Here it is: our claims and a brief explanation.
Claim 1. Warning system for a driveway crossing (3,
13), comprising:
- a control unit (5),
- a pavement sensor (7, 8, 17)
connected to the control unit (5) and configured tom detect pedestrians on a
pavement (2, 12) approaching the driveway crossing (3, `13),
- a first display means (6, 16)
connected to the control unit (5),
the control
unit (5) being configured so that the first display means (6, 16) gives the
warning signal to the driver of a vehicle in the driveway (1, 16) in response
to the output of the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17),
characterised
in that:
- the system further comprises a driveway sensor (4, 14) connected to the
control unit (5) and configured to detect a vehicle in the driveway (1, 11)
approaching the driveway crossing (3, 13); and
- the control unit (5) being
configured to activate the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17) in response to the output
of the driveway sensor (4, 14)
Basis: original claim 1, further limited based on:
- Claim 2: the system further
comprises a driveway sensor (4, 14) and
configured to detect a vehicle in the driveway (1, 11) approaching the driveway
crossing (3, 13)
- Claim 4: also depended on claim 2):
[driveway sensor is] connected to the control unit (5); the control unit (5)
being configured to activate the pavement sensor (7, 8, 17) in response to the
output of the driveway sensor (4, 14).
This is also clear from [012],
wherein a warning pole is described comprising such a warning system (see
[005]). In lines 24-28 the now introduced feature is described.
Not taking over the second display
means of claim 2 is an allowable intermediate generalisation:
The description in [008] introduces
the driveway sensor. In [009] it shows a first use of the driveway sensor,
being to warn pedestrians that a vehicle is exiting from the driveway. For this
function the second display means is required.
However,
[009] 1st sentence indicates that the second display means is preferred; thus
optional. In [011] and [012] it becomes clear what a second, unrelated,
function of the driveway sensor is: to ensure that the pavement sensor is
activated only when the driveway sensor detects a vehicle, saving electricity.
For this function no display is required. Thus indeed the second display means
is optional and not mandatory to be used for the driveway sensor [not
structurally and functionally linked such that they can only be used in
combination].
Claim 2. Warning
system according to claim 1, comprising a second display means (9) configured
to warn pedestrians on the pavement (2, 120) that a vehicle is exiting from the
driveway (1,11).
Basis:
remainder of original claim 2, dependency unchanged.
Claim 3. Warning system according to any of the
previous claims, wherein the first display means is an LCD screen and the
control unit (5) is an integral component of the LCD screen (6).
Basis:
original claim 3, properly introducing the LCD screen, overcoming clarity
objection (Art.84) raised under item 3 of the communication.
Reason for
not broadening to ‘first display means’ is that the control unit being an
integral component is only shown for an LCD screen (see [008], line 15). In real life we expect this generalisation not to have been problematic, but not having any own knowledge of the field there may not be enough basis for a generalisation.
Original
claim 4: incorporated into claim 1.
Claim 4. Warning
system according to any of the previous claims, characterised by the first
display means being a traffic light, the system being configured so that the
red light of the traffic light indicates the detection of a pedestrian on the
pavement.
Basis:
[010]
Note: not
taken over is a dependency only on the preamble of claim 1; this would result
into two separate, non-unitary inventions. Claim 5 proposed by the client
relates arguably not to searched subject-matter.
Also
avoiding introducing a clarity issue in the client’s claim of whether the
traffic light is additional or is in place of the first display means.
Also
avoiding a clarity issue of whether the driveway is claimed.
Claim 5. Warning
pole (20) comprising a warning system according to claim 1.
Basis: [005], [012]
Note:
‘preferably’ has been scrapped. Only referring back to claim 1, since the pole
is not shown in combination with the features of claims 2-4.
Looking forward to your comments,
All blog threads allow anyone to add comments and already have a lot of valuable, interesting and sometimes surprising discussions between many candidates who posted their comments as well as tutors resulted from those.Any remarks, (different) opinions and questions as are welcome! Please post your contribution as comments to this blog, so everybody can paticipate in and benefit from the discussion/ explanation.
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 02-03-2016 14:56"), whereas using your real name or even a pseudonym (nick-name) is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation
Jelle, Sander, Tanja