Paper B Online EQE 2022: 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?
Did you have enough time?
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. 2019 and 2021 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?
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?
The paper and our answers
We will upload the paper and the core of our answers once we received a copy of the paper.
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 15-03-2022 15:15"), 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!
Easy. First half of claim 6 plus saying that there is a biasing force to push the axles along the slots.
ReplyDeletedid you consider the baising force.... to be essential
Deleteu dont need the biasing force in the claim, I guess, it was not that easy as u consider.
DeleteI don't understand these candidates being first to comment that a paper was easy, without even reading the answers from other candidates and thus not being able to compare/know that they actually had the right answers.
Deletethis should be the same guy who commented on paper A as first comment "easy". Just ignore. :)
DeleteI also considered it easy. Which means that I considered it easy while I was doing it. But it does not mean that my answer is correct. I may have overlooked the difficulties. It may be a bad fail.
DeleteI choose to incorporate the first half of claim 6 in to claim 1 including claims 4+5, as I did not consider the proposed claim to be novel nor invention in relation to the claim suggested by the client.
ReplyDeleteDo you remember the wording of claim 5? I am drawing a blank.
DeleteMe too. I dropped the feature of the pully moving freely as suggested by the client.
Deletelet me elaborate. I choose the wording of the clients claim and did incorporate the first part of claim 6, I did consider if there was basis for the part stating that the pullyes can rotate freely, it seems that only D1 [006] has this statement
DeleteDo you remember the wording of claim 5? I am drawing a blank.
ReplyDeleteYou can view the exam you handed in tomorrow.. so there is no need to create a blank today ;)
DeleteYou can already download your answer from Wiseflow now, if you want.
DeleteFound it very tough and long :((( so gutted
ReplyDeleteI went with first half of claim 6 + some other stuff similar to what the client said.
ReplyDeleteWould it have been novel and inventive to just include that the elastic means is located within the footplate?
Novel, maybe, but no idea what the technical effect would be (I considered the same). I also included claim 4 and 5 and the first half of claim 6 into claim 1. There were so many hints towards this, mostly in the letter of the client.
Deletethe elastic means are protected and cannot break so easy. In D1 the elastic bands are in continuous friction with the ground and can break more easy
DeleteBut it lacks essential features, as it is not clear how the ground plate can fold if the elastic band is in the footplate (see D2). If the elastic band is in the footplate, the further features are necessary.
DeleteSo, not as bad as 2021?
ReplyDeleteNope, this definitely felt to be much easier. I was constantly feeling is it really that easy or am I missing to see something? Hopefully it is the former. But really it just felt to be very easy. I am still kind of dreading to be to be proved wrong though - as it cant be that easy!!
Deletesame here
DeleteEasier than 2021 (because today test has sense) but for me that I'm Chemist It Has Been too Engineering (many pieces, techo features, partes and numbers) and for that reason awful and complicated. But I guess for a mechanical engineer it had to be easy or affordable at least.
DeleteClient seemed somewhat competent, except for one suggestion which was specifically pointed out in the letter along the lines of "if you consider this bad *winkwink*, please go with claim 6 (two options), but do not use one of the options for the main claim *winkwink*).
DeleteThis allowed the letter to be taken in good faith, also with regards to technical effect, which had support in the application, so no issue with the pending referral T0116/18...
I think the plethora of D-decisions relating to B-2021 being a "bad" B-paper may have had some effect, but this is speculation. Some passages in the prior art, especially D2, seemed like an afterthought though. They more or less said "by the way, it is impossible to combine these two embodiments, we tried, it doesn't work".
https://giphy.com/gifs/disneyplus-disney-wandavision-wanda-vision-6ra84Uso2hoir3YCgb/fullscreen
first half of claim 6 + upper and lower plate with the pulleys located between the two plates
ReplyDeletePaper was very technical for a chemist
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree. I am from EM background and I also had to take some time to understand the structures. I can imagine that it must have been tough for non-EM folks. In fact, this thought crossed my mind even during the exam.
DeleteI thought this too - tbh I thought this was more EM than many of the old pre-2017 E/M papers I did as practice (I'm a chemist). I think many will have found it difficult.
Deleteagreed
DeleteThe exam was too hard for candidates not having a mechanics background. I do not understand why the examination committee can´t make an exam that would be fair to all the candidates...
DeleteTotally agree
DeleteI am chemist - super technical paper for a chemist... of course some guidance was provided by the client's letter - but very difficult to argue IS... honestly it feels very hard to prepare for such a mechanical paper when you are from a very different technical field..
DeleteI am a mechanical engineer and this was right up my alley. But it was obvious even to me that today's paper was waaay too mechanical. Not a problem when you're used to this from the job (I don't have to look up what a pulley on an axle slidable in a slot is, what it does and how it works), but reading all of the above, I can only try to imagine how mad I would be if I had to tackle the chemical equivalent of this exam ��. On one of the practice papers, I spent like 15 minutes trying to figure out if silicone is a polymer or not - and I imagine today's exam was worse than this for chemists.
Deletesame here. the paper was too mechanical and technical for me as a chemist. spent a lot of time to understand the paper and not enough time for writing full basis for amendments and detailed inventive step attack.
DeleteDid anyone keep the comprising amendment? I thought that the basis was no good because of the dependency on claim 2.
ReplyDeleteYes, same here
DeleteDoes anybody remember claim 6?
ReplyDeleteattaching means comorising guiding slots, axels connected to a joint, and expansioncontrol means
Delete@ AnonymousMarch 15, 2022 1:17 pm Thanks a ton!
DeleteActually, I intended to ask about claim 5! :(
If you happen to remember that too, would be grateful.
most important thing to include was that the axles were connected to some of the joints?
ReplyDeletei think so too, in view of D3, which doesn't even have joints
DeleteI did the first half of claim 6 and claims 4 and 5 as suggested by client - this is novel over D1 by the slots in the footplate not deck and the axles being attached to the joints - provides a more robust but movable attachment. D2 teaches this is very hard to do and D3 not even a foldable deck so not relevant
ReplyDeleteOh and left out the freely moving pulley feature - doesn't help distinguish over D1.
Deleteexactly the same. thanks for the reassurance anonymous.
Deletedid the same :)))
DeleteYes, I also did this: Claim 4 and 5 as suggested by client + first part of claim 6. Did not include the free moving pulles that the client sugested.
Deletesame conclusions on my part. 4+5+ first half of 6. Left out the freely rotating pulleys even if there was a basis in [006]. The free rotation was not part of the original claims and not being objected to by the examiner under Art. 84, so i figured he did not consider it essential.
DeleteI also did the same :-)
DeleteOriginal claim 4 was dependent on claim 2 and 3. So you can not simply take claim 4 (and 5) into claim 1. I found it difficult to argue why it is possible. What do you think?
DeleteI did not include the features of claim 2 ( shapes) since the description said in two psragraphs that other shapes are possible as well
Deletedid the same :)))
ReplyDeleteThe paper was tricky in terms of basis for amendments. e.g. three point essentiality test and method steo to strutural feature conversion.
ReplyDeleteI did not use essentiality test, only argued intermediate generalization (multiple times :-))
DeleteWhat was your reason for not choosing 3.2.1 Intermediate generalisations
Deletei argued similarly re: deletion of feature from previous claim 6, but in hindsight should have argued intermediate generalisation. do you think i will get any marks for basis? the arguments are similar..
DeleteVery technical and mechanical this time. There will be a lot of chemists resitting next year!
ReplyDeleteDid anyone notice that D2 incorporated D1 by reference?
yes but still teaches away so not closest prior art as the purpose should be assesed only in terms of the deck only as they didnt find a way to combine the deck of d2 and the footplate of d1.
DeleteSurely it wouldn't be considered an enabling disclosure? D2 literally says its not possible to combine them...
DeleteRE7458 - yes I think it is clearly not enabling for a snowshoe - maybe enabling for the deck itself but not the full shoe comprising the deck.
DeleteI am chemist... I feel like I have a ticket for the next year paper B! Very technical paper! It was quite difficult for me to follow/understand how the invention works... it feels very unfair... why has the examination committee not balanced the paper from mechanical and chemical aspects???
Deletewhat about includng elastoc means connected to the footplate? In D1 is in the deck
ReplyDeleteI do not use the first-half wording of claim 6 while took "something" from specification (related to the info. by client, differences from D1 and D3). I consider that claim 6 as a whole is one embodiment and there is no disclosure for only taking half. :(
ReplyDeleteI just added that pulleys are fixed to the footplate.
ReplyDeleteI did something similar and I maintained claim 6 but with the correct new clams dependence.
Deleteclient in the letter remarked this difference in view D1
Really... but that wasn't the case!!
DeleteI agree with Joris: the incorporation by reference means that all the features of D1 and D2 can be combined for novelty.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, separate embodiments in prior art are separate prior art. D2 does not disclose an embodiment having the new deck with a footplate...
DeleteI agree with AV - D2 specifically says that it does not work with the footplate.
DeleteI think Shelia/Joris are right: GL G-IV 8: cross references between prior-art docs. Says teaching of one is incorporated into the other. Only of importance is date of earlier doc. In this case both docs available before the filing date.
DeleteSure, there is perhaps an argument that D2 discloses the features of D1, but this would mean that it discloses D1 in a first embodiment and in a separate embodiment discloses the specific foldable deck of D2. The two are absolutely, explicitly, 100% non-combinable. This could not really have been said any clearer in D2.
DeleteThe "disclosure" of D1 in D2 is not different in any way than the disclosure of D1 itself, so treating this reference to D1 as the closest prior art would make absolutely no difference.
By reffering to D1, D2 does disclose a snow shoe having all features known from D2. It also discloses a special ground plat - but as a seperate subject to the snow shoe of D1. D2 does not disclose a snow shoe that is any different from that known from D1.
DeleteVery technical subject matter...
ReplyDeleteAlso amended to Claim 4 + Claim 5 + first half of Claim 6, as everything seemed to be hinting that way. I also added that the elastic band is around the pulleys or something of that nature, as otherwise there is nothing in the claim to say how the thing works.
Basis just seemed to take forever, so that inventive step was just a mess, I suspect many will feel like they ran out of time at the end because of: the highly technical subject matter (compared to, e.g. 2019, with some solar cooking and some melting salt...), the unclear amendments (i.e. what is required and what isn't in claim 1), the additional amendments they snuck into claims 2 and 3 and the additional changes to dependencies which each required arguing, and the difficulty of doing it online, without being able to print the most important bits of the exam paper.
should have left out rubber band. Other elastic materials are possible according to the desc.
DeleteI don't have the paper in front of me, but is there basis for just leaving the elastic means as elastic means but incorporating the specifics of claim 6, first half? Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4. In the description, the general description seemed to imply that the elastic band is always present when you have the pulley arrangement. So I suspected that leaving out the elastic band is added matter.
DeleteI have claim 1+ claim 5+ first part of claim 6 too, elastic band is stated as a preferred embodiment in the description.
DeleteI was undecided about the elastic band, but it was want the client wanted and I thought better to be on the safe side and be a little bit too narrow.
DeleteI agree BJM - I did the same check on whether we could leave out the rubber band but since client was happy to limit to it and I felt the risk of A123(2) higher than being a bit too narrow...
Delete@SG Paragraph [004] of the application did not mention the elastic band as a preferred embodiment, but rather the combination of features present in original claim 1, 4, 5 and fist part of 6.
DeleteAll embodiments further have the elastic band. There is no alternative to the band mentioned anywhere.
I am a biochemist and found the paper very difficult for the amount of features, complexity etc... So for me personally the time was really not enough. I found it honestly more complicated than B 2021 :)
ReplyDeleteI agree, it seems very unfair. At least in B2021 it was easy for most to understand how the thing worked, if not clear what they wanted as amendment.
DeleteYes, that's exactly what I mean, I spent way too much time just figuring out the invention trying not to overlook important features/functioning. A flop for me, see you next year Paper B :D
Deleteagreed
DeleteI agree. I have a background in chemistry. I do not understand why the examination committee can´t make an exam that would be fair to all the candidates...
DeleteI am chemist... why has the examination committee not balanced the paper from mechanical and chemical aspects???
DeletePapers B 2021/2019 were doable for candidates having either mechanical or chemical backgrounds! Not anymore this year! Very unfair!!!
I am a native English speaker and I think that both paper A and B would have been pretty difficult in certain aspects if you were not a native speaker.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how many of my non-native speaker friends would know what "gait" means in the context of D1 in the B paper and I, myself, didn't know what flocs were in Paper A.
In paper B I don't think this was particularly critical, but there were loads of things in paper A that were horribly written. As such, I am still of the opinion that the claims that they seem to have wanted (see the deltapatents model solution for A) would not fulfil Art 84 EPC in my opinion (Art 84 is very subjective)
Hi James, I am not a native speaker and I can tell you that I spent most of my time checking the dictionary. Even the B paper of last year was much more easier to understand for a non native speaker. If you add on top of that the subject-matter was too mechanical for a chemist, this was a guaranteed fail for me.
DeleteGiven the solutions I am seeing above I agree this was a reasonably easy exam. The desired result as I saw it was 1+4+5 plus the first half of 6, ignoring the characterising portion of the clients proposal. It appeared so well signposted that I spent a good 10 minutes panicking there was another "hidden" amendment that could be found.
ReplyDeleteEasy for a mechanical trained person. For a chemist, there were so many numbers on the figures that I nearly fainted!
DeleteDitto for me! If I the solution is indeed 1+4+5 plus the first half of 6, this jumped right out right after reading the application and D1-D3. It was the most straightforward thing. As I said somewhere above, I am still kind of dreading someone coming and telling me that that wasnt the right solution and I missed to take into account something nicely hidden somewhere in those 20 odd sheets. Actually, the reason for my doubt was I have been trained with this mindset that the amendments will not simply come from the claims, you need to get them the description. Here it was just so incredibly straightforward that it kept feeling too good to be true!
DeleteI agree that the subject-matter is very EM for supposedly neutral papers post-2016 - e.g. look at the E/M papers of 2016, 2015, 2013 etc - much simpler and these were only for E/M candidates... However also agree that the client letter (at least appears to) signpost an answer by explicitly saying you can take stuff from claim 6 - the Communication also does this by only "noting" things for claim 6 rather than making a formal objection under A56...
DeleteI saw one alternative soltion. It would have been possible, to specify the ground plate in claim 1 as to deviate form that of D1 but match that of D2. Claim 1 would then overcome the technical prejudice of D2 and thus be inventive.
DeleteHowever, I decided against and instead went with 1 + 4 + 5 + half of 6 because imo it fits the clients wishes best.
Typing this however, I recognize that the ground plate specified according to D2 would have resulted in a broader claim.
I see where you are coming from here, but I feel that such a claim would be missing an essential feature, since it is only through using the feature of the first half of 6 that would actually enable you to combine D1 and D2.
Delete@James unfortunatley, i don't have the claims on hand anymore, but given you're right I'm more than happy i didnt took the gamble to go with the ground plate features...
DeleteAlso, in past exams it was quite common that the client's claim did lack one essential feature and had one included that wasn't originally disclosed. I dont remember any exam, where the client's suggestion was completely off with respect to the solution the examiners wanted to see.
Are you sure you're a native speaker? This is the B Blog not the A and/or B Blog ! :-))
ReplyDeleteDo you think that it was necessary to specify that elastic element is elastic band ?
ReplyDeleteYes I do. You probably also added the pullies to amended claim 1, which are only disclosed in conjunction with the elastic band.
DeleteI didn't. I think the elastic band is said as a preferred embodiment?
DeleteIt is, but that paragraph continues to state that the specific interaction between elastic band and pulleys makes the invention function the way it does. So I think there is no reasonable way to argue that the pulley system can be claimed without the elastic band.
DeleteThere is some general "elastic means" to interact with pulley.
DeleteTough exam tbh.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone change "made of a material like polyvinyl acetate and/or polyethyl acetate"? I thought it was argubaly unclear, but the Examiner did not object and I couldn't see an alternative that didn't add matter, therefore I left it in
ReplyDeleteI noticed this too, but decided that I shouldn't go solving things that weren't objected (much like you did). For the EQE you are told never to put optional features into claims, but in practice it happens all the time...
DeleteFingers crossed they weren't being extra sneaky with this one...
i did!
DeleteAs above, I noted it, but If the examiner isn't complaining who am I to amend.
DeleteDid anyone else close out claim 1 with the features thereby allowing folding and unfolding of the folding plate in conjunction with claims 4 and 5 and 6. I saw this sentence with the pulleys so thohght I'd put in, hope not too many makrs lost.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I know client didn't ask for more claims but did anyone else add a claim where tiles are strip shapes, which had basis?
it's a valid claim, sure, but I don't think they will award any marks for this, given the statement "no extra claims". I doubt you would lose any marks either though - they may just ignore this claim for marking (just guessing here, though)
DeleteYes, i added a functional feature to claim 1. I dont remember my wording but i took it directly from the description right after where the axes connected to the joints were mentioned.
DeleteI added an additional independent claim - as the client just stated that he does not wish another dependent claim :)
DeleteI went for a method of adjusting the width of the board, as the description was very specific on that... i don't know if this is correct however... i just felt like there has to be something else...
I added a functional feature to claim 1 as otherwise the claim made no sense because the structural relationship between components was totally unclear - although I suspect for the purposes of the exam, that was a mistake and will be penalised...
Delete@123 - I was leaning in this direction too but decided against it. It is a constant struggle in B (as well as A) where to draw the line between thinking just enough to keeping the exam committee happy by giving them what they want and overthinking things. Here I also strongly wanted to add a "such that..." clause talking about expansion and contraction but then ultimately decided that it might be a bit of overthinking - and a such that clause may not always really constitute a limitation but fall into result to be achieved and then cause clarity problems - so all in all, I decided against that.
Delete@curious
DeletePretty sure you made the right call here, and I didn't. But I also expect it won't be punished too harshly because, as you say, it doesn't really limit the claim overly... I think I avoided result to be achieved... But we'll have to wait and see.
sorry guys, do you incorporate Claim 2 too when you considering introduce claims 4 and 5, because claim 4 is dependent on claim claim 2 or 3.
ReplyDeleteThe aplication as filed makes it clear that this doesn't need to be the case ([006] and [013]) so there is valid basis in the description for leaving this feature out. This will take a while to explain in the Art 123(2) section, but this is definitely not an amendment that you absolutely have to make (in my opinion).
DeleteMy thoughts too. I added basis as being claims 4 and 5 and those paragraphs. in reality i think it is the paragraphs that gice the real basis - similar to the cover layer of the previous fuse application. I was caught in a muddle and didn't explain my basis properly hence giving the claims and the paragraphs as basis
DeleteAgreed, I think it was expected to state the unrelated technical effects and the specific passages stating that it is not essential to the invention. I might have been a bit sloppy there and mushed this all together, stating it's not an intermediate generalization because blah..., see para xy...
DeleteIf memory serves, para [004] gave literal basis for the combination of original claims 1, 4 and 5 (without the features of 2/3). So I think for the limitation to 4/5, you didn't need to provide a whole lot of arguments for leaving out 2/3 (unlike claim 6).
Deletemy amended claim 1 specified that the footplate comprised upper and lower plates providing a guiding slot for each pulley. A fatal error or not anybody?
ReplyDeleteWorst case scenario is that would be an unnecessary ammendment I think (so long as you have support - I presume this is supported). In this case you might lose a few marks, but I would think it is unlikely to be a fatal mistake.
DeleteBest case scenario is you saw something that everyone else (myself included) missed.
fingers crossed then. thanks.
DeleteI thought about this too, but did not find specific enough support. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just felt too hot.
DeleteAmendment might have been possible based on very general Fig. 2, which described the two plates but not much else, but I still decided against it for time reasons and to not create any potential "missing essential features"-problems...
In the real world, I have to try stuff like that sometimes, pick-and-choose from the figures and hope nobody wants to start opposition based on 83 or 123(2) stating "unworkable intermediate generalization". Dangerous in mechanics, very not recommended for CI-stuff and chemistry...
I also added into claim 1 the upper and lower plates as it has the advantage of keeping the elastic means from external damage and therefote it is more robust. I linked the upper and lower plates with rest of claim 1 by saying that the pulleys are located between the upper and lower plates. If anything, it will be an unnecessary limitation and will result in a 3 to 5 mark deduction at worst. But better to be safe than sorry.
DeleteThe invention was very technical. Made it extremely difficult for me as a biologist to argue inventive step over D1 even though it seems that I made the right amendments.
ReplyDeleteWell, an invention is only an invention as such and thus patentable if it is technical. So either your wording is inaccurate or you failed to understand the very basics, which both would render it fair for you to fail the paper.
Delete#sorrynotsorry
Anonymous March 15, 2022 3:00 pm
Delete=
giant nincompoop. Why would you say that?
what a horrible comment #sorrynotsorry! Please be more constructive.
Deletethat's quite a brutal and harsh comment - seems like someone got out of the wrong side of the bed. Don't know why anyone would think it fair to say it's fair for someone to fail considering how tough these exams are.
DeleteThe candidate didn't call for such a brutal reaction!
I consider every Anonymous the same person.
DeleteAnonymousMarch 15, 2022 2:55 pm:
DeleteI think inventive step arguments themselves, provided you chose D1 as closest art (which I hope is correct, because I did so too), probably did not award too many points.
Technical effect / problem to be solved / could/would for this paper was difficult for me too, and I relied on the pointers by the client.
My claim 1 being 1 + 4 + 5 + 1st half of claim 6, I went with two effects, one being bonus, in that the elastic member is not exposed to ground and that the mounting at the joints ensued that the flaps would not touch. Synergy towards making the shoe more robust (problem).
Even with the general PSA of "how to provide a different type of snow shoe", one should have been able to get some points, imho.
@AV: I agree with your last sentence. In my opinion the solution was so different from D1 that it has to be considered inventive, even if the technical problem is formulated as the provision of an alternative to D1.
DeleteFor me, (organic chemist) an exam that was too difficult. I have a impresion that I have made the right amendments to the claims. However, I primarily based on the client´s letter rather than on my own understanding of the Specification. my discussion of inventive acitvity is consequently weak (or at least as I did in the previous exams I practiced). Summerizing...I guess I'll have to try again next year. Mist!
ReplyDeleteYou can still pass if you made the right amendments. I think most candidates will have a rather weak IS argumentation due to lack of time. There is rarely sufficient time for the elaborate IS argumentation as thought in the methodology courses such deltapatents (that's my openion at least but I might be wrong). Anyway, stay positive as you need the confidence for paper C on Thursday.
Deleteyes, of course you are right and hope is the last thing to be lost. I habe not done a methodology course, but I assume, you are right. Further...my problem was not the methodology but the Understanding of the subject matter :-)
DeleteI hope to have on Thursday, at the end of the mexamen, a better feeling. Good luck !
Do you know how much points they award for amendments?
DeleteI think about 30 points.
DeleteI agree, it was too complex, but also they gave too many hints because they knew that it's too complex. This is ridiculous! It was only about understanding all of these hints and reading and writing quickly. I could not finish...
ReplyDeleteDo you think they originally didn't have the hints, had people test the exam, and then realised they needed a lot of hints to the answer as no time to completely change it...?
Deleteyes, seems like a pre-2017 mechanical exam with some hints.
DeleteI believe they don't give a goddamn fck about who and how many passes.
DeleteThe exam was probably even easier for a Chemist who did not bother to understand the content and just followed the hits than for someone with mechanics/electronics background who first tried to understand everything and then read the hints and ran out of time as a consequence.
Deletehappend here..... I was so busy understanding, that time has been gone too fast...
Delete@Anonymous 3:21 pm: Believe me, also a person without a degree in engineering will try to find out how this thing works in detail.
DeleteI have a degree in engineering but I did find it hard to find out how this thing worked in detail.
DeleteSo I gave up to try to understand it. And decided to follow what the client's letter said, and check that against the communication. Both gave clear hints and guidance. I did not understand the claim set that resulted, but I think I managed to meet the wishes from the client and to overcome the objections raised. Hope I did it good enough to score 50+.
DeleteOk, my approach not in the comments so far... I did claim 1 as combi of 1+4+5+first part of 6 + joints movalby joined to footplate. This was in the description twice stressed as "has to be" in the arrangement with the pulleys and things now in claim 1. Also letter and effects in description stressed robustness while movable connection between footplate and deck.
ReplyDeleteI did not allow "and/or" in claim 2, only the original "and" . I allowed comprised in claim 3. I changed derpendencies in 2-5 to allow all preceding claims. I also changed elastic means for elastic element in claim 1.and I allowed detachable. As problem over ćpa i used the combi of more robust and flexible connection. Uffff...
I think you did well (or at least, I hope so, as I have similar amendments). I'm not sure regarding the joints, as it appears to be implicit that if the pulleys are attached to joints, and the pulleys can slide along the slots, that they would be movable. But I doubt many marks will be lost. I did exactly the same regarding the dependent claims as you. CPA was D1, and the combination of more robust and at the same time flexible connection was also my objective technical problem so... fingers crossed. Good luck!
DeleteThere was support for "or" in claim 2, which is what I chose (iirc, my brain is mush, might be confusing this with the consisting of/comprising claim).
DeleteI remember thinking about potential clarity issues with "and" and a segment not being able to have the two shapes at once... Which is a non-issue, since we have segmentS. Eventually went with it only because of "or" being broader, and the client wanted it.
Also, I thought the joints being moveable was implicit from claim 1 in that the axles are joined to the joints, and themselves moveable.
Another point, I did detachable, but in combination with "spring and (the other thing - button?)". Seemed essential and had no further support other thank "known in the art"...
DeleteI did the same amendment @Agnes re: the joints being movably attached to the footplate. Fingers crossed not too many marks lost.
DeleteI followed this exact same approach @Agnes.
DeleteMy amended claim 1 was the following:
ReplyDelete1. A snowshoe comprising a foldable deck (1), a footplate (2) and a binding (3), wherein the deck (1) is composed of tiles connected by joints (6) movably attached to the footplate (2), and the footplate (2) comprises an [elastic means] elastic element (7) for contracting the foldable deck (1) and attaching means (8, 9, 10) for attaching the foldable deck (1) to the footplate (2)[.];
wherein the elastic element (7) comprises an elastic band (7);
wherein the attaching means (8, 9, 10) comprises pulleys (8) for guiding the elastic band (7); and
characterised in that the attaching means (8, 9, 10) further comprises guiding slots (9) in the footplate (2) and axles (10) of the pulleys (8) configured to slide in the guiding slots (9), each axle (10) being attached to a joint (6).
My concern is that I did not provide substantial enough arguments in favour of inventive step.
Inventive step carries alot of marks! more than amendments
DeleteNot if amendment is wrong.
DeleteDoes the attaching means in D1 comprise pulleys? The claim requires that the footplate comprises the attaching means - hence the attaching means comprising pulleys must mean that the footplate comprises the pulleys. As such, I think the pulleys should also be in the characterising portion. But maybe that just shows that I never use 2-part form when doing work...
ReplyDeleteI agree. Attaching means comprising pulleys must mean that the footplate comprises the pulleys, so new versus D1.
DeleteI did not bother about two-part form.
How did you correct the last claim?
ReplyDeleteUsed detachable as proposed.
DeleteAmended 'claim 5 or 6' to 'any of claims 1-4'.
Did you see a complication?
DeltaPatents provides complete answer on other blog post
Deletehttp://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2022/03/our-attempt-at-e-eqe-paper-b-2022.html
I used the structural features from the description (the communication hinted to that) by including the pivot pin comprising a disconnection means including a spring and a push button.
DeleteI also did the same. I amended the claim by using the pivot pin comprising a disconnection means including a spring and a push button.
DeleteWas the consist to comprise amendment in claim 2 acceptable or not?
ReplyDeletevery funny reaction from the chemists! I felt exactly same as you all! I was so lost in understanding what the holes, grooves, pulleys, were all about, that time just ticked away without an answer. Up till 12:30 I had the amendment 1+4+5+ that the pulley is fixed to the footplate. Then at 12:30 realized I could not find the IS argument, switched to add half of 6. I think I got clarity and novelty right but due to the last minute change only less than half of the basis for amendments and the same for the IS arguments. I'll be lighting candles in the hope of getting 45 points. If I do, I'll act as a B-Paper voluntary candidate until I retire :-)
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else have issues with copy and paste in WiseFlow?
ReplyDeleteIt happened a few times where legacy information I had previously copied was being pasted into the paper. Even when selecting ctrl + C or copying view the copy function that pops up in the view mode and then doing ctrl + V, it would not paste in the latest text I was highlighting and pasting but kept pasting previous material I had copied.
I had to close all tabs and re-open in order for the system to identify the new material being copied - this was so annoying and waste time.
Anyone else experience such an issue? This didn't happen to me during the mocks etc.
Yes, I had that problem and also that I could not read the editor when I opened the assignemnt in a window within the same tab. The helpdesk said it was my hardware at fault. They were mean to me I think.
Delete@Tracey - that doesn't sound too good and I feel for you, ridiculous that they same it was your hardware but quite clearly it is the software at fault - it really does have a mind of its own tbh and really hope they come up with their own that works for what we require rather than using a 3rd party. With all the money the EPO are saving, they can well afford to develop their own system that works for the EQE in my opinion. Hopefully you managed to finish in time given the constraints you were faced with.
Delete@Tracey, I also had a problem with not being able to read what was in my editor when I had the assignment pop up open. The text of my editor was completely blurry. I also contacted the helpdesk but they said that it was a hardware fault on my end and that there was nothing they could do (they were very polite and nice tho). I also talked to a colleague afterwards and they also had the same "blurry" problem. They had a completely different set-up to me, with completely different computer, screen size, network etc.
Deletedid anyone else suffer from this?
@anonymous, I had issues with the text blurring during the mocks as did some other colleagues therefore I doubt it is a system issue and more so the software related. Not sure why it happens but is annoying having to deal with these issues.
DeleteIs paper B still meant for non EM people? Especially for those whose language is not an official language of the EPO? Wasnt it promised that the paper B after the merge of CH with EM would have been technically accessible to everybody? ...This of today was really not. I believe nobody has doubts about this. Likewise, I believe it would have required you at least a basic understanding of mechanical engineering to effectively be able to read the paper and make technical sense of it. Since when are chemists supposed to be tested for something they are not trained for? The aim should be to test your competencies and suitability to practice wehen dealing with an office action. I understand it may be difficult to have a chemistry and EM part. However technically the paper should be neutral as it was promised. Today was really a blow for non EM people, especially for non native speakers ("Gait?!?"). The technical difficulty coupled with the linguistic complexity made it really difficult to read the whole text though and link the features with corresponding technical effect. I hope this will be taken into account during marking.
ReplyDeleteYou are not a well-prepared candidate! I told all of you: you don't need any luck for this exam. Just make sure you did 10000 hours of preparation per week. And as for language, even my puppy dog knows what "gait" means!
DeleteGo on boy, that's right, jump over the gait! Good doggy!
I am chemist as well (and non-native of EPO languages) - thanks for your contribution, it really puts into words all feelings that I am experiencing right now... Today's paper was heavily unbalanced... it felt like a bad joke when I was arguing IS... I did not understand the invention!
DeleteAs the committee knows that today's paper is a blow, they have to add so many hints in the client's letter... I wonder why the committee decided to put an exam like this... anyway, 99% chances I have a ticket for the next year!
Bartismelly I can catch the irony and I, like many others here, have no issue with preparation.
DeleteHowever it is unacceptable that a whole category of people find the B of today technically so difficult and beg for a 45 while EMs find it easy, alone due to the fact that, knowing what a pulley on am axle is, they can read it double as fast.
Better ask Bill Gaits!
ReplyDeleteI am also not nativ epo sprecher. I did not see 2 papers in the flow possibilities. I must to do the EM paper and yes, I am chemist by my training. So please to tell if you must register to enroll on the chemistry paper. My mentor he say that is only 1 paper now but you are telling is still 2 ones for EM an chemie?
ReplyDeleteOnly 1 EM no CH since 2017 unfortunately. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
DeleteIs there cross reference in D2 regarding the teachings of D1?
ReplyDeleteThe Paper was a Nightmare for everyone in the Life science field (chemical, biology etc). There were so many terms which are not of common use for people not involved in the file of mechanichs. It was way top EM oriented. I am a pharmaceutical chemist, how was I supposed to know what pulleys,axles,Pins, slots are? And most importantly how they work? I looked them up in the dictionary and i was not even able to understand their meaning in italian, which Is my native language, because they are sectorial words and phrases, certainly not used by chemists or the like. I am very disappointed, I think we started from a point of disasvantage.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there were just so many technical terms which weren't explained sufficiently and just completely confused things. Not sure how they can fairly mark this.
DeletePlease everybody sharing this opinion regarding the inappropriate technical content do file a complaint such that this is takern into account. The whole category of chemists and life scientists was at clear disadvantage AAND THIS SHOULD NOT BECOME "NORMAL". THE PAPER OF TODAY WAS PURE EM AND IT REQUIRED TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING OF EM!! if you don't want to file a complaint make sure to At least express your opinion in this blog with the hope that it is taken in consideration!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is a great suggestion, do this!
Deletetotally agree
DeleteBiologist.... I felt attacked by the technical content of today's paper B. Understanding the technical effect of each feature was a nightmare. Not sure what the committee thought of when stating that the subject matter should be accessible to everybody. Ridiculous and offensive, independently of the result.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agree with the previous comments that the matter was extremly EM biased. It took me 1.5h to read everything and understand the invention (which is way to long). However the problem in my opinion is not the vast amount of technical information as such, it is simply the short time of 3.5h for the whole paper. For someone not used to EM and a slow typer this is very, very demanding. I was well prepared, (I think), made a stupid unallowable intermediate generalization by omitting the pulleys from claim 1. The rest more or less like in the model claims, BUT my substantiation is a mess, due to the restricted time. I used a lot copy&paste, but still i was not able to put all arguments I had on my mind in the editor. Maybe it is worth to reconsider if an extension of time to 4h would make sense. For me this would be a fair solution for slow typers and folks not so familiar with an EM or CH-biased matter ;-)
ReplyDeleteI also had a problem with time. I knew that what I have to write but didn't have enough time. I kept my inventive step attack relatively short due to lack of time. I spent most of the time in order to understand the invention. I have a chemical background which didn't help me at all. I even used dictionary to understand the meaning of some words like pulley, deck etc. For the basis for the amendments also the same. For writing a letter to EPO, I had really limited time. As a result, I couldn't everything, even though I knew that I have to write
DeleteBut ehy depart from the format of papers B2017 to 2019??????? Their technical content was pretty much ok and really accessible to everybody!!!!?!!!
ReplyDeleteAgree with the above comments however I am not sure whether there is a solution to that.... I am also not sure of whether filing a complaint would help and don't know if that would really be advisable.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there will be a mark for adding in foldable in the line "wherein the foldable deck (1) is composed"...consistency in claim language and all that :p
ReplyDeleteI also closed out claim 1 with the words thereby allowing folding or unfolding of the foldable deck - wonder how many marks will be deducted for this?
I am a biotechnologist. Even if my solutions match with those in this blog, I would like to express my opinion on this paper.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what is the point of making such "wngineering heavy" papers if in reality there is a category of patent attorneys specialized in chemistry or biotechnology. It should be in the EPO's interest to have European patent attorneys specialized in chemistry or biotechnology and it should not be worsen an already heavy situation for a chemical patent attorney who every year is faced with a mechanical paper. Then at this point it would be more appropriate to go back dividing papers by category.
I fully agree, but... how many A and B papers would you need? Just A\E/M and ch as before is also not enough: an electrical engineer for analogue electronics is quite different from a CII person, a mechanical engineer, and a physicist; a classical chemist is quite different from a pharma or biotech chemist, ... so would you need 7 different papers? Previous papers have shown that one-fits-all papers have shown that a 1-fits-all paper is possible - but it is up to the A and B committees to draft such an appropriate paper (and not one like this year's B...). The specialization should (as when there were just two) be covered by the 3-year practical supervision.
DeleteHi, nobody here is saying you need a paper per specialization. A distinction between EM and CH is completely fine. Practice in both areas is quite different even in terms of thinking (I. E does an effect in mecchanics need to be plausible in thd application as filed? Does similar structure necessarily imply similar function in CH?). That said, the format 2017 to 2018 was fine. However in the part two year the clients claims needed to be rendered new and inventive which by definition requires technical understanding of the invention. if you sat the paper you will have appreciated it required some specific practice in the mechanical field, with rather complicated drawings and confusing sub matt in view if the restricted time for all those not working in EM. It must have not been easy for life scientist and chemists.... It does not help making the cvluernt letter more helpful if you still need to struggle understand the logic of the invention or its technical details!!!! My full understanding and symphaty for all non EM candidates.
DeleteTotally agree. Life scientists, chemists or so are strongly penalised. I cannot say that it was "not feasible", but significantly more time was required to understand the paper and drafting proper arguments for someone (like me) not having a mechanical background. Quite a struggle.
DeleteThe comment from "how many?" is ludicrous. Of course a "classical" chemist could deal with "pharma" or "biotech" chemistry... the point here is being able to understand the invention! Last year's composter was an example of an invention which could be understood by ch/em candidates alike. Doesn't mean the paper was easy -in fact it was not, but understanding the invention was not seen as unfair for a sub-group of candidates
ReplyDelete