In this regard, D1 alone is silent in water spray, and only discloses drain holes to regulate the moisture. The EQE 2021 will take place online using LockDown Browser. the refuse (7) at said time point tp, if the value for the amount of earthworms Candidates are well aware of the fact that any document could be used as CPA and in this case D2 is the more promising springboard because it already has a built-in water spraying device. Within the allotted time, you will be required to draft as much of a notice of opposition as it is possible based on the documents at hand. Candidates are advised that this document may be subject to minor changes as testing continues. Furthermore, it is not really a relevant limitation, since for growing of earthworms and producing of fertilizer, it is essential that the earthworms do not fall through the holes. I fully agree, what would you expect to be the intended claim 1 (so: is the water container enough?, See above discussion of TT/Gereon)I think TTs arguments are good and probably this would be the case in real life - depending on the examiner. (I dealt with exactly this situation in real life and it wasn't allowed, no matter how much we argued.). It should be specified that the container comprises, With the container in the claim, the claim can no longer be objected to under Art.52(2)&(3). determining if the value for the amount of earthworms (8) The "Information" provides: General. Click to read a possible template for the arguments. I am really curious about seeing the model solution ;-). What I did was to indicate the infrared system was used for counting. … The feature "connected to a water container" in claim 1 is non-limiting due to F-IV, 4.14 "Definition by reference to (use with) another entity".Most likely, it cannot provide novelty over D2, unless rewritten according to Guidelines "Only if the claim is directed Without Any Doubt to a combination of the first and second entities, the features of the other entity are limiting for the subject-matter of the claim. I mean, is the combination of the the method with that specific device directly and unambiguously derivable? to xx comprising organic refuse and earthworms. Dear AnonymousMarch 07, 2021 10:05 pmI fully agree with you. We also struggled with that, and with the fact that it results in a claim that is easy to circumvent. And Para 015 reiterates why dark conditions are important: "This helps to produce the moist, dark conditions preferred by the worms. Paper B. I share my comments below (clock on "Read more"). I get that a "water container" per se is novel over a "tap" per se (i.e. How do feel about the following argument: the drawer (16) of D1 is a removable lower compartment. D2 only describes the water spray cleaning device and does not disclose spraying water onto the refuse.I did novelty for the independent method claim but not inventive step, as I ran out of time, Yes, but if you've put the water sprayer in amended claim 1, that was not originally in claim 1 (and no reference numerals for this feature in the method claim). Claim 1: Amended claim 1 comprises the features of claim 1 as originally filed and the additional features of claims X and Y as originally filed. This is why we have the step of choosing the CPA. Sure, this is exactly what I have done. [018] showed that the lower compartment was optional where it is said that "the lower compartment may be removable, allowing.." etc., still perfectly working invention without lower compartment. Claim 1: Amended claim 1 comprises the features of claim 1 as originally filed and the additional features of claims X and Y as originally filed. It indicates that: "The EQE 2021 exam schedule is now available.