this week end i just did the last year's C paper.
The Examiner's Report under "Claim 1" states:
"Although the equivalence of teeth versus protrusions and sinusoidal versus corrugated was
generally well-explained, this was not the case for desired length and the drying step of fixing
the flux to the surface."
In my answer, i wrote for the first feature that it is implicit to cut it at the desired length and that it is not limiting (if the apparatus of A6 does not comprise a cutter that can only cut at a fixed length).
For the second one, i wrote that the important thing is the final result of having flux fixed on the corrugated fin.
But this "simple" argumentation took time, because i embarked in a hunting expedition through all the documents to find support for arguments, without finding anything! (and wasting time!!!)
However, for my big surprise, the reasoning given in the Examiner's proposed solution is:
"It is implicit that the drying step in Annex 6 fixes the flux to the surface of the plate.
In the present context, the feature of "cutting the plate to the desired length" is disclosed implicitly in Annex 6."
I was wondering if and how many marks can be lost for not arguing the two above features. Moreover, the argumentation given sounds to me strange.