording such as ‘see’ or ‘not shown’. When this expedient is adopted it should be ensured that reference numerals which do appear in the abstract drawing(s) are without brackets.
An example of a reasonable abstract which would get most of the available five marks could be something like: Electric Tin Opener An electric tin opener 1 has an internal battery 4 which is used to drive a small motor 2, which in turn causes a cutter 3 automatically to open the lid 7 of a tin 6. The fact that the tin opener 1 is electric obviates the need to expend significant amounts of physical energy opening the tin 6, which can make opening tins 6 easier for the elderly or infirm. [Figure 3]
How to Pass P3 • 2010
31