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:
Alright I welcome it too but IRL you are not limited by 3.5 hours of time for studying everything AND replying.
ReplyDeleteThe client's response to a novelty destroying public disclosure was horrendous.
ReplyDeleteThis was a CRITICAL disclosure of the invention before the filing date. The EPO wanted to test something, but didn't actually decide what they wanted to test. They seemed to be scared of giving us something that might actually remove possible options for bad amendments to make.
Anyone one of the situations would have given us a chance to show our stuff and get some points. I had expected some hint or indication from the customer as to the situation of the container display, audience, or tour guide.
1. The lid could have been closed (and opaque).
2. The lid could have been open and the box was full of earthworms or empty.
3. The box in question could have been one with or without a sprayer.
4. An indication of the skill level of the audience could have been made.
5. The indication of the information revealed by the tour guides could have been made
Each of these, gives us a chance to show off our understanding of an enabling disclosure. This TPO could have been the famous “windmill wing”.
Instead, it turned into a “how bad to you want to mess yourself over?”.
We deserved better from the client (EPO) than "We expect that you deal with the TPO, the relevance of which we cannot properly evaluate"!
I swore, very loudly and repeatedly, when I read the client’s letter.
I know someone who decided that the lid was open and the tour guides were chatty. Composting technology is not difficult to understand or hard to teach. The candidate destroyed novelty for everything except for the computer implemented control algorithm (lid open and showing off the sprayers).
I hope that the EPO has to accept it as a pass. They want us to make up the story? I hope they like what they read.
I failed the exam and I accept my part in it. But the EPO didn't treat me right.
Your approach could be fine. You can write totally horrible claim amendments (scoring 0 out of 30) and still score high. Bad amendments that are well argued in the support section get you points. As long as your amendments don't make the IS argumentation too easy, they don't punish you very much. Honestly, the paper rewards making snap judgements on what is and isn't a good amendment just to get to 40-50 points in arguing novelty/IS.
ReplyDeleteDo you think there is a relation between the Prior Demonstration evidence (in the TPO) being during the day 11:45 and the container having a transparent or un- transparent lid? Why did we need to know exact time and the program of the day ?
ReplyDeleteMay have clarity with removal but good work. I just added the lower compartment and holes in again as the two features are always described together in the client letter.
ReplyDeleteWell I ended up, skipping the amendments to move onto other sections so I hope I don't get penalised as I spent time on IS. However, I do agree that to do the whole paper sufficiently in 3.5 hours is not enough.
ReplyDeleteI understand that amendments is worth 30 marks and letter is worth 70 marks. I decided to skip amendments to deal with the letter. I don't expect them to suddenly change the markings and I won't be pleased.
ReplyDeleteI would say that this paper is far too long for the time given.
In the german version there was something like "entfernbar" I took that wording...and I also kept the holes in claim 1 as it seemed essential to me.
ReplyDeleteThere were really many unclarities in the description. Have a look at below.
ReplyDelete[012] In Fig. 2, the container (1) has a standard moisture detector (11) with a
display (12) and also a water spraying device (13) connected to a water container (14).
and then again in para.14
[014] Preferably, the compost container has a standard moisture detector (11) with a display (12).
What is that now ??
And why always standard moisture detector ? What is it with this standard? should we keep this wording in the claim ? I did not know how to argue for not including the word "standard" but also it sounded weird to have "standard" in the claim.
I think context wise description was very confusing and unclear. There will be many appeals for sure.
in paragraph [23] you can have the monitor on its own as it was described without the display.
DeleteBut paragraph [23] was directed to the method and not the embodiment of claim 1 covering Fig. 2 as far as I can recall.
DeleteWe did not have half an hour more. Paper B was already 3,5 hours.
ReplyDeleteI did exactly the same... but now I think that it was not a good idea, because it is simply generalizing.
ReplyDeleteYes, and based on this paragraph, I made everything earthworm, because it says eventhough worms and earthworms used interchangeably, to refer to earthworms. So it always refers to eartworms, imo.
ReplyDeleteThen the display can be intrinsic in D2 too. It follows from the application that the standard moisture detector (11) has display (12).
ReplyDeleteGL G-VI, 2 and G-VI, 6 are relevant.
Yep - it was a nightmare paper anyway and the time given was absolutely not sufficient. It was a set up for failure.
ReplyDeleteI also felt paper A was unclear in places too.
I took para 14 "[014] Preferably, the compost container has a standard moisture detector (11) with a display (12)" as a hint that this feature is not linked to the "water spraying device (13) connected to a water container (14)" so that the water spraying device connected to a water container can be incorporated into claim 1 without the moisture container. Furthermore, the term "standard" is unclear.This was another hint for me that they didn't want the standard moisture detector in claim 1.
ReplyDeleteThe moisture detector with a display is necessary for novelty over D2. It seems far too risky to rely on "connected to a water container" for novelty over D2. The water tap in D2 must be connected to a water container, such as a water reservoir, for it to work. This is common general knowledge. The container of D2 is therefore connected to a water container via the water tap.
ReplyDeleteThe question is what is direclty and unambigously disclosed in D2. I do not believe that D2 discloses (be it implicitly or explicitly) a water spraying device connected to a container. Especially since the EPO is normally very formlistic with regard to what is disclosed and what is not. A tap is a valve whereas a container is clearly not a valve. Inserting a "standard" moisture detector is unclear (what is standard?) and in my opinion not necessary to establish novelty over D2 and omitting standard results in added matter.
DeleteMoisture detector was used at some point in D2, since it says "reducing the moisture content of the manure by more than 50 percent" in par. [01]. Since such a reading is output to people, it must have been shown on a display.
DeleteI ended up not changing too much of the claims and arguing for basis for clients suggested amendments.
ReplyDeleteI think time was not adequately given for this exam. There was too much to get through.
Some people skipped amendments to try to get to the end of the exam.
Some people didn't even finish their IS section of the exam.
So I feel it would be wrong if examiner penalise those who perhaps didn't do much on amendments or those who didn't finish their IS.
Basically, this exam had a timing issue.
I would have actually inserted moisture detector as well, if it were not for para 14 (indication that this feature is optiuonal) and the unclear term "standard". But who knows. Evidently, the EPO has not given this exam much thought.
ReplyDeleteI think the holes could not be removed from claim 1 for a123(2) reasons. However the method claim should not be made dependant from claim 1. Therefore, the method claim still covers the alternative without holes.
ReplyDeleteQuite legit. Still, covering the alternative without holes comes at a price of limiting the method claim by requiring spraying. This does not seem to perfectly fit client's wishes too, since there was no such intention originally, and the client's proposed claim also mentions spraying as just an option.
DeleteI did that. I could not find the features of claim 2 disclosed anywhere and so didn't see how the skilled person could arrive at that subject matter from the prior art...
ReplyDeleteAfter some rest and thinking about the B paper again, I think the best way to overcome D without to many claim limitations was to purpose-limit claim 1 to a container for composting organic refuse with earthworms. It was just so confusing that the client wanted the suitability to be removed entirely, that put me on the wrong track. The container in D2 is said to contain a light source AND a transparent lid - so not suitable for the light sensitive earthworms. With hindsight I think the suitability issue was meant to be a tip for the candidates, but in my case it had the opposite effect.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it was not clear what the purpose of the light source was in D2; this information was missing in D2 or at least ambiguous. Could the light source be removed by the skilled person when discussing IS, i.e. do the eggs need light to hatch or are they also capable of hatching in the dark? The client letter suggests that fly eggs by themselves also give very good results (I guess for composting purposes), which seems to imply that eggs are also allowed to hatch in the dark. Very confusing all this...
I also thought that composting organic refuse was key for overcoming D2.
DeleteIn hindsight, I think the light source and transparent lid were highly relevant, however, during the exam I more or less ignored however.
The problem with the suitability, however, is that the Office Action said that claim 1 lacked novelty over D2. Usually, the Office Action has to be taken for granted and is correct. That would mean that the suitability for organic refute does not confer novelty over D2. Since D2 has the waterspray and that may also not confer novelty, I felt that I needed to add a further feature to distinguish from D2 and ended up adding that the container "comprises" organic refuse with earthworms (other than merely being suitable for). I was unsure, however, if chicken manure and the plants etc. in D2 would also be considered organic refute, because as you say, the paper lacked basic definitions and effects etc.
Who else agree that on top of all the contradicting sentences, the paper lacked definitions for certain terms, or at least a sentence explaining that a term is equivalent to another.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to my previous comment on the purpose of the light source in D2 (Anonymous March 06, 2021 4:40 pm), here is another thought; perhaps the larvae are also light-sensitive and the light source assists in directing their migration towards the lower compartment so that they can be collected more efficiently. But larvae are not worms, and in particular not earthworms (D2 clearly makes a distinction between worms and fly larvae). But candidates should not be forced to rely on such an assumption, which is nowhere supported in the documents, in order to get maximum points awarded. I think any solution which proposes further amendments to claim 1 that make it more distinctive from D2 should not be penalized and also receive full marks. Candidates are not supposed to use their own "foreign" knowledge and it can be argued equally well that a light source could be dispensed with in D2 since their would be no use to it if the eggs hatch also in the dark and larvae are not (or far less) light-sensitive as compared to earth worms.
ReplyDeleteI am still not sure how the expected model solution would look like...
But how is the presence of earthworms limiting your container claim? As far as I see it, the earthworms only come into picture when characterizing the compartment which should hold them together with the organic refuse. The same could be said holds for D2, at least for worms in general. Even if earthworms are enough to reestablish novelty over D2, what about IS? Wouldn't the skilled person just make sure that earthworms are retained in the upper compartment of D2 by simply adapting the mesh to have the right cell size? As far as I remember it, there was no definition about typical sizes of larvae and earthworms, although it would have been helpful for answering the paper...
ReplyDeleteI never do paper B, but today I gave it a try. I must say that the paper is very sloppily drafted. Reference numbers (8a) that are not in the drawings, reference signs (11, 5) that are in the drawings but do not point to features, suggested amendments that were not highlighted, highlighted words that were not amended. You'd expect that such errors are detected when doing a test run or proof read.
ReplyDeleteSubstantively, I didn't really like it either. It is difficult to find a balance between broad protection (as requested by the client or on your own initiative) and 123(2). In practice that can be solved with good fall-back positions, but I guess that's not how the exam works.
I also feel bad about wanting to add a limitation that I consider necessary for inventive step when the client doesn't want it in the claim. In practice you can discuss with your client and/or risk a further round of discussion with the EPO. Not here, of course.
I did like how short the prior art documents were. It would have been nice to see some of those in C this year.
The third party observations didn't appear very relevant. I wouldn't worry about those too much. It looks like an unnecessary addition to a paper that already had enough issues to deal with.
I'll leave it to my Paper B colleagues to publish a possible answer. I hope mine looks a little bit like theirs.
“Paper B will have the same character as before”.... not!!!!
Delete“Paper B will have the same character as before”.... not!!!!
ReplyDelete“Paper B will have the same syllabus and character as before”.... not!!!!
ReplyDelete“Paper B will have the same character as before”.... not!!!!
ReplyDelete“Paper B will have the same syllabus and the same
ReplyDeletecharacter as before”.... not!!!!
I am upset. This was not what was promised. “Paper B will have the same character as before” it said in the Notice on the Schedule... but not! Not at all. And many errors in the paper, amendments not even indicated correctly nor completely, to obscure the paper even more. What can we do? Appeal?
ReplyDeleteNo model solution from dp available yet?
ReplyDeletePlease refer to our "Paper B e-EQE 2021: The jury is still out" blog, and feel invited to comment to our answer and our comments thereto:
Deletehttps://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html
Agree with you Claude! Paper was very different in style and legal concept tested, despite promise made in ‘ Information on the schedule for the EQE 2021 examination papers ‘ that it would have the same character. Quote:
ReplyDelete“ Paper B - 4 March 2021
Paper B will have the same syllabus and character as before. Paper B lasts 3.5 hours.
Candidates will be allowed to print the prior-art documents and the drawing(s), but none of the following: the description and claims of the application, the EPO communication, the client's letter and the amended claims. The documents allowed for printing will be made available approximately ten minutes before the start of the examination.”
I fully agree!
ReplyDeleteNot suitable at all with not all docs available on paper and not being able to see multiple docs side by side.
It was like driving in the dark with just a weak torch light, while we needed our head lights!
I hope the Committee sees the light when marking.
The client preferred not to include the water absorbing material. He didn't say anything about the floating layer. Claim 2 had the floating layer with no absorbing material.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the paragraph “The size of the drain holes may be adjustable to allow active control of the moisture”, this appears to me to be unclear as there is no disclosure in the application as to how the size of holes can be adjusted. An EPO examiner would always request that structural limitations be introduced to quantify this term.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the following passage “The lower compartment (4) may be removable, allowing the upper compartment (3) to be placed directly on soil, so that the excess moisture drains into the soil”, I am not even sure this is compatible with the containers in the Figures. Figure 2 clearly shows the upper and lower edges of the lower compartment. Underneath the lower compartment is the container base. Thus, if the lower compartment were removed would the upper compartment not simply rest on the base of the container. There is no disclosure in the spec to indicate that the lower compartment forms the base of the container. Also the base of the container appears to be solid (well it is a container). Thus, how can the upper container be located directly on the soil.
So to clarify (in view of my above post) I do not believe there is basis for removing the lower compartment from claim 1 when including features from the embodiment disclosed in Figure 2 (i.e. the spray).
ReplyDeleteMy take on the invention is that you simply have a device where you add water to the top and allow water to exit from the upper compartment via the holes. The spray connected to the water container would provide a slow regular amount of water to the device. In effect the user could use different sized containers to provide a known amount of water, or simply fill the container to different levels. Thus, user could then go away and let the container do its thing over a period of time via slow drip gravity feeding. This seems to tie in with the following advantage disclosed in the spec “A container according to the invention requires minimum skill in its operation and little operator involvement in the composting process”.
In contrast, the spray of D2 is connected to a tap which would provide a pressurised source of water and unknown quantity of water, which would involve the user turning the tap on and off regularly whilst checking the moisture content regularly. In any event the skilled person would turn to D2 as it is used to clean the device and there is no teaching of using the spray whilst the container is in use.
Doesn’t your reasoning only apply to the method? For the device claim, the cleaning device of D2 is suitable for moisturizing the refuse, even if this use is not explicitly disclosed in D2.
DeleteI totally agree to your solution and arguments, i have used exactly the same. For me the term "removable" does not indicate that the lower compartment can be completely removed. Also agree on your arguments regarding the difference between the tap and the container.
DeleteSuitable for use is kind of a novelty argument. D2 doesn’t disclose a water container only a tap. I also amended claim 1 to include a moisture detector to provide further distinction over D2 in case there was any issue that the tap could be considered a container. Probably should have left the moisture detector out however.
DeleteIn my opinion D1 is the closest prior art for ind claims 1 and 4 as D2 does not disclose preparing a fertiliser. Thus starting from D1, even if D2 is suitable for use, the skilled person would not turn to this as there is no indication to use the spray in D2 for this purpose. In fact, D2 teaches away from adding water to the container when in use.
My arguments are by no means certain. I think the point is that I don’t think anybody, even having read the paper now available on-line, is sure that their answer is correct. This is unheard of for this exam. If you cant obtain a definite answer under non-exam conditions, how are we suppose to do this in 3.5 hours.
sorry "would *not turn to D2"
ReplyDeleteI have also attended various DP courses, both last year and this year for refreshing.
ReplyDeleteBut this exam was different, nothing seemed to work.
DELTA PATENTS, please help us pointing the flaws of this paper to the Examination Committee. Please !
If D2 had just referred to a tap I would agree with the above comment that it does not disclose a water container. But D2 explicitly refers to a water tap. This gives the tap the function of providing water. The water supply to the water tap will be stored in a water container that is connected to the water tap. D2 therefore directly and unambiguously discloses implicitly the feature "connected to a water container".
ReplyDeleteA claim specifying "connected to a water container" does not limit how the water spraying device is connected to the water container. It would therefore cover the water spraying device being connected to the water container by a valve, such as a water tap. I therefore agree that it was necessary to include a moisture detector with a display to be novel over D2.
Our (first) answer is posted in a separate blog post: "Paper B e-EQE 2021: The jury is still out" (link below).
ReplyDeleteIn that blog post we indicate:
This year’s paper B was very difficult. The client's wishes and proposed amendments could scarcely be reconciled with the disclosure of the application as filed. Even among DP's experienced attorneys and tutors, this year’s paper led to dramatically different solutions.
Although it was promised that "Paper B will have the same syllabus and character as before", Paper B looked different in design from previous years. This year’s candidates were confronted, for the first time, with third-party observations, a computer-implemented invention (or not?), and client's claims with unusual (and incomplete) tracking of changes. In particular, the accumulation of these issues appears to have placed a very high burden on the candidates.
So far, we have been able to draw up several "solutions", each of which has its strengths and shortcomings - both in the light of meeting the wishes of the client, as well as good defensibility against the requirements of Art. 123(2), and with a clear narrative for the problem-solution approach.
For that reason, we present, for the first time, several proposals for amended claims, and our considerations thereof in that separate blog post.
Please refer to our "Paper B e-EQE 2021: The jury is still out" blog, and feel invited to comment to our answer and our comments thereto:
https://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html
We have been struggling too. Please refer to our "Paper B e-EQE 2021: The jury is still out" blog, and feel invited to comment to our answer and our comments thereto:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html
We have been struggling too. Please refer to our "Paper B e-EQE 2021: The jury is still out" blog, and feel invited to comment to our answer and our comments thereto:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html
We have been struggling too. Please refer to our "Paper B e-EQE 2021: The jury is still out" blog, and feel invited to comment to our answer and our comments thereto:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html
I would like to express my regret that this new online browser configuration was not taken into account for paper B. On-screen reading of important parts of the assignment, the need to jump back and forth separate documents within one big single PDF file, associated with very limited editing options was quite cumbersome and took a lot of extra time. The 3.5 hours given were too short considering the extraordinary difficulties. It should have been realized that 7 pages of application docs including 3 independent claims with numerous amendments by the client would require an extensive added subject-matter assessment. The fact that you could print the 4 prior art documents (3 + TPO) was welcome but couldn't compensate for the longer time needed for checking the application for amendments by analysing the client's letter in combination with the client's amendments, one at a time on a single screen. The time lost could not be used for the more important inventive step reasoning, which is considered the core of the exam. It was probably not the best choice to increase the difficulty of the added subject-matter part this year, when already the task of navigating through different parts of a document on a screen is an obstacle in itself.
ReplyDeleteMe as an examiner, would never allow the spraying means.. yes it is ridiculous, and the proposed delta solution just says the water comes from a tank..
ReplyDeleteHey i did the same didnt care about the client. As a patent examiner I would have never allowed the spraying for inventive step. if you need water then you add water, from a tap a tank or a swimming pool
ReplyDeleteMock 2 was sooo easy. I also deleted claim 6 and I am al electronics patent examiner so no worries you are not alone. I hate CII.
ReplyDeleteHi Mercedes, as examiner, don’t you need to use the problem-solution approach too, as we do? In the exam as well as in your daily job?
ReplyDeleteI will not comment on the technical difficulty of the paper but on the concept of the e-EQE:
ReplyDeleteThe e-EQE interface was not fit for purpose for paper B. I found it quite OKish for the other papers, but not for B: It was impossible to view and compare the proposed amendment with the original application, and I lost too much time doing manual copying/annotations that would have not been necessary or straightforward in a paper-EQE. They have to think of a better solution for next year (2 viewing panes next to each other?), or to enable to print more of the material.
Came back to the post almost 1 year later to look. This was a horrible test, but I passed (with a 50). It seems the marking was more relaxed, but not relaxed enough for a COVID first e-EQE exam that had a terrible Paper B.
ReplyDelete