Mock's 2 Paper B (4 Feb 2021)
"To allow candidates to test the system also close to the real examination conditions, a second mock (Mock 2) is planned for the week of 1 to 5 February 2021. The examination papers will take place during that week at the same week days and times as the real examination, see here." (see e-EQE webpage)
Today, 4 February 2021, Paper B of Mock 2 was organized, using the Wiseflow platform which will be used for the e-EQE 2021 in the week of 1-5 March 2021.
The Mock 2 Paper B is based on Paper B EM 2009, with some modifications w.r.t. the number of claims (reduced), the inclusion of the client's proposal for amendments, and the omission of a prior art document D3.
The model solution is made available by the EPI here.
Please share your experiences with the platform, as well as any comments to the paper. Particularly,
- What was your experience doing the paper online in general, e.g. typing your answer rather than writing it by hand?
- How did you manage keeping a clear overview of the various pieces of information (client's letter, prior art, description)?
- Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
If EPI's solution for this mock will be similar to the solution of the 2009 paper, I apparently included quite some additional (unnecessary) limitations in claim 1: the thermal insulation layer, the fluid connectors and a frame. It was explicitly specified in [16] that the PV module and the electrical wires of the second and third preferred embodiments are only optional. But by what reasoning are the thermal insulation layer, the fluid connectors and a frame which are all present in these embodiments also optional and thus not required in the claim? Especially in view of the explicit statement only for the PV module and the electrical wires, I thought it was expected to include these elements...
ReplyDeleteAny idea whether it would still be possible to pass with such a claim (which was otherwise correct)?
epi Model Solution and Compendium-type Report for Paper B (@ https://www.epi-learning.org/course/view.php?id=18):
DeleteClaim not novel: no marks for the claim (in claim 1, the amendments b) and c) are necessary to achieve novelty)
Unnecessary limitations: -5 marks per unnecessary feature
Adding connectors (11) into claim 1: -2 marks
Clarity issues: -5 marks per issue
With disclaimer:
This model solution has been adapted by epi to assist candidates who sat the Mock eEQE. It was prepared before the Mock e-EQE to represent a possible answer of a successful candidate, and, where marks are indicated, does not reflect a marking scheme that would be applied by the relevant Examination Committee. As such, epi cannot be held accountable for any discrepancies between a marking scheme of an Examination Committee and the model solution.
Thanks. The EPI report mentions that "in particular paragraph [016] provides a general basis for all covered embodiments, as it refers to the embodiments of Figs. 4-5 as well as frameless embodiments and embodiments without the photovoltaic module)." I fail to see how [16] refers to frameless embodiments, it only mentions "roof tiles according to the second and third preferred embodiments" (these include a frame) and "roof tiles shown in Figs. 4 and 5" (also including a frame 4)
DeleteSame here, i added the connectors because it was disclosed in all embodiments of claims 11-16
DeleteI did not include the frame because original claim 1 did not mention it, which meant the frame was considered optional even though the technical features related to the frame (cover, PV module) were both present in original claim 1
These are essentially minor issues, I bet the actual B paper will be more guided to avoid those gray areas.
to Anonymous February 04, 2021 1:18 pm
DeleteI also included a frame. I do not understand how the components of the roof tile would be held in place without a frame... For me, it's an essential element of the invention, and the invention will not work without it (it would simply fall apart in the absence of the disclosure of the alternative ways like gluing, clamping means etc...)
I also think that "in particular paragraph [016] provides a general basis for ...frameless embodiments" in the ExRep is stretching it. However, keep in mind that the general approach for Paper B is to only improve the claims when the Examiner objects or in response to a request or an amendment from the client. Did the Examiner object to the "frame" only being defined in claim 2? Did the client say anything about the frame, thermal insulation layer etc? In both cases, no. The client only proposed an amendment w.r.t. the metal plate and the passageway, so your job was to get those right ("fluid-tight", "between", no aluminium).
DeleteThank you! Will keep that in mind. I was just worried about intermediate generalization when inserting the "fluid-tight" and the "between" features in the claim, as they are disclosed in specific embodiments having also these other features. I could and can still not convincingly argue basis without also including the other features.
DeleteDear Jessica, thank you for your clarifications, they are very helpful. Can you please also advise how to spot when extra claims are needed (and when are not)? I added an extra claim to wires made of aluminium (as the client's letter talks about both Cu and Al), and also added a pseudo-independent claim to a roof tile system with interconnecting hoses. This attracted no marks in this paper but obviously I spent quite some time writing the basis.
DeleteI felt that the fluid connectors were an essential feature. Without a way to get fluid to the passages, the invention does not work as described in the application. I understand that we aren't supposed to improve on anything that the examiner didn't object to, but I finished a test where the examiner didn't object to everything that was wrong with the claim.
DeleteI was concerned that since I pulled features out of the embodiments of Figures 4 and 5, I had to take everything.
Just part of the B risk, I suppose.
Well..it's the major problem I encounter with paper B. In description, a feature appears to be essential (this paper, the frame 4, 2015 the two-piece binding). But because there is already a subject-matter in old claims without this essential feature, we can continue claiming this subject-matter without tackling on the problem of being lack of essential feature, even if there is clearly enablement problem. And so far I haven't found an official explanation to that...
DeleteThose features seem to be essential and also part of all embodiments. However, I believe that it does not say anywhere in the description something like "must" "essential" "does not work without". I understand that if there is a phrase emphasizing essentiality and if you are required to add such features for repairing the claim, then you need to take all essential features as a whole from the description. Because this is what the paper wants from you.
DeleteI think the idea is not to do anything if there is no objection or direction from the client. Overall in this paper there was no hint for me to add these features to the main claim.
As a side note, in the original 2009 paper, the client suggests an embodiment without a frame.
@Julia: Normally in new-style (with client’s amended claim proposal) Paper B *only* new dependent claims are expected if
Delete(i) the client expresses in his letter that he now wants to protect one or more specific embodiments or options, e.g. because of unexpected commercial success or new R&D developments
(ii) the client amends an independent claim by including one or more specific embodiments or options, whereas these could be covered by a generic term (as also requested in the letter) for which there is also basis; then generally it is expected to cover the one or more specific embodiments or options in dependent claims (see e.g. B 2017)
I found the exam ok. I managed to read both prior art docs before the exam began (due to printing).
ReplyDeleteThe system worked ok, although it's super annoying having to click and scroll through the preview window, if you want to change pages. I usually just kept switching tabs to the window where I could scroll through the pages.
although I said in claim 1 that the roof tile was 'suitable for use with a PV module'.
DeleteWould this reduce my marks at all? It's a feature as such, and it doesn't narrow the protection very much.
But why would you include 'suitable for use with a PV module'? It is not required for delimiting the claims from the prior art, or occasioned by any other objection. You will lose marks with such unwarranted (minor) limitations in paper B.
DeleteI did the same as Alexander. Thought it would make my closest prior art argumentation stronger.
DeleteBut I see why it was wrong to include it. "not occasioned by any objection" and could have done without in my argumentation.
With hindsight everything is easy...
Mike
Most time was wasted for searching and scrolling. The search function in editor is really funny: after finding the right places, it jumps back to the front of the text. The found place is grayed down in the background...Why is it at least possible to put prior art in different tabs. A wholistic big PDF file is hard to search...well, the real horror is tomorrow....if they put all prior arts in one big PDF...
ReplyDeleteU used "Toggle Sidebar"in top left of browser window to get a navigation pane on the left with links to the various parts of the pdf: Description, Claims, Drawings, Communication, D1, D2, Client's letter, Amended claims (tracked changes), Amended claims (clean).
DeletePositive side-effect: not needed to change Tabs so often compared to opening pdf in multiple Tabs, and so less risk to use fatal Alt-Tab shortcuts to change between the Tabs
Why is D2 CPA where claim 1 does not mention providing thermal energy. Claim 1 is broader than that.
ReplyDeleteAlso - in the client's letter, the purpose/aim was to provide a robust device to withstand all weathers.
I put D2 down at first because of the thermal energy but then realized that the claim 1 is not limited specifically to thermal energy so opted for D1 as CPA.
yeah same here - I thought D1 would be CPA because D1[002] specifically mentions the purpose was to be robust enough to protect solar collector in all kinds of weather. Claim 1 as you say are not limited solely to thermal energy. The client letter also gave pointers at needing to provide a roof tile that can withstand all weathers.
DeleteI'm slightly confused about why EPI adopted D2 to be CPA given the scope of claim 1.
I agree. I realized that both D1 or D2 could be suitable starting points. But then ... in view of the identical figures between D1 and the invention I decided for D1 and argued similarity of the structures. In my view the inventive step is much nicer and the puzzle fits better together if we start from D1. The problem to be solved for D2 looks horrible!
DeleteAre these marks for the 2-parts form a side-effect of the age of this paper? Or is this still something we should do?
I agree - I started from D1 as the CPA too and thought that D2 was a bit difficult to start from. I did saw the "thermal energy" point in D2 but the client was very clear about what the aim/purpose was so I started from D1 as CPA.
DeleteI would not want to go against such strong indication in the exam but I am surprised that D2 was considered CPA by EPI.
me too - D1 seemed like the CPA given the client letter, D1 stated purpose in [003] and claim scope of claim 1.
DeleteBecause claim 1 was not supposed to be limited to tiles for the generation of electricity. So D2 is the CPA (thermal energy). However it seems that D1 would have been accepted as CPA too
DeleteI'm not sure I entirely agree with the CPA solution given by EPI. The client throughout the paper indicated quite strongly about providing a roof tile to withstand all weathers and that purpose is directly taught in D1.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem strange to go against the client's strong indication through the letter and the specification.
In the original examiner's report (paper was not exactly the same), it said:
Delete3.5.1 Identifying the closest prior art (7 points)
In selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it should be directed to a
similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related
technical field as the claimed invention. See Guidelines C IV 11.7.1.
For an answer paper having an independent claim according to the example claim set, 1 point was awarded for stating that D2 was the closest prior art, or for stating that D1/2 was the closest prior art.
Irrespective of which prior art was stated as being the closest prior art, a total of 6 points were available for explanations justifying the choice of the closest prior art and for the stated item of prior art being consistent with any two-part form of the independent claim of the answer paper.
Example
For the independent claim of the example claim set [same as in Mock 2 epi Model solution], D2 is considered to be the closest prior art since it is the only prior art roof tile that comprises a solar collector for providing thermal energy. D3 [not in Mock 2] does not disclose a roof tile. D1/1 and D1/2 disclose roof tiles for providing electrical energy. Therefore in terms of its purpose, D2 is considered to be closer to the invention as claimed in the example claim than D1/1 or D1/2.
Hi all, today I had the problem, that I forgot to change the language of my keyboard before I entered the lock-down browser. When I finally tried to change the language by using win + space, the browser crashed for some time but then recovered again. But I don´t know what lead to the recovery. So tomorrow I will make sure to change the language of the keyboard before entering the lock-down browser.
ReplyDeleteit seems from the model solution that both D1 (2nd embodiment) and D2 can be considered the CPA. Surely for the real exam, it has to be a bit more clear cut although I thought D1 was quite clear to me when I was doing the exam as the CPA given the suggestions/teachings.
ReplyDeleteI don´t understand the argumentation with regard to the appearance of the tile. This is non technical. In my opinion, the epi solution is not correct by formulating the technical problem as: How to improve the appearance of the above roof tile. Isn´t that a textbook example of a non-technical effect?
ReplyDeleteI was just going to say the same thing. There was no technical effect and nothing needed to be mentioned about a non-technical effect.
DeleteThe other thing I reacted to was the inclusion of the invention being easier to convert to an electrical generation system. That wasn't in claim 1 and no discussion of electricity should have been given.
You might want to have a look at: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_4.htm
DeleteIn the fourth paragraph, "Nevertheless, if an aesthetic effect is obtained by a technical structure or other technical means, although the aesthetic effect itself is not of a technical character, the means of obtaining it may be. For example, a fabric may be provided with an attractive appearance by means of a layered structure not previously used for this purpose, in which case a fabric incorporating such structure might be patentable."
The technical effect is indeed an aesthetic effect but the effect is achieved by a technical structure. In this case, this is the arrangement of the plate, passageway and cover
How about articulating it as "how to decrease the visibility of fluid passages within the solar collectors of roof tiles" ?
DeleteHi, I do not doubt that the distinguishing feature itself is technical. My point is that it involves a technical and non-technical effect and that formulating a problem to be solved as how to improve the appearance of the tile is wrong, because no technical problem is solved by such a problem. And I wonder how this effect could indeed be achieved? Improving an appearance is relative. Maybe I like tubes. Thus for me the problem to improve the appearance is not solved, because I can't see the tubes anylonger? In doubt, the applicant needs to provide proof that an effect is indeed achieved, and that is not possible for an asthetic effect. In my opinion it weakens the argument that the claim is inventive.
DeleteIn paper C, 2017, claim 4, I think that there is a similiar situation. The handle in the form of a flower is technical, but the effects are technical and non-technical. The non-technical effect is mentioned, but then simply ignored for the attack. That should, in my opinion, also be the case for the involved effect of the "appearance" of the tile.
The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the model solution is not fully correct in this aspect.
Is there clear and unambiguous basis for claim 1 of the EPI solution? Without the additional features from say Figure 4 (e.g. meandering path).
ReplyDeleteIt seemed clear cut to me that D2 was supposed to be the CPA (and CPA was something I previously had issues with in 2019!). Claim 1 does not require the photovoltaic cell and cannot provide electrical energy, so is not for electrical energy, but thermal energy.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole, I thought it was a nice manageable amount to do in the time, so hopefully the real thing will be a similar length with just one independent claim etc.
I left out the whole new copper/aluminium claim proposed by the client though. I could see that aluminium was not disclosed, but it also appeared that copper was only disclosed in combination with the first embodiment without the fluid-tight passageways
I captured D2 as the CPA, but I had hard time for presenting a proper argument for the inventive step of the claimed invention.
ReplyDeleteI also indicated that the distinguishing feature (DF) is "the metal plate is arranged between the fluid-tight passageway and the transparent cover" from D2.
The effect/problem to be solved by the DF would be, according to client's letter, to improve robustness/appearance.
Here was my problem. I tought that such arrangement, i.e. metal plate is arranged between (fluid-tight) passageway and transparent cover, is already taught by D1. And due to the such arrangement in D1, the improving robustness/appearance would be achieved. Here, since "fluid-tight passageway" was already disclosed by D2, I could not argue any advantages from it.
Could someone kindly indicate my misunderstanding on the above measure? I am worrying that I am having a big misunderstanding for applying the problem-solution approach.
I had a similar panic when it came to inventive step over D2+D1. In the end, as I had defined the objective technical problem as being how to improve robustness (didn't mention anything about appearance, as this seemed non-technical), I argued that although D1 disclosed a metal plate between a transparent cover and a (non-fluid-tight) passageway, in D1 this is done for the purpose of heat dissipation from the photovoltaic device in contact with the metal plate. So the skilled person would not apply the teaching of D1 to D2 when trying to solve the problem of improving robustness. I think I would have got some marks for this argument hopefully! Arguing over D2 alone was a lot more straightforward!
DeleteThis, precisely. Noticing that D1 wastes (dissipates) thermal energy while D2 aims at collecting it, is fundamental for the IS argument. The literal similarity of the names is not relevant for IS.
DeleteI have also choosen D2 as CPA and the reason was that claim 1 does not have photovoltaic module which is necessary for conversion to electrical energy. Also I thought it leads to a more straightforward IS argumentation.
ReplyDeleteHowever I have made a limitation to claim 1 by adding conductors, thinking that it is necessary for novelty over D1. Now I see that "fluidtight" adjective was sufficient for novelty.
If we have included "conductors" to claim 1 and lost 2 points due to unnecessary limitation, do we still get points for argumentation of this amendment to show why it has a basis and not generalisation ?
Pretty much. The argumentation is worth so much more than the amendments themselves. Even if you lost a lot of points for unnecessary limitations, argumentation of these poor choices still get points.
DeleteIn my answer, I actually stated that as I was using the support for embodiments discussed in Figs 4 and 5, that I was forced to take them all. It wouldn't have gotten me all of hte points, but I did support my choice and made a good story.
I actually have a "cut off time" (1 hour and 15 minutes seems about right) where I quit tinkering with the claims and support and dive into the rest of the reply. Just too many points to be had late in this exam to get stuck trying to get the perfect answer with the perfect support.
True. Keep in mind that Paper B mainly tests how well you can argue Art. 123(2) compliance for the amendments to the claim set and defend the novelty and inventive step of the independent claim(s) in detail. For that reason it is the exam makers' intention that *all* candidates defend more or less the same claim set; hence, don't expect too much from very ingenious and/or creative solutions.
DeleteFrom the solution, both D1 or D2 could be considered as CPA. I also spent a lot of time thinking about this intl the exam. I would hope that it would be a bit clearer in the real exam as surely they want to see the argumentation too.
ReplyDeleteDo we need to provide a markup version of amended claims? Since the communication says The applicant is invited to provide an amended set of claims meeting the "requirements "of the EPC?
ReplyDeleteNo, clean claims are also OK. If however you do want to mark-up your claims, mark them according to the instructions on the e-EQE FAQ:
DeleteDeletions should be indicated with square brackets “[ ]”.
Added text should be shown by underlining the respective text.
I use a big iMAC for the test.
ReplyDeletethe toggle panel in the upper left corner of the lock browser does not work with me at all in my iMAC.
so it is rather beck-breaking to scroll up and down in the tab and between the tabs.
it is also distracting by doing that....
Jeb
For today's paper, can someone explain to me how adding the fluid-tight passageway without adding connectors or the thermal insulating layer is not an intermediate generalization of the embodiments from which basis is drawn?
ReplyDeleteFor the electrical wires and the PV module I understand, because they are listed as optional, but the fluid-tight passageway is only discussed along with a list of other features.
Is it because claim 5 is the basis? If so, how can 'above' be equivocated to the actual arrangement in the embodiments when it is not equivalent?
Very confused by added matter principles in this paper...
agree! very confusing with regards to what is optional what is essential in an embodiment.
DeleteThe same question. I felt extremely uncomfortable to see a PV module without electric wires to let the voltage out...conditionally essential is even clear from the etymon Photo + voltaic...but I should remember the paper itself establishes a whole new range of "knowledge"...if the description does not say a cow is a diary animal, it can never be deemed to be a diary animal. You should even think it over, whether it is at all an animal..
DeleteKeep in mind that Art. 123(2) is not and has never been about *literal* basis. When a bunch of features is described in the description to explain a certain embodiment, this does not necessarily imply that they are *all* essential for this embodiment. About the passageway: they are only disclosed as “air-tight passageway”, so “air-tight” must be included. The connectors on the other hand: “fluid *can* enter the fluid-tight passageway 9 via one of the connectors 11” [013]. Does it say or suggest anywhere that such connectors are then indispensable for the fluid-tight passageways? Likewise, would a skilled person get the impression that the fluid-tight passageway is inextricably linked to thermal insulation? I wouldn’t think so – and that is exactly what you *should* explain when arguing your amendments under Art. 123(2) in order to collect marks.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the explanation, Jessica. So if it doesn't hint that it's essential, then it isn't essential, and particular features in an embodiment can be disregarded from the claim.
DeleteIt's very hard to think this way, because, as another example, its not clear how the thing would work as a roof tile without the frame holding the transparent cover and the solar collector.
I guess i will try to do what the client and the examiner want, and try not to think too much about other aspects of the main claim...
it may sounds stupid. i am wondering whether they will also consider the notes of Mock2 at the end of the day. A lot of candidates did not get a chance to sit the examination last year. If this time in the real examination, some paper is failed, would EPO consider whether this candidate has enough points for the same paper in Mock 2? I mean, that would be fair for the candidates who cannot sit the examination in 2020.
ReplyDeleteNo - I highly doubt that. many candidates used mock 2 as revision so it would seem unfair to then use mock 2 answers as part of answering main exam. there are other ways they could provide compensation for EQE candidates 2020
DeleteThere are many of us who has used the Mock 2, first of all to test the system and many other things about invigilation etc. So the main point was not to write an answer paper.
DeleteThis would completely be unfair for the ones who has not write an answer paper as if in a real exam, and spent time to test many other things...
DeleteThe point is that EQE is only a qulification examination. The candidates are not competing each other. That is the reason i am wondering why not considering the points of Mock 2 if the candidate magaged to hand in it.
DeleteOfficial reply is that mocks 1 and 2 were to test system. Mock 2 was not invigilated 100%, so that it was possible to cheat. Therefore, no marks in this mock can count towards anything.
DeleteVery stupid!
ReplyDeleteI believe we should first respect each other.
DeleteHi! I've amended claim 3 (copper), making it dependent from claim 4 (solar panel).
ReplyDeleteThe feature "metal plate is made of copper" is introduced in the description only when is described the first embodiment (roof tile with solar panel). So I've decided to link such a feature to the solar panel.
What do you think about?
The first embodiment didn't have the fluid passageways though, which dependent claim 4 requires via amended independent claim 1. I thought the same about this claim (that it was only disclosed for first embodiment with photovoltaic panel only) so decided to leave it out altogether
DeleteWere you able to print d1 and d2 before the exam? I was not. The appeared only when the exam starter.
ReplyDeleteHi, I was able to print. They have appeared exactly at 9:20 on the right hand pane, where you can download them as pdf and then can print.
DeleteI had to refresh the browser before the pdf documents appeard.
DeleteDo you think that the solution of EPI is in a way stretching the information in the description a bit ? I think this is the main challenge of modifying an earlier paper.
ReplyDeleteI was happy this paper was repeated today, as I was unable to do it in Mock-2 due to prior engagements.
ReplyDeleteThanks to the Delta-methodology course I followed a month ago, I did quite well. Thanks Jessica!!