Paper B e-EQE 2021: first impressions?
To all who sat the B-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's B-paper?Any general or specific comments?
Surprising elements in the client's letter and the prior art?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? 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?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only part of the paper could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the 2017, 2018 and 2019 papers?
Similar difficulty level?
Could you understand the examiner's objections? And the client's wishes based on his letter and his proposed amendments? Was the Art.123(2) argumentation difficult, if any? Clarity? Novelty? Closest prior art selection, distinguishing feature, effect, objective technical problem, and the rest of the inventive step argumentation?
Was the subject-matter well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates?
Multiple independent claims? Functional features?
UPDATED! The paper and our answers
[Update 7 March 2021:] The core of our answers is provided here.
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!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 04-03-2021 20:21"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
Thanks!
SHARE:
You've done well to fly through all of that. I did D1 CPA for c1. ran out of time so said D1 was same for C4 and quickly wrote something for D3 as CPA for C6. Can't say it was good though.
ReplyDeleteI did, all the prior art had alternative solutions to control the moisture of the organic refuse. Im confused why this feature has not been discussed here much? lots of emphasis on adding water sprayer, but that is disclosed in D2...due to connection with water tap.
ReplyDeleteBut [18] said the upper container drains into the soil. This must be through the holes. This is what i argued is implict. Should have gone for adjustable and added moniter but i couldnt get ober the fact that there was no mention of how the holes were adjustable or how to achieve such holes, so to me they lack suffciency. You need one way of carrrying out the feature. Its like saying it treats cancer. With no examples or explantion of any kind.
ReplyDeleteThis is all so exciting! Corona, no 2020 exam, not-so-wiseflow and now the craziest B ever. What next unitary patents?? AAaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!
ReplyDeleteLeif, I think your claim 4 may be okay - D3 did not mention adjusting moisture. It instead disclosed that constant moisture is maintained by virtue of a reservoir containing water (I can't remember the term that was used)
ReplyDeletetime was tight, I didn't finish....
ReplyDeletemy answer:
no housefly..., but with lower compartiment (I see it as essential feature)
new claim 1 = old claim 1+ 2
new claim 3 = old claim 4+5,
new claim 4 = old + infrared (A claimed method is not a method for performing mental acts as such if it requires the use of technical means (e.g. a computer, a measuring device, etc.) to carry out at least one of its steps or if it provides a physical entity as the resulting product (e.g. if it is a method of manufacturing a product comprising steps of designing the product and a step of manufacturing the product so designed). GL-II, 3.5.1, my opinion that claim 6 can not be dependent on any other claims, no disclosure.
3rd. observation: request for Substantiation (when, where, what...)
really no time for detailed Problem-Solution-approach
third party observation will be taken into account by the examining division even if it is not substantiated.
Deleteit doesn't matter, Exam. Div. needs to provide reasoning, GL C-III, 4.1 in his communication, in case objection is raised based on observation. no objection raised, applicant does not need to provide comments.
Deletebut the point of the exam is to amend and argue such that the amended claims goes straight to grant. this is stated as part of the syllabus.
Deleteso if you don't overcome the third party observation, it will not lead to grant.
10% compensible pass, please! Then I ahave a chance!
ReplyDeleteagreed - i did the same - also in the letter the client mentioned that the amendments overcome novelty and MEET their business needs so no point amending claim 1 with other features like claim 2 etc etc. that would be going against the client's wishes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the entire purpose of the teaching of D2 is to dehydrate the chicken manure - it talks of the larvae reducing water content by 50%. Therefore, the teaching of D2 is in direct contradiction with the purpose of the invention.
ReplyDeleteI don't think moisture detector and monitor was required - it was optional (even from the start). The worms in D2 - is it the same as earthworms. I wasn't entirely sure based on the disclosure in paragraph 6 of the client's letter. But then, I would have struggled with inventive step so I did base it on adjustable holes.
ReplyDeleteI can see that there are many versions here - they were extremely hard claims to deal with. I hope the EPO are very open-minded and reasonable. Dealing with oral disclosures, internet disclosures, mental acts etc... took alot of time away.
I used D2 for claim 4 because the purpose was fertilizer + protein-rich animal feed provision, and D2 was concerned with the same. But yea, I did not put much more than that as justification.
ReplyDeleteIn real-life I also would worry about the flies, but they were so emphasized in the letter that I kinda just brute-forced some way to include them. I included them as "and, optionally, comprising fly larvae". I also thought that the other paragraph of not wanting to attract flies was bait kinda, because the larvae are not flies, and no info on flies being attracted to larvae was given.
Justifying not adding all 4 water spray/container/sensor/display features I found unreasonable, when there is exactly one paragraph that discloses them all in combination, and the drawing of the embodiment likewise (not very familiar with drawings though, am Chemist).
I would have scored higher if I had received the wrong language assignment! :-)
ReplyDeleteAnyone notice that the application (see paragraph [001] of the description) discloses worms in general, and then in particular earthworms. I used this as basis to overcome clarity, but I don't know if I needed to analyze it in more. The embodiments all discussed earthworms and paragraph [0006] said interchangeable, so I got confused and time was out to figured it out.
ReplyDeleteAG:
ReplyDeleteMy system crashed when I tried to open the 6th tab (besides the answer tab and ZenDesk tab). So I had to force-restart my laptop. Logging back in after picture authentication etc. led to a total loss of 15mins after the start of the paper :(
Then noticed so many independent claims, 3rd party obs, comp-implemented method... Totally was blown away by the complexity of the paper. Plus couldn't even open more than 6 tabs so was unable to check the documents content simultaneously and ended up scrolling a lot.
Paper was quite disastrous.
I added the floating lid feature into claim 1 - was novel over all the docs and also inventive. I added means for moisture control to the floating lid. The flexible means was optional so floating lid could be separated from the rest of the claim 2 i thought. Kept the drain holes, removed the lower container.
I did the exact same thing to claim 1. This seems a much easier/neater invention than arguing about a water sprayer conferring inventive step.
Deletere IS...I saw D1 as CPA for D1. moisture sensor is in D1. difference of claim 1 above to D1 is a water sprayer, doesnt seem inventive?
ReplyDeleteLeif: my basis for making claim 4 dependent on 1:
ReplyDeleteClaim 4 has been amended to specify that the container is a container according to any one of claims 1-3. Basis for this amendment is found in paragraph [19], which describes the method of "a further embodiment of the invention". Given that this method describes a method of producing fertilizer using a container of worms and the preceding paragraphs discuss a container for worms, the skilled person would directly and unambiguously understand that these features are combinable. Accordingly, this amendment does not add matter.
Maybe a stretch, but I didn't want to do three inventive step sections!
I did add it too!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it's an intentional attempt to make the pass rates lower than they would have been with a normal paper, given that half the candidates (2020 lot) will have prepared twice and they're worried about it seeming like things are easier for the online papers from looking at the statistics on the face of it.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the EPO are trying their hardest not to let anyone qualify this year. Re-takes for papers A and B.
ReplyDeleteI added the floating lid (9) to claim 1. I though the water tap could be construed as a water container
ReplyDeleteAssuming CPA for cl1 is D1, difference in claim 1 to D1 above is the water sprayer, which SP can learn from D2 (connection to water tap makes it a water sprayer). This doesnt seem an inventive solution??
ReplyDeleteI added the floating lid (9) to claim 9. It seemed to me that the water tap could be construed as being a water container
ReplyDeletewas there any disclosure about using a computer to perform the steps of the second process? Can you just add that the process is performed by a computer?
ReplyDeleteI don´t think so. Also, there was no disclosure for the amendment made by the applicant. Hence I deleted the claim.
Anyone else?
By referring/providing the apparatus of claim 1-4 you also include all the features of the apparatus in claim 6. So the A 52(2)(c) issue is overcome and claim 6 is also novel+inventive (if apparatus of claim 1 is)
DeleteI think you need to recite "computer-implemented" method for claim 6.
Deletelooking back, should have included moisture detector in claim 1 for novelty and is the best IS argument and the only feature that would overcome the third party observation.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how detrimental it would be if you didn't have time to argue against the observation or if you simply said that, based on the schedule of the tour, the disclosure was not enabling? this is a bad answer, I know.
I just said that the observation is made against device described in claim 1, but as claim 1 has been amended, it is not novelty destroying. I didn't have (or want to spend) the time going into it any further.
Deleteall we know is that allegedly a container according to original claim 1 was shown. We do not know anything about additional features.
ReplyDeleteA containter according to claim 1 is also disclosed in D1-D3, therefore we have to limit claim 1 anyways. This limitation will also overcome the prior use, which referred only to original claim 1.
Anyways, the third party observation is not sufficiently substantiated and I just wrote in the reply letter that the examining division must not consider it
DM, my reasoning why it was inventive over D1 + D2. It seems on the line, but I didn't have anything better:
ReplyDelete"The objective technical problem is therefore the provision of a container which provides increased worm survival.
The solution to this problem is to provide a container which has a water spraying device (13) connected to a water container (14), as specified in claim 1. This solution would not have been obvious in view of D1 alone, or D1 in combination with either D2 or D3, as outlined below.
D1 alone
D1 realises the problem that worms need a specific environmental conditions to promote earthworm survival (D1 [1] & [3]). However, D1 itself suggests a solution to this problem of providing orifices at the lower end of the side panels so as to maintain the internal temperature of the refuse to promote worm survival (D1: [3]).
Accordingly, D1 itself provides motivation to the skilled person to solve the objective technical problem in a separate way - i.e. control the temperature, not the humidity.
D1+D2
The D2 would not turn to D2 to try to solve the objective technical problem, because D2 provides no useful teaching as to how to promote earthworm survival. Specifically, D2 is concerned with removing water and odour from chicken manure and to separate housefly larvae and eggs.
Even if the skilled person were to turn to D2, they would not arrive at the claimed solution because D2 teaches towards reducing the moisture content of the organic substrate (D2: [1]), so the skilled person would certainly not introduce means to increase the water content of the organic material.
Furthermore, D1 and D2 are inherently incompatible because earthworms require a dark area (D1: [1]) while D2 uses a transparent lid D2: [1], with an external light source (D2: [3]), providing a clear reason not to combine D1 and D2.
While D2 mentions a spray device, this is clearly specified as a "spray cleaning device" which therefore serves a completely different purpose than the spray device in present claim 1. There is no suggestion in D1 that a spray device should be used to adjust the moisture content of the organic matter to solve the technical problem of promoting earthworm survival. Accordingly, there is no reason why the skilled person would combine the spray cleaning device of D2 with the container of D1."
Because of non-transparent lid?
ReplyDeleteI am thinking with hindsight this is the correct solution
Spraying + non-transparent lid.
Then D2 teaches away, as D2 required transparent lid for the light. So can't use D1+D2. Non-transparent lid solves public use issue.
Wish i'd figured this out in the chaotic 3.5 hrs
This morning there was a light at the end of my trainee tunnel. That outwardly openable lid has just been slammed shut, plunging me into perfect conditions for earthworms: darkness, with a high moisture content.
ReplyDeleteand the holes are not small enough to prevent our fall :(
Deleteand the novel+inventive lid is non-transparent :(
DeleteConsidering that in most Figures some pointers or even whole reference numbers were missed, I guess that it was a mistake. On the other hand, the client indicated that he deleted claim 5, while not mentioning that he added its matter in claim 4.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you, too many tasks to perform at the same time, no hints which way to go. Not enough time (7-8 hours, maybe). Extremely difficult....
ReplyDeleteI did exactly the same. The argument over D2 felt very thin, but there is no container in D2 and no spraying of the refuse so maybe it will work... especially if D1 is CPA (why would you add the sprayer of D2 to D1? No suggestion it helps the compost/worm conditions).
ReplyDeleteTough paper for sure
I did that too. I thought that "non-transparent covering lid" is the only way get a patentable claim over D1+D2. Like yesterday, the paper included a deliberate misdirection for this key feature.
ReplyDeleteWell, either the COW paper or the GOD paper.
ReplyDeletehahahaa i relate
ReplyDeleteI guess the point was that the TPO objected only claim 1, so adding the spray device to a new claim 1 would haave rendered the claim new in view of the observation.
ReplyDeletesee Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, II-E, 1.11.3 - Addition to the claim of features originally presented as prior art:
ReplyDeleteIn T 912/08 the board held that an amendment that resulted in features originally presented as part of the prior art, being then presented as the invention could be damaging to the legal security of third parties relying on the content of the original application and added subject-matter contrary to Art. 123(2) EPC.
In T 1652/06 the board drew a distinction as to whether in the application as originally filed the feature in question was disclosed as part of the background art or as part of the invention. In the case at issue, the feature was taken from the background art and could not serve as basis for the amendment (see also T 626/11).
in this case the flyeegs were clearly mentioned as state of the art. in the context of the invention those were never mentioned, but other additives such as blood meal.
with this in mind i thought, the fly eggs would violate art. 123(2)
It appeared to me that display was not optional for Figure 2? Only optional statement was in paragraph [24] discussing the computer implemented method? Clearly I missed something. Which is why I said according to claims 1 to 2 instead so as to exclude claim 3 where I left display in.
ReplyDeleteI used paragraph 24 to justify leaving out display from claim 3. I think its ok as the display is clearly not linked to monitor based on para [024].
Deletesame here, thought it was on purpose and that we should proceed like that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, according to eEQE FAQ
Updated 01/2021 - How CAN (!!!) I indicate text in paper B which is deleted or added?
If you wish to indicate changes you should proceed as follows:
Deletions should be indicated with square brackets “[ ]”.
Added text should be shown by underlining the respective text.
I added the floating lid with a moisture absorbing material to render claim 1 novel. D2 discloses a water spraying device connected to a water container (a tap) which is suitable for adjusting the moisture
ReplyDeletesame. also removed the lower compartment, not essential both in client letter, and in description.
DeleteI added - a floating lid (9) comprising a means for removing excess moisture. Kept the drain holes. Kept the spray device suggested by client (for safety).Removed the lower compartment.
DeleteMy take on claim 1 - in essence - I think
ReplyDelete-non-transparent covering lid
-drain holes (5) permitting moisture to drain from the (upper) compartment into the earth/floor/ground (don't remember the exact term, removing the lower compartment required an adaption of the moisture flow)
-water spraying device connected to a water container
are they key features for a patentable claim.
D1=CPA
D1+D2 (D2 teaches transparency) does not lead to the claim
D1+D3 (D3 does not teach a water spraying device; D3 teaches retaining water and D1 the opposite) does not lead to the claim
Claim 5: is novel+inventive by virtue of referring to the apparatus of claim 1-4
Claim 6: is novel+inventive by virtue of referring to the apparatus of claim 1-4, also overcomes the 52(2)(c) issue by virtue of referring to, and thus including the features of, the apparatus of claim 1-4.
What do you think?
I thought this would be the only way get a patentable claim over D1+D2. Like yesterday, the paper included a deliberate misdirection for this key feature.
My take on claim 1 - in essence - I think
ReplyDelete-non-transparent covering lid
-drain holes (5) permitting moisture to drain from the (upper) compartment into the earth/floor/ground (don't remember the exact term, removing the lower compartment required an adaption of the moisture flow)
-water spraying device connected to a water container
are they key features for a patentable claim.
D1=CPA
D1+D2 (D2 teaches transparency) does not lead to the claim
D1+D3 (D3 does not teach a water spraying device; D3 teaches retaining water and D1 the opposite) does not lead to the claim
Claim 5: is novel+inventive by virtue of referring to the apparatus of claim 1-4
Claim 6: is novel+inventive by virtue of referring to the apparatus of claim 1-4, also overcomes the 52(2)(c) issue by virtue of referring to, and thus including the features of, the apparatus of claim 1-4.
What do you think?
I thought this would be the only way get a patentable claim over D1+D2. Like yesterday, the paper included a deliberate misdirection for this key feature.
I dont think it was a misdirection for the non transparent lid. It is known that a dark environment if prefereable, as indicated in D1. so the skilled person would simply change the transparent lid in D2 with a non transparent one.
DeleteThis would go against the teaching of D2 because the lid is explicitly defined to be transparent so that light can enter; there is even an external light source 20 in D2 to provide the light. Also, there is no motivation for the SP to change this.
DeleteSo D2+D1 is inventive
Gregory: and how did you make an IS argumentation with regard to D2? D2 discloses though the spraying device and even water supply for it. I said something like D2 points to getting less moisture (50%) thus teaches away... The skilled man could but would not in fact incorporate the spraying device of D2 into D1 (there is no reason..)
ReplyDeleteMy take on claim 1 - in essence - I think
ReplyDelete-non-transparent covering lid
-drain holes (5) permitting moisture to drain from the (upper) compartment into the earth/floor/ground (don't remember the exact term, removing the lower compartment required an adaption of the moisture flow)
-water spraying device connected to a water container
are they key features for a patentable claim.
D1=CPA
D1+D2 (D2 teaches transparency) does not lead to the claim
D1+D3 (D3 does not teach a water spraying device; D3 teaches retaining water and D1 the opposite) does not lead to the claim
Claim 5: is novel+inventive by virtue of referring to the apparatus of claim 1-4
Claim 6: is novel+inventive by virtue of referring to the apparatus of claim 1-4, also overcomes the 52(2)(c) issue by virtue of referring to, and thus including the features of, the apparatus of claim 1-4.
What do you think?
I thought this would be the only way get a patentable claim over D1+D2. Like yesterday, the paper included a deliberate misdirection for this key feature.
Gregory: what were your IS arguments ? why would the skilled man not just put the spraying device of D2 into D1 and arrive at the SM of claim 1?
ReplyDeleteSo, people are commenting that the moisture detector needed to be included to overcome the third party observation. I don't get this. Mainly because, if the container of claim 1 was enabled (as suggested by the third party observation) then, even if the container included a moisture detector, container would be made available to the public (for structural features, if it's made available to the public then it is prior use). The skilled person would know that the moisture detector would be used to monitor moisture.
ReplyDeleteSo, the only sensible perspective on the third party observation is that, based on the schedule given, the container was not actually enabling (which doesn't make much sense).
So, I've come to the conclusion that, for claim 1 to overcome the third party observation, the only way is to include a feature to say "automatically spraying water", automatically to imply the use of a computer implemented method.
But then again, everything is very confusing here. someone tell me how the third party observation should have been dealt with.
Yeah, I agree and also went down this route (indicating computer arranged to carry out method in cl.1)
DeleteI think re: moisture detector is that the third party observation didn't cite claim 3, indicating that claim 3 wasn't disclosed/enabled
Also I think non-transparent lid would overcome the TPO to stop it being enabled.
My take was 3PO was taht it was a red herring that could be dealt with separately. It was evidence of an open day and nothing else. Evidence for public prior use has a high bar. There was no evidence apparatus was even on display. It may have been locked away because they were intending to file a patent application. There was evidence of a tour. So what? Who's to say it was even public, could have been asked to sign NDA. I don't think it influenced amendments at all
DeleteI mean I take your point re: whether the EPO would take it into account or not, but if the container had been disclosed, it would still be anticipating and therefore not in accordance with A54. Thus, in "real-life" you may not amend to overcome this disclosure, but in principle, if there had been a disclosure, you should, as otherwise the claims are not valid.
DeleteAlso, I don't think the details given support the fact that the disclosure was under NDA, nor was the container locked away since 1) it was made available to the public, and 2) the public "saw" earthworms
Even if it wasn't substantiated, if the box in question was disclosed, this would still be novelty-destroying and not in accordance with A54.
'If' the container had been disclosed. There was no evidence it had. There's a bit in the guidelines g-iv 7.2? about prior use. I just discussed that and said didn't meet the criteria (ii) of cited T decision because it there was no evidence of a disclosure of the apparatus of claim 1. Circumstantial. But who knows?
DeleteEvery year they chuck something new in. This year it felt like they chucked twenty new things in. CII, poor client suggestions, no stand out tech effect and 3POs. Bad job.
I like the reasoning but wouldn't you also need to specify non-transparent lid in the claim?
ReplyDeleteSimilar claim 1 here but I did not include the sensor but instead I included the non-transparent lid for novelty over D2.
ReplyDeleteIf the intermediate generalisation of the spraying device was allowable then for me these two solutions seem to be about equal.
Claim 4 remained independent and step b was made non optional.
Claim 6 also remained independent and I changed it to "Computer implemented method" and included a lot from Par 24: moisture sensor, infrared sensor and display or alarm device.
Even if there wasn't the harassment of the lockdown browser (only one page of the Paper visible, no copy paste from right to left, but switching tabs necessary, instable (frozen, so I have to reboot)), this paper was the worst I've ever work on.
ReplyDelete24 Pages - no such paper since introducing combined EM/C. I hoped, the comission would have had adapted the paper like the Mock B-eEQE. But this seems to be the original 2019 one, just put in to the lockdown browser.
If EPO really wanted to promote the e-EQE in the future, they have done worst.
I did that. It is novel, as far as I can tell, since the features of claim 2 were nowhere disclosed (at least, I didn't see it). The Office Action stated that it's not considered inventive, but it didn't seem immediately apparent from any of the combination when I argued it. Still, I couldn't identify a convincing technical effect, tbh
ReplyDeleteGregor, how did you argue IS with regard to D1+D2 ?
ReplyDeleteWhy would one not take the spraying device of D2 and put it into D1 ?
Thanks for reply.
while spraying with water is disclosed in the background, there is no disclosure of "how" to develop a container to enable this spraying. An advantage of the invention as described in one of the paragraphs (I think 9) is that it enables minimum operator involvement. So to develop a container which implements the "spraying" using a water spraying device incorporated into the container in this case, would be inventive. This would be my argument for inventive step of the water spraying device feature...
ReplyDeleteIf it's any comfort I nearly did this but came to conclusion too late in the day to make that change to C1. Ended up adding a cheeky claim 7 which was your claim 1 configured to perform the method of claim 6.
ReplyDeleteStill no notion of what was actually expected. There was no clear steer with a decent tech effect.
Confidence has been completely zapped from papers B and D - not in the right mental state right now to go and study for Paper C. From what we faced with in papers D and B, it would appear pointless to even study for C now, they will just screw us over with that paper also. 2020 was a nightmare year, this is a nightmare start to 2021!!
ReplyDeleteI also think paper A was tough/tricky and misleading in places. Not a good set this year at all.
DeleteI did that. I don't think the features of claim 2 were disclosed in any of the documents. However, the Office Action stated that claim 2 was not considered inventive. I'm unsure about it, it was difficult to identify a technical effect but then again, even without a convincing technical effect something can be inventive if the feature is nowhere disclosed...I'm 100% sure that it isn't the answer they wanted to hear tho, but I did the same thing
ReplyDeleteEven if 40, I don't think I pass lol
ReplyDeleteSame here. In fact D1 discloses that drain holes permit the moisture to drain from the compartment. PSA would understand from D1 that drain holes are arranged in a way to allow only moisture to drain.
ReplyDeleteI think I got zero marks because I forgot to sign the reply (ran out of time)
ReplyDeleteNow seriously: sign what?
Deletego and read rule 50(3) EPC please, might clarify things for you
Deletei signed "thanks for the hardest paper
ReplyDelete[electronic signature]
Association number 666
brilliant. should have done something similar.
DeleteIf i am going to fail might as well be with style. I can bring it up when i appeal. If they say adjustable holes are enabled and sufficient that is
DeleteFor IS vs D1 and D2, my claim 1 defines a non-transparent covering lid. Also adapted the water flow through the drain holes so that the water flows into the ground.
ReplyDeleteFor claim 6, i left the client's step of "providing the apparatus of claims 1-4" as he explicitly said the claims in their (restricted) form as sent by him would be fine. The step of providing the apparatus of claims 1-4 solves the 52(2)(c) and nov+inv step issue immediately, so everything seemed to be falling into place.
Given that papers D, A and B so far have not been good or it seems there are errors, misleading statements or contradictory statements causing confusion - is it worth letting the Exam Sec know or at least point them to this blog.
ReplyDeleteif so need to delete my above comment as they can ID me through that :)
DeleteCannot wait to see what the DP folks think of this paper.
ReplyDeleteWas that paragraph not for the 3rd embodiment for computer implemented invention? I thought for the 2nd embodiment, Fig. 2, there was only disclosure in the corresponding paragraphs with the display - no mention without the display. I could be wrong but that is how I read it.
ReplyDeleteGiven the nightmare papers of D, A and B (not using the word nightmare lightly here given the drama of D, confusion of A and outright mind-blogging issues in B) expect for a hell of a ride tomorrow for C. I'm expecting they are going to throw in swiss style claims many years again to throw everyone completely off.
ReplyDeleteFollowing the same rational, is it possible that in the future, there could be also Markush chemistry claims, or medical use claims for paper B?
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere says, even it is enclosed in the product not visible to the public, but the skilled person would still have the skills to disassemble and analysis the product. Therefore, it is still considered as being accessible to the public, because the public comprises the skilled person!
ReplyDeleteenclosed in the product not visible to the public is still considered as being disclosed in the public, especially to the skilled person who wants to analyze the product!
ReplyDeletei did
ReplyDeletewhat to complain about ? How to make a valid argument over paper being difficult? Anyone has a suggestion or can some experienced tutors help ?
ReplyDeleteCan we all agree that D1 in the English version had an error by missing 3a in Figure? Specifically, it was missing "3a" in figure 1 of D1. We may overlook such errors under test conditions, but in an opposition, it is not an unreasonable argument from the opponent to state that D1 does not disclose/unambiguously teach 3a in the figure of D1. It leaves the skilled person in doubt where 3a is located. It is an obvious error based on D1 alone.
ReplyDeleteYes it was missing for 3a and another missing thing was the line for 5 in another prior art. Am in bed so can't see which one but what a shut show of an exam.
DeleteI think you’re right Alexander, but how can the soil of D2 be too dry if it have a water sprayer? I limited to absorb any material despite the clients wishes.
ReplyDeleteYes, D1 was missing the "3a" label in the figure. This was an error.
ReplyDeleteDo you remember if it was mentioned in the client's letter that the spray cleaning device of D2 is exclusively for cleaning? [Client should be a technical expert]
ReplyDeleteIs it for sure that there were 3 independent claims ?
ReplyDeletei choose same
ReplyDeleteD1 as CPA for claim 1,
D2 as CPA for claim 4,
D3 as CPA for claim 6.
Did the client mention in the letter that spraying device of D2 is exclusively for cleaning? s/he should be a technical expert.
ReplyDeleteCompletely insane
ReplyDeleteWere we supposed to sign anything??
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately yes. R50(3) :-(
DeleteI didn't find any "R 50(3) ", is that a joke ???
DeleteI am quite worried about it so please stop kidding, it's not a good moment.
R50(3) EPC
DeleteDocuments filed after filing the application shall be signed, with the exception of annexed documents. If a document has not been signed, the European Patent Office shall invite the party concerned to do so within a time limit to be specified. If signed in due time, the document shall retain its original date of receipt; otherwise it shall be deemed not to have been filed.
I had a serious issue today with lockdown browser shutting down, computer freezing in the process and the most current version of my answer not being saved in the text editor before it got shut down.
ReplyDeleteI had a stressful interaction with the exam secretariat to top it all off. When I rushed to ask for the invigilator password, the exam secretariat laughed at my situation and asked if I had read the exam information, e.g., too many tabs open etc. instead of acting immediately to tell me the invigilator password. This not only delayed my time logging back on to the wiseflow system but created extreme mental distress. I've sent an email highlighting such issues, however, I post this comment to ask fellow peers if this has been a common issue throughout this week or if it is just me having an unfortunate and bad experience. If this is a common issue, perhaps we should raise it collectively, but I don't imagine it would have happened to everyone during the course of this week. If it has, how did you deal with it (apart from sending an email of course).
you need to click on "..." in zendesk and get an archive of your chat
DeleteWell I spoke to the exam secretariat over the phone because it was an emergency and I didn't have access to zendesk anymore because my computer froze and shut me out
Deletemy browser froze in the pre-eqe and it wasn't because i had too many tabs open. however i did not telephone them - i simply rebooted my laptop and got in touch on zendesk.
DeleteDo you think claim 4 was not independent after adding container ?
ReplyDeleteAlso a chemist, I had an absolute nightmare with the computer implemented invention, wasn't able to deal with it well and came with a bad solution to it that was not the correct one. I have raised a complaint that this subject matter is not accessible to candidates without an electronics background in much the same way that electronics candidates would be very unhappy if the claims required an amendment to second medical use!
ReplyDeleteHopefully the rest was sufficiently sensible to scrape a pass.
I mean who says these papers are prepped fresh for this year and couldn't be tested enough, when there was a canceled exam last year. As far as I can see B was not optimized for online at all. I think it was 2020's B, just copied and pasted into wiseflow, with no thinking whether it would be suitable for the new system or whether the candidates went through enough experimentation this year already. I mean as if the changes to system wasn't enough this year, you people also put 3 independent claims with one CII, a TPO and a client from hell basically.
ReplyDeleteI feel sad and frustrated about this-year part B. Too many problems at once, not enough time, confusion... Why am I doing this to myself?
ReplyDeleteFurther to my comment @2.22pm ----- Agreed re meeting their business needs which led me not to include any further limiting features than what the client added. Whole paper was bizarre really.
ReplyDeleteI cannot wait to see DP's take on this paper.
@SL From what I have read also in the A blog we again seem to have almost the same solutions. Lets hope we are at least partly right 😊
ReplyDeleteif not signed, then the document is not deemed to be filed and therefore you technically did not submit your answer... is this correct?????
ReplyDeleteNot true. No past paper B Examiner's report has ever required it. Also, it is just one of those things people use to judge "fit for practice." If you are close to 45 points, it matters slightly. It you are far away, it does not matter.
DeleteAfter some reflection, we pissed off the EPO because we complained about Wiseflow and all the other issues with taking it online. We also complained about other stuff (the 1 year cancelation, etc.). The EPO then decided to make Paper B hard as a lesson for us. Also, the EPO did not proof read the paper (numbers missing from figures). This tells us that the EPO employees are overworked and/or understaffed and just decided to make B as is without further testing because they were tired of us.
ReplyDeletethey have forced upon a new system that the exam secretariat cannot even cope with. it's not the complaining, it's the resolving that's the issue. the customer is always right.
Deletecome on, you are not supposed to sign anything, I though I saw somewhere an explicit advice not to sign your paper. am I wrong ?
ReplyDeleteDon't sign with your name. I put electronic signature and association number but the letter from Clive normally has "your" made up name for the exam. THIS IS Definitely true for paper c as the opposition MUST BE SIGNED. My advice is do it first and type above it so it is there even if you run out of time
DeleteI used the name the letter is addressed to and a fake association number
DeleteMy email to EPO. Sorry it is long. Tjis covers others complaints as well as mine
ReplyDeletesir or madam
I am emailing to voice my concerns and complaints about this year's paper B.
1. Firstly, labelling of the figures in the prior art was incorrect. Lines were missing making it unclear if this was intentional or just a genuine error in the paper.
2. The term "drain holes may be adjustable" of the application. I expect this term was for putting in claim 1. However there is no explanation or example of how this is carried out or achieved. As such this term lacks sufficiency of disclosure as it is required that at least one way of carrying out the invention is provided. Which there was not. Even though I or you may know how to make holes adjustable, candidates are not meant to impart their own knowledge. So it must be non-enabled.
3. Drain holes and lower container of the application. It was unclear if the drain holes could be separated from the lower container. As the lower container was replaceable and the upper container could drain into soil it is implicitly disclosed that draining is via the same drain holes from the application as a whole and tge figures. If this is not the case and is considered to add matter then this goes against what the guidelines say about implicit disclosure.
4. Computer implemented inventions. I believe it is true that these are more common but this paper is meant to be for life science and engineering. Computer science does not fall within the remit of life science. Even though the guidelines are extensive and clear on this point it is not just or fair to test a topic which many candidates would consult a colleague for. As a life sciences person amending such a claim and making an error could be considered to be negligent if they did not check with someone with expertise in the field.
5. Timing of the paper. This paper had 3 independent claims. More than normal. Each was relatively long or complex. This was also more than previous papers. In addition there was 3rd party obs to contend with. Given the inability to have 2 tabs open at once (UNLESS working in German) this meant typing was very time consuming (more so than writing as previous papers) . In addition the inability to copy and paste text in rhe same format as in the question paper meant a lot if time had to be spent formatting (unlike using scissors and glue) . All in all the online format is slower but the paper was more complex than previous years. Making it very if not impossible to have enough time to provide a full and cogent answer.
6. Errors in formatting of client's claims. Some parts were not bold for amendment but others were. This seems odd if intentional and unfair as the paper already had enough issues to grapple.
7. Not for me but many others have had issues with lockdown browser and generally rude and unprofessional behaviour from epo staff when trying to resolve issues. These exams are stressful enough without having to deal with such issues and people not prepared to be professional. (Pleae nite that this point is based on anecdotal evidence and I apologise now if it is not true).
All in all I think this exam requires a serious review and contemplation of how candidates should be marked.
Yours sincerely
Not just this exam, I think Paper A was full of contradictory and confusing sentences. Did you add paper A into your email to the EPO too. I assume the EPO would already know about paper D issues with the language thing.
DeleteNo I didn't as Paoer A went well for me. Just seeing all these comments I felt I had to say something.
DeleteThe client's letter stated that the client was happy with the proposed, narrow claims.
DeleteSo therefore claims 5 and 6 are immediately novel and inventive by virtue of including the novel and inventive apparatus of claim 1 [a severe restriction to the broad claim 6, but the client said he is happy with that]. This proposed amendment complies with A. 123(2) [some lines as to why were necessary though] and overcomes the A. 52(2)(c) exclusion [the apparatus included by reference is clearly technical]. That way, everything falls into place and makes sense, also considering the amount of time given for that paper.
I did not think the application warranted using the container for the method. It never said so or suggested it and so that IMO is an intermediate generalisation even if an allowable one. Guvne the timing I expect that's what should have been done. No one seemed to realise claim 6 even when implemented by a comp was not really invetive over d3 as it had all the same steps apart from alerting or displaying but displaying was obvious from d1 ergo I added in having a warning step with an alarm
DeleteI amended the feature "water spraying device for (means suitable for) adjusting moisture" into "water spraying device which is configured to spray water on the refuse, thereby adjusting moisture of the refuse". I think it is new over D2? Am I right?
ReplyDeleteI think not. Sorry. As the larvae remove 50% moisture. The washing will add moisture inherently I.e. adjusts moisture. Thus d2 is novelty destroying. Not for IS though as is different purpose. This is only my opinion though.
DeleteSo after discussing with colleagues I believe that for claim 1, it was necessary to: remove the lower container, keep the holes, specify that the pulverisation device was connected to the reservoir. It is novel over D2 because in D2 it is a tap, not a reservoir. And it is inventive because D1 us closest prior art and D2 only teaches to use the device for cleaning, not for spraying the waste with the worms.
ReplyDeletePersonally I did not see that and I further specified that the first compartment contains the earthworms in order to make it novel over D2. In D2 world are disclosed but not earthworms.
if you specified that the drain holes are between the upper and lower compartment, then you would be novel over D2. D2 didn't mention the use of the mesh tray to drain moisture from the refuse and did not hint towards it.
DeleteLower compartment had to be removed
Deleteit didn't HAVE to be. the client suggested it but if you want to pass the exam you look for ways to be novel and inventive.
Deleteagreed - I had the lower compartment and drain holes too in claim 1. Only way to get over novelty BUT I must confess that the client did not help at all. Paper A was similarly confusing yesterday.
Deleteit seemed no checks were properly made this year on papers A, B and D. Papers A and B are quite confusing.
No novelty over D1 was achieved with the water pulverisation device. But you had to add the tank for a123(2) reasons. Then it was novel over D2 because of the tank. In D2 it is a tap. So the lower compartment was not needed for novelty or Is.
DeleteI argued that the lower compartment was needed because the drain holes were never disclosed without upper and lower compartments. So you may contravene Art 123(2) if you do not add in lower compartment along with drain holes too.
DeleteI sent a complaint to the helpdest as from my opinion not all amendments in the clients letter were indicated. This makes it even more difficult for an online version not allowing to have both claims visible next to each other.
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner said that the mesh of D2 would be regarded as anticipating drain holes. But the holes are essential so that water can flow out, so are required because of tha (not for novelty thought, imo).
ReplyDeleteLeider hat das EPA verpasst die Klausuren im Umfang und Schwierigkeitsgrad an die neue Prüfungssituation anzupassen. Immer weiter bestätigt sei der Eindruck, dass das EPA um jeden Preis Kandidaten rausprüfen möchte. Die bisherigen Klausuren waren an jahrelange Erfahrungen des handschriftlichen Schreibens angepasst, nunmehr wurde das bisherige Examen 1:1 in ein neues Format gepresst, ohne dabei den Umfang etc. zu überprüfen. So viele Variablen, die hier neu sind. Etliche Fehler in den Klausuren, fehlende Bezugszeichen, fiese Fallen im Mandantenentwurf (Änderungen bewusst nicht markiert um die Kandidaten zu verwirren). Ich verweise auf das Merkmal der "unteren Kammer", die laut Beschreibung "entfernbar" sein soll. Was soll dieses Merkmal bedeuten, "entfernbar" im Sinne von lösbar im Sinne einer Schublade oder im Sinne von verzichtbar....
ReplyDeleteSorry not a German speaker but I agree. The fact you could drain into soil to me at least said dispensable
DeleteDie B Prüfung scheint einfach für eine Online Klausur nicht geeignet zu sein. Man muss zwischen zu vielen Dokumenten herumwechseln, irgendwann wusste ich nicht mehr , ob ich D1 oder D3 oder doch die D2 oder vielleicht die Anmeldung lese.
DeleteIch denke wir alle lieben es, eine schwierige Prüfung zu bestehen, dann macht das Danachbiertrinken mehr Spaß. Aber so wie du erwähnst, die B Prüfung wurde leider nicht an die Online Situation angepasst und das ist nur bedauerlich.
I agree - it seemed clear from the description that the lower compartment was non- essential based on para. 18, and so I removed it from claim 1 per the client request.
DeleteIs anyone else's paper "not handed in"? I have been trying to contact Zendesk/EPO to fix but no luck yet. I was told it would be handed in today (after the exam an invigilator said this to me via the chat) but still nothing.
ReplyDeleteSame for me! I trusted the client and DP. I added the feature that the sprayer "is configured to" ... instead of "to". With the water tank I believe novelty against D2 can be argumented since a water tap is not a water tank. With this amendments the inventive steps argumentations went pretty smooth, however far to less time. After A yesterday another nightmire. I am not sure what the intentention of the EPA is to provide such nasty papers after one year pause.
ReplyDeleteI put the floating lid but left out the absorber as I took the lid from claim 2 which has no absorber.
ReplyDeletesame here
ReplyDeleteconsidering how long and tricky and surprising (TPO and CII) this exam was, i really wonder if anyone really tried this one before, in Wiseflow browser and did manage to write everything needed and in 3,5hours. cause it was extremely long, and it is much worse to di it in wiseflow, switching pages one-by-one, than e.g. solving paper in word and pdf documents next to each other. loke someone believed that on computer everyone magically can read, write and think faster
ReplyDeleteI didn't even get to complete an IV argument - totally failed.
DeleteSpent too long muddling over, flicking back and forth, getting lost and confused due to time constraint.
A 4 hour exam at least!
I ended skipping amendments section. Didn't tinker with the claims that much and moved on.
DeleteStill time was so tight. Didn't finish it.
Does D1 disclose the method of Claim 4? i thought it was only disclosed in D2, so took D2 as CPA for method claim 4.
ReplyDeleteWould two method claims be in accordance with Rule 43(2) EPC? Are these methods alternative solutions, i.e. mutually exclusive methods?
ReplyDeleteI did. Water sprayers are not novel. The sprayer in D2 is suitable to serve the same purpose. Detector and display are known as per the description. Water tank is obvious.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know all the audience were laymen?
ReplyDeleteYou guys only complain paper A and B. However, for me, paper D is also super difficult.....
ReplyDeletetrue - paper D was difficult too but at least not confusing to me. Paper A and B however are just confusing as hell with conflating and conflicting statements throughout them.
DeleteHas anyone added a floating layer in claim 1 ?
ReplyDeleteclient said not to do it. It was not a great starting point to argue IS. Basically, you would just say the prior art does not have it. Versus, the moisture, you can really argue about the effects in D2 (reducing moisture) being a teaching away.
DeleteThank toi for your answer. I sas thinking the same but I saw « if possible, don’t add it ». The « if possible » seems like « I prefer no » and not « No ».
DeleteWell, that means I felt it.
This year paper b was terribly horrible. I have spotted also few mistakes. In D1 there was no indication of the "support (3a)" on the drawing. Definitely there was not enough time. An extra 30-45min would be fair. This platform is not suitable for this kind of exam, especially for paper B. Copying which should help was only slowing down. Especially copying the amended claims.
ReplyDeleteNasty paper. Also had problem with printing the .pdf. I could download it but couldn't print it because I couldn't open the file. That was strange because yesterday I had no problems with printing paper A.
ReplyDeleteBut the public disclosure mentioned showing how they use earthworms and stuff! that implies a detailed explanation of how the container worked! Therefore it is a fully enabled disclosure of the container of original claim 1
ReplyDeleteAfter some further thought, is it possible that claim 1 with only earthworms already covers flys? I mean, if a person uses eartworms and flys or earthworms + larvae or earthworms + eggs (or whatever), the claim with only earthworms still covers those. But I can't remember the exact language in the client's letter. Obviously, if the client wanted to cover only flys, then I feel that the invention has changed too much and infringes art. 123(2). Just another thought to make myself believe I have a chance of passing. Honestly, I see good arguments for including flys (client asked) and there is some kind of support in [0003] and the prior art, but I also see it as a wish from the client that is already covered by the claim in a way? I just feel the client was trying to invent after receiving the office action, which is probably risky for a strict Art. 123(2) sense.
ReplyDeleteI had a spray for adjusting moisture, a tank, and detector. Basically, the system worked to keep the worms moist enough to live long, which helps the system work down the organic refuse. D1 did not teach a spray. Anything a person with D1 tries does not teach the invention. D1 and D2, also does not work because D2 says to reduce moisture, why would you spray to reduce? opposing effects. And D3 mentions only general stuff about moisture, but no way of adding mositure and would also go against D2.
ReplyDeleteDid exactly the same as you. Feeling better that at least I am not the only one having done that...
ReplyDeleteI was facing the amendements for 3h! Reading if all was allowable...really not fair for 3.5h going through so many pages and issues. In my opinion the maximum marks reachable going fast was 60/70. So, to pass the examination board should give a pass for 30/35 marks. Obviously they won't
ReplyDeleteDemetrio
I am a biochemist, and I would just like to rasie one point because so many guys above mentioned this. I left out the fly eggs in claim 1. Although the description mentions it, it is only in the general part. The biggest problem is that throughout the whole application, a skilled person cannot directly and unambiguously regard that said container with the moisture regulation system is also appliable to fly eggs. After all, fly eggs and earthworms are different with regard to the requirement of huminity for survival.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is, you guys only complain papers A and B. However, for me, paper D is also super difficult.....
The public disclosure could as well only have shown the devices of D1 (earthworms) and D2 (flies). You cannot tell from the TPO. Hence: Not substantiated.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone add a dependent claim to water absorbing material as the client said that this is an alternative way for collecting moist/removing moist.
ReplyDeleteYes I did as it was mentioned in client that it was useful but not for claim 1.
DeleteFor the method claim 4 - I removed the word b. [optionally,] adjusting the moisture of the refuse by spraying water on said refuse + and/or by draining moisture
ReplyDeletefrom the refuse;
I thought adding this in makes the method claim novel and inventive especially if your claim 1 already amended to adjustable drain holes.
Yeah, I did something similar to claim 4.
DeleteI also left the earthworm in as suggested by client.
Otherwise, I wouldn't know what to amend really. It was all so frantic. Had no time to think about it.
Yep I did the same. Removing optionally achieved novelty and Is over D2.
DeleteYeah I also remove optionally so that it simply was just 'adjusting....
DeleteAchieve novelty and IS over D2 like you said.
Ditto
DeleteI had no time for checking my amendments - I just had to stop and move on. IT WAS TRUELY TERRIBLE FOR TIMING with some many complex issues to think about.
ReplyDeleteI've just complained. I said that there was not sufficient time given. What I did was I skipped amendments and went to other sections, so I didn't deal with computer implemented invention at all.
ReplyDeleteI too didn't amend the claims too much and left quite alot of the client's words in. Instead, I provided basis for these argumentations instead so hoping that marks are weighted towards that rather than amended claims (solely).
ReplyDeleteGiven the massive increase of difficult of Papers A and B, I wonder if the EPO are testing to see how much they can get away with online. It seems that they have gone too far this year with the papers.
ReplyDeleteI did not sit the paper and cannot find a copy yet. Can anyone provide it? All comments make me curious... I would like to join the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI did. Sprayer wasn't novel over D2. The cleaning sprayer can be used to moisturize without any changes. Detector and display are known in the field (as per the application's description.
ReplyDeletePeople keep mentioning adjustable holes but I read that as meaning that during production the holes can be made to any size, which would also be true of a mesh. Moreover even if the holes were adjustable in the final product: how? Not enabled. Also I don't understand any of the "earthworm" amedments proposed. How would that grant novelty/inventive step? Each of those systems could be used for earthworms.
I didn't deal sufficiently with the amendments as I simply did not have time for sorting out all the amendments so left alot of client amendments in. I had to move on. Amendments are worth 30 marks so I sacrifice amendments and went to deal with the rest. I agree with others that this paper was NOT manageable within 3.5 hours and being done online.
ReplyDeleteI doubt it would be manageable even on paper. There were too many things to deal with in 3.5 hours.
I didn't even finish the paper. Was such a rushed job.
ReplyDeleteI also skipped amendments sectuon in the END.I didn't tinker with the claims too much. but even then I didn't finish the papers.
Some skipped sections in order to try to get to the end. Some didn't even finish.
ReplyDeleteI think the EPO will need to look into this. This paper cannot be properly done for most candidates in 3.5 hours online.
Reading so many pages, copying and pasting claims and formatting them On text editor. The amendment section took me ages. Normally the client letter would steer you but I found that it was not helpful St all. At least in other years, there were clues from it.
DeleteYou ended up having to add the lower compartment and holes back into claim 1. Lots of thinking time and checking to be sure of this.
Then - times up. You are forced to rush through the rest. This paper was NOT designed for 3.5 hours. Far too many things.
I've submitted a complaint to the Exam Sect about insufficient timing for this paper. I said that I didn't think the amount of time was not adequately provided for the issues and formatting problems in the exam. Basically, 3.5 hours is not enough.
ReplyDeleteA TPO is just a prior art, which was brought to the attention of the EPO rather that found by the EPO itself. Not really an extra complication. Do not drive yourself crazy if something is not presented in the standard way!
ReplyDeletePrior use likewise. Guidelines give full details.
Honestly, although I was taken by surprise by the changes this year, I heartily welcome this new trend in Paper B. It brings us closer to the real life of a patent attorney, especially out of the maneuver of the fictional inventive step argument, which "you'll never do it in your practice after the exam (quotation from several tutors)".
ReplyDeleteJust name it, unreliable client's suggestions, wish to sell before filing, competitor's TPO ambuscade...all these seem to be more real motivations to make the amendments.
Having said that, how many marks are given to IS argument is still unknown. If a new trend is intended this year for Paper B, marking should be adjusted accordingly as well.
Thanks DP team, largely agree with claims, in claim 1 it is probably not meant to limit ceramic oxide to metal oxides as this only covers definition of D1, probably leaving workaround space for other turbine manufacturers (which may not use a metal oxide to insulate the substrate), so I guess only limitation to endure 1600 degrees needed to enter claim (for example in pre-amble or specifying melting point ceramic oxide), my 5 cents
ReplyDeleteDid anyone check whether there is a difference in answering using the legal texts in force on 31.10.2020 (Guidelines November 2019), the legal texts in force on 31.10.2019 (Guidelines November 2018), or the the legal texts available via “External Resources” (Guidelines March 2021)? There have been considerable changes especially in G-II and G-III in the last several updates.
ReplyDeleteCII was to be expected in view of all this recent attention, or at least a serious candidate to be tested at a "basic level" - also all candidates need to know the "basics" of second medical use claims and of the whole of Art.53(c). As there were many subsequent updates for the whole of GL G-II recently (also for the other types related to Art.52(2)&(3): mental acts, ...), addressing some of that could have been expected if one well-defined version of the syllabus would have been applicable as in normal years. But, it could also be expected that that would not be the core of the paper, as that would require too much knowledge of the "average" patent attorney - so, a dependent claim on it seems fair and reasonable.
But now that 2 legal dates and 3 Guidelines version were announced to be accepted, the paper should be answerable with the same answer based on all 3 versions: anyone saw a reason why it would be different?
That was way too much to deal with in 3,5 hours and considerably more than papers B of the previous years. An interested paper, but needed an extra 30 minutes to finish proper inventive step argumentation. It is frustrating to know exactly what you want to write, but not have the extra minutes required to do so.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4/3 2:22pm
ReplyDeleteI also took the DP course for Paper B and did the exact same approach. My reasoning why it was ok to remove the design holes is that these are not presented as essential (appl. disclose that moisture could be removed by absorption or evaporation as well) although all embodiments comprise these in the figures. Now looking at how everyone reasons, seems like you could not trust the client on this one
I argued in a similar way, took the holes out but replaced them by means for removing... Which I thought was disclosed in this passage, because I thought that something that removes moisture would be essential to make the claim inventive. I am however not sure whether this generalization is originally disclosed... MARIA
ReplyDeleteIn "paper" exam paper times, we were able to post our answers quickly, as candidates could send us a copy of the complete paper (including their annotations) within 30 minutes after exam end (some have offices at 5 minutes walk from the exam location in The Hague, and can quickly scan and send it; others made photos of all pages).
ReplyDeleteWith the e-EQE, the complete paper is not available at the end of the exam for the candidates as the online parts cannot be taken out - and in B the effort and risk to copy all tose pars into their answers is understandably considered too risky.
So we have not yet obtained a copy of the full B paper and are waiting for it to come available on the Compendium, or to receive a full B paper from one of you of you did copy in the non-printable parts in his;her answer. Thx in advance!
Thanks for the update, Roel. We look much forward to see your solution to this one as well.
DeleteThe 2021 version is up now https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/compendium/b.html
DeleteDear Roel and DP people,
Deletecould you please seat individually the exam online in exactly 3,5h?
Then make the optimal solution and tell us how many points you scored.
That would be very exciting.
Isn't moisture detector inherent in D2? Otherwise how would it be known that moisture reduced by 50% if I remember correctly?
ReplyDeleteI am not a native speaker, but is this correct: "feed the chicks". I made a comment to that in my answer, it was somewhere in the TPO letter... what or who could you feed at the farm?
ReplyDeleteC.
What about putting into cl1 : removable lower compartment (-->novel over D2, clearly not wanted that the larvae leave the lower compartment) and the spraying device (-->novel over D1)? D1 is CPA and no motivation to find means for improving moisture regulation in D2, as purpose of spraying device in D2 is different and also not really the same technical field?
ReplyDeleteI tried to avoid the CII issue and went for a use claim of the container in a respective method :-D
I think it is unfair to say "you have half an hour more to compensate the fact you cannot print everything nor highlight" and then give us a paper long the double than the ones of years before. I think they have never tested this paper in 3,5 hours, or if they tested they wanted to punish us for no reason.
ReplyDelete