欧洲申请号：17844987.2   发明名称：一种平面灯 申请人：昆山市诚泰电气股份有限公司

This is a good example of we never give up and do anything we can for our client to get a successful result.
本案是一个极好的例子，证明了我们不放弃尽一切可能为客户争取到成功的结果。

This is an application at the European Patent Office (EPO) where the case received an oral proceeding notice after several office communications.
本案是一个欧洲申请，在多次官方审查意见之后收到了口审通知。

The last office action rejected all claims under Article 83 EPC, Article 84 EPC, Article 56 EPC.
Last OA驳回了所有权利要求，因为存在不可实施、清楚性、创造性问题（Article 83 EPC, Article 84 EPC, Article 56 EPC）。

Upon receiving the last office action, we set up an interview with the Examiner. During the interview, the Examiner pointed out that it would be very challenging if not impossible to overcome these rejections and especially Article 123(2) EPC  and Article 83 EPC rejection.
收到Last OA，我们和审查员进行了会议。会议中，审查员指出如果无法克服所指出的问题，尤其是修改超范围（Article 123(2) EPC）和不可实施（Article 83 EPC），本案将很难授权。

Consequently, we participated to the oral hearing with three Examiners. The oral hearing took approximately 9 hours 40 minutes. At the end of the hearing the Examining Committee decided to allow the case with minor amendments to independent claim.
因此，我们参加了口审，参与口审的审查员有3位。此次口审历时9时40分，终于审委会决定授权本案，仅需要对独权做一些小修改。

We made the following arguments to bring this case having no hope for allowance to allowable case.

本案从毫无希望到授权，我们作了以下争辩/意见陈述：

1.We argued under Article 83 EPC and Rule 88 EPC that there was an obvious mistake and the mistake would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the disclosure. We used board decisions such as G3/89 and G11/91 to support our arguments. After we made our arguments, Examining Committee agreed with our arguments and allowed us to amend the specification to eliminate ambiguity in the specification by deleting two sections of the specification that cause ambiguity.
关于不可实施（Article 83 EPC）和对申请文件中错误的修改（Rule 88 EPC），我们争辩存在明显错误，基于本申请说明书，该错误对于本领域普通技术人员是显而易见的。基于G3/89和G11/91，我们的争辩也能得到支持。审委会同意我们的争辩意见并允许我们删除说明书中两部分内容以删除模糊/错误之处。

2.Next, we addressed Article 84 rejection. Upon overcoming Article 83 EPC rejection, we were also able to overcome Article 84 EPC rejection.
之后，处理了清楚性问题（Article 84）。克服不可实施问题（Article 83 EPC）后，清楚性问题（Article 84）即可克服。

3.We then moved to arguing against Article 56 EPC Inventive Step rejection. We argued against each rejection one by one using all prior arts cited by the Examiner in the office communication. We were able to overcome all rejections except one rejection which is an inventive step rejection d on the combination of prior arts D1 and D8. We argued against this combination and stated that this would be an “ex post facto” analysis which means the Examiner is using the Application claim as a road map to find claim limitations in the prior art.
后续，争辩创造性问题（Article 56 EPC）。基于审查员引用的所有对比文件，我们逐一反驳了审查意见中的创造性驳回。除了基于对比文件D1和D8结合的创造性驳回，其他的驳回决定均已争辩成功。关于基于对比文件D1和D8结合的创造性驳回，我们争辩D1和D8结合用于驳斥创造性属于“后见之明”，即审查员是利用本申请权利要求作为指引，从对比文件中找相关技术特征。

4.After our arguments and after a brief recess, the Examining Committee agreed to allow the application with minor amendment to independent claim.
经过我们的争辩和短暂的休会后，审查委员会同意授权本案，仅需对独权做微小改动。