B 2025: first impressions?
To all who sat the B-paper today:
What are your first impressions with
respect 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 ones of the last few years? Similar
difficulty level? Or harder/easier?
Could you understand the examiner's objections well? And the client's wishes
based on his letter and his proposed amendments? Was the Art.123(2)
argumentation difficult, if any? Clarity? Novelty? Was it clear what the
closest prior art was?
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 the
paper online? 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? Did you struggle with the online format in any way? What was the effect
of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen as only
a part could be printed?
Did you take the exam from your home
or your office? Or somewhere else? How did that work for you?
Did you experience any technical
difficulties during the exam? How and how fast were they resolved? Did you use
the widget to contact the invigilator?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to Candidates concerning the conduct of the
examination , you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper concerned takes place, by filling in the dedicated form on
the EQE website. The Form for paper B is
(only) available on 18.03.2025, 13:00 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post the core our
(provisional) answer shortly after the exam in a separate blog post, as soon as
possible after we have received a copy of the paper, preferably in all three
languages. Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or
to training@deltapatents.com.
Please be reminded that you can view
and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye
below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window
of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official
end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the
pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied
it in full into your exam answer).
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 18-03-2025 14:14"), 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!
Much more reasonable number of pages than 2024 and a large departure from some of the more chemistry-based papers in recent years.
ReplyDeleteOverall not too bad, though I wasted a lot of time going back and forth on my amendments and my inventive step argument was therefore rushed.
For novelty I went with just adding claim 6 to claim 1 (and 11 into 7) and argued this is not an intermediate generealisation because the application as filed explicitly states that the combination is not required and the features may be implemented independently. I did forget to use the exact 2 step process from the guidelines though which is annoying.
I amended the same way.
Delete@Thomas, I'm pretty sure that D3s disclosure of a single transducer and multiple magnets along the axis renders claim 1+6 not novel. I could be wrong though and interested to see what people say. I went with a further amendment of the detector being positioned at the entrance of the passage way.
DeleteI did the same amendment, and then an inventive step argument aimed at the sequential reading giving security/ease of manufacture double benefit which is not hinted at anywhere else (the rotational switch is an alternate solution to the same problem).
DeleteI work mostly with CII, so an electronic control mechanism is much nicer than a ton of chemistry.
My primary concern is the clarity amendment to claim 6/7. I ended up going with magnetic field detector instead of limiting becasue the Hall detector reference for the second embodiment referred back to the first embodiment where they state that Hall detectors are just an example but I'm not sure if it will fly.
what is CPA?
DeleteTo Joël.
DeleteI took the same amendements than the parent. I believe novelty about D3 is won because the system in D3 is not made of separate components. The push buttons in D3 is not disjoined of the box. And when there is a key, it dorsn't have magnets on it.
@ Johanna
DeleteFor the clarity of claim 6/7 I opted for the Hall effect sensor with very similar reasoning, however pointed out that for key cards only hall sensors were described.
I also included claim 6 into claim 1, and claim 11 into claim 7. I thought new claim 1 would thus be novel over D3 since D3 did not disclose sequential reading. While disclosing that the detectors may be fewer than the magnets, there are no indications that the detectors would be able to perform sequential reading, i.e. one detector producing several signals from a plurality of magnets. In any case, I thought the communication provided us hints that claim 6 (albeit omitting the feature of dep. claim 5) would be novel.
DeleteI have trouble choosing the CPA, but in the end I chose D1 as CPA. I just wish I had more time since my I.S argumentation felt super rushed, and I did not have the time to argue for unity. I did the same amendments to address the clarity objections, for the exact same reasons, Johanna.
Just for my knowledge, why claim 7 could not be dependent con claim 1 specifying that the key is in the form of a portable keycard ?
Delete@Joel, That exact point is what I wasted so much time debating with myself. In the end, I decided that "serial reading" as interpreted by the description would be novel over D3 because the one detector multiple magnets of that embodiment of D3 is merely detecting e.g. whether it is A. magnet 1 (open), B. magnet 2 (intermediate), C. magnet 3 (closed) and is not actually comparing the sequence of detections to a pre-determined sequence.
DeleteI decided that putting the detail about how a serial reading worked into claim 1 was unnecessary given the description in the spec, though that was largely due to it looking cumbersome and not because I actually thought it was better not to do that.
I completely agree with you @Thomas.
DeleteMoreover, I used D1 as CPA for claim 1 because D3 is not about a system with a key.
Then it can be pointed out that D3 suggests a solution to the problem of simplifying the manufacturing but the solution does not involve the serial reading (especially the means configured to serially read)
It seemed to me that the paper guided us quite clearly to do this reasonning
@ Thomas and Joel, I got stuck halfway through the paper about this novelty point as well. In the end I decided to err on the caution side and also add that the key is removable from the housing, because I do not think this will significantly restrict the intended scope (I am surprised a push-button was even considered relevant for claim 1, more than the keycard of D2), but should definitely differentiate from the push-button (and also the key-operated rotary disk embodiment, as the rotary disk, rather than the key, has the magnets there). I reserved the arguments as to the consideration of the temporal sequence of information for inventive step. I may have been influenced by having recently done the 2021 B paper, where "non-transparent" was needed to re-establish novelty over an otherwise novelty-destroying (but not relevant) reference.
Delete@Joel: I believe you were wrong. The term "configured to" in CII means that the processing unit is adapted to carry out the serial reading. The microprocessor in D3 is not adapted to do so.
Delete@David : it is said in D3 that you can have one detector "reading" several magnets on the push button, seeming close of the invention. When I spotted this, I almost changed my claim set, but it was too late. I argued that in D3, magnets are never on the key and are not used for spotting a combination among a lot of combinations but for detecting a position among a few number of positions. Well, we'll see.
Delete@Ifig In the description as filed it was made clear that the magnetic detector would be able to process several signals (i.e. serial reading as in a collective reading of several signals and based on that outputting a result, as opposed to reading a signal one by one and after each reading outputting a result one by one. In D3, in my opinion, the latter case is applicable. In the embodiment as view in Fig. 1B (or whatever), the key could measure any positions, closed, open, intermediate or whatever it was, but as I understand it, the system determines in what position the key as soon as the magnet passes the detector. Hence, there is no "serial" reading within the meaning of the description.
DeleteThe above was my reasoning. With that said, it went horrible for me since I spent the majority of time contemplating whether or not I should have limited the claims more, in order to establish novelty over D3. But at the end, I figured C1+C6, C7+C11 was sufficient. Let's hope for the best, and if I fail, I will try to pass next time.
@L:
DeleteI think you make a valid point, but still in doubt...
Why is the microprocessor in D3 not adapted to do serial reading? It is definitely adapted to do reading of multiple signals from the detector detecting magnets placed one after another. The question is if the electric circuit is adapted to do "serial" reading. And then a lot of interpretation comes in to place. In my understanding, the detector is adapted to read the signal of the detector of a plurality of magnets passing the detector. §004 of D3 says "such alternative arrangements make it possible to detect whether the push button is in an open position, a closed position, or any intermediate position (depending on the geometric arrangement and the number of transducers or magnets)".
The part between brackets implies that the geometric arrangement and number of magnets determine the outcome. Therefore, this sequence must be readable by the processor.
The effect of said serial reading (i.e. a specific lock combination or an open/close function) should not play a role for novelty assessment imo?
@Chemist - I think there is some confusion as to what "adapted to do a serial reading" means (or rather, "the circuit being configured to implement a serial reading of the detectors electric signals as the key passes"). D3 is not concerned with, and does not mention a serial reading at all.
DeleteOne way of thinking about it is (maybe I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I hope the analogy both makese sense and is correct), if you were to "ask" the circuitry of claim 1 "did the key we just inserted have magnets at these positions?", it could answer that question, despite not being able to currently sense it. If you tried "asking" the circuit of D3, it wouldn't understand the question and certainly couldn't answer, since it can only answer "where are the magnets currently located?". The passage you quote yourself indicates this very thing, since being able to detect "whether the push button IS in an open position, closed position, or intermediate position" is only concened with current status, not with the development over time.
This makese sense, since D3 is aimed at the field of push-buttons and rotary switches, which have no need for such functionality (at least such as they are described in D3).
This difference illustrates the difference between the circuit of claim 1 being configured to implement the serial reading, and that the circuit of D3 is not adapted to.
@David : the DeltaPatent correctors do like you and I, ie combining C6+C1 only. We chose this solution but are not very convinced :-) Let's cross fingers!
DeleteToo confusing, incomprehensible in some points.
ReplyDeleteIt was very confusing for me too. I did not get the invention, and I did not manage to finish the paper. I only manage to argue untill Novelty
DeleteLiked the subject but ran out of time.
ReplyDeleteI deleted claim 7 and dependent, and added special detector 37 configured for serial detection. Claim amended by client was a wish.
ReplyDeleteIt was a functional feature, which I think is allowable and not a wish claim.
DeleteThe time pressure was much higher than anticipated for me - having to argue for two independent claims each having 3 (somewhat) relevant prior art documents made for a whole lot of text with many opportunities to mess/mix things up (e.g. by referring to the phrasing of claim 1 when talking about claim 7.
ReplyDeleteI solved the novelty by introducing PART OF claims 6 and 11 into claims 1 and 7. Maybe I was too greedy with that but it did state that it was possible to use the serial reading in combination with anything else. I know that it in principle requires less magnets than detectors to be useful, but I still didn't want to exclude any embodiments if not necessary.
I did the same. The serial reading function was not linked to at least 2 detectors. Also one detector can be used. Furthermore, said serial reading function solved the unity problem between both claims
DeleteI argued that there was no unity objection. The part in the description related to miniaturisation described a different embodiment with two consecutive DISCS, not two consecutive MAGNETS as in claim 5.
DeleteSame here, only incorporated the serial reading part. As far as I remember it can work with a single detector and multiple magnets which are already included in claim 1
DeleteI thnink it is the longuest subject since 2021 (maybe longer). 3 pages of claims. it was also quite difficult for me, because I'm specialised in chemistry. Is a complain useful in that case ?
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteNo, you can't complain because of the subject matter.
DeleteThey make a physiological use about complains...
Delete"a physiological use about complains"
DeleteIn English please?
Anonymous 18 march 2025 2:03: That they use complints as toilet paper. Is it much clear now?
DeleteTotally agree. Of the 9 B papers I have done as preparation, this has been the most time pressured of them all.
DeleteI was concerned whether claim 6 alone was enough to get novelty over D3, which states that you can use several magnets and one transducer in [004], so for safety I chucked claim 5 in there too. That wasted a lot of my time (and I'm not sure I made the right call) and my inventive step arguments were also very rushed!
ReplyDeleteAgreed on putting claim 11 into claim 7 though and arguing the intermediate generalisation point.
I had the same problem too. I wasted so much time on that. It was very confusing for me as Chemist!
DeleteThey way I read D3, D3's key-operated rotary switch of §§ 5 to 8 described a non-magnetic key wherein both magnets and transducers (detectors) or situated within the housing.
DeleteFor inventive step i argued a) no motivation to combine and b) no serial reading of magnets on a key/key card possible by arrangement of D3.
The customer say to you that serial reading is very important for him and just following customer does not bring you marks.
DeleteToo less time to finish.
ReplyDeleteHow did you argue the inventive step of claim 1 over D1+D3? I had the impression that there was no inventive step… In the end, I limited claim 1 by specifying that the magnetic field detector is positioned at the entrance to the passage
ReplyDelete@IS , that's what I argued as well - but I do not have much confidence in it! I just couldn't see how claim 1+6 was novel over D3.
DeleteAnd if a keycard is an elongated key (10) extending along a key axis and having a plurality of permanent magnets (15) spaced axially apart in a predetermined magnet arrangement... than D2 is the closest prior art and D2 has a sensor there.
DeleteIt was quite a rough paper.
@Joel, I had the same impression. But I didn’t do the same for claim 6+11. I thought there was novelty because it relates to a keycard and was therefore different from D3. However, I’m not sure if it has an inventive step… I haven’t had enough time to think that much!
Delete@IS, yeah I think you're right. Novelty should be there based on the device (which I've hopefully got with my copy/paste across of the subject matter) but IS needed more. I think the allowability of the claims without further amendment was a trap.
DeleteYes, detector at the entrance may be the way to go...
DeleteI initially thought of this solution as well, since I too contemplated that C1+C6 was not sufficient to confer novelty. At the same time, I took a look at the figures of D3 and thought to myself that D3 might also disclose the feature of the magnetic detector being arranged at the entrance. If one observes Figs. 1a-b of D3, cannot the detector be construed as being arranged close to the entrance? To this end, what is the meaning of the detector being arranged close to the entrance? I acknowledge that the meaning of "serial reading" may also be quite ambiguous.
DeleteI argued that D2 was CPA for both claim 1 and 7 for the same reason.... While claim 1 did not specifically mention a key card holder, it could easily be that. D1 was further from the invention since it only disclosed magnets arranged around the axis, not along the axis, making it a bad starting point...
DeleteChallenging paper. After overcoming the potential intermediate generalisation, I'm pretty sure that the claim is not novel over D3 (as D3 discloses that you can have one transducer and multiple magnets positioned along the axis) despite what the examiner said.
ReplyDeleteI ended up making a further amendment to the effect of "that the detector is positioned at the entrance of the passageway" as this was mentioned to be a requirement as no further detectors were required downstream.
But I genuinely have no idea if that is what's required, really had to rush the IS part to get it finished.
The difference over D3 was - in my view - that in D3 the signal read by the Sensor was used to detect the position of the Pressurebutton/Key and not to activate the locking means (DE Version so unsure about english wording).
DeleteSo I further added the feature, that the computing means are configured to activate the locking means as a reaction to the seriell read signals.
Features of original claims 5 and 10 should be omitted I guess, as they contradict the wish of the client.
cheers and good luck to all of us
@Joel, I did the same limitation in the end. In my view, claim 1+6 itself is novel over D3. Claim 1+6 recites "detectors spaced axially apart" whereas in D3 para 04 several magnest-one transducer is only applied in "transducers and magnet along the axis" so it isn't applied to Fig. 1b.
DeleteNontheless, I ended up limiting the entrace position for better inventive step attack and just for the safety...
I found the same problem, also D3 [2] says that "Hence, the microprocessor 25 is
Deleteconfigured to determine when the push-button element 2 is depressed or not.
Depending on the assessment of the microprocessor 25, a latch (not shown) can be
actuated to execute the start/open or stop/lock function." So, the formulation is at least problematic in my opinion
Too f... long for 3,5 hours come on
ReplyDeleteDisappointed. Too much mecanical. Quite difficult to understand the invention
ReplyDeleteCould not finish on time and could not argue the second independent claim.
ReplyDeleteThree Points:
ReplyDelete1. I have no idea about the invention.
2. I do not know which one is the CPA.
3. I was almost about to give up.
Me too. I have to go to the bathroom twice, trying to calm down. but did not help...
DeleteSimilar experience! This was not at all a fair paper to throw us. I was very confused, panicked because of the extreme amount of mechanical details in all of the documents and claims, and so many embodiments to understand.
DeleteHow did you overcome lack of unity issue?
ReplyDeleteAs commented above as well - I argued that there was no unity objection. The part in the description related to miniaturisation described a different embodiment with two consecutive DISCS, not two consecutive MAGNETS as in claim 5.
DeleteYes, I also argued there was no lack of unity. When the Examiner say the problem of R5 is only about miniaturization, it's not true. It is said also that this can be used for having more magnets, hence more combinations, for a given key length. Hence, the securization problem is also tackled by R5, not only the miniaturization one.
DeleteI argued that claims 5 and 9(prev10) share the same general inventive concept and solve the same problem using corresponding technical features, cited desc passages where security was emphasised by either increasing number of recesses/magnets increasing the number of combinations brought by more discs brought by polar organisation in claim 5, whereas the same security is improved my increasing combinations derived from different magnet strengths in claim 9. Therefore they are corresponding special technical features and thus unitary.
DeleteHow did you discuss unity?
ReplyDeleteThe Exam felt much more reasonable than 2024's B, but still way more difficult than any B Papers preceding 2024. However, this may be due to my technical unfamiliarity with the subject-matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thomas and opted for including claims 6 and 11 into claim 1 and 7, respectively, and to adapt the wording of said claims to eliminate the reference to "signal when detector and magnet are juxtaposed". I limited claim 1 to hall effect sensors (clarity) and replaced "substantially" with "at least 20%" in claim 10 for clarity. I argued for unity of claims 1 w. 5 and claim 7 w. 11 as they obtain similar effects in increasing tampering resistance (by claim 5 increasing the number of possible combinations)
My "amendment" part was very long, with many back references as to why said claims can be reworded and why claim 6 is combinable without claim 5.
my Inventive Step argumentation felt very rushed due to time constraints. At first I opted for the key-operated rotary switch of D3 as CPA for both Claim 1 and claim 7, but then changed my mind to use D1 as CPA for claim 1 and D2 as CPA for claim 7, and argued that there would be no motivation to combine with D3, nor would a combination achieve the effect of a serial reading functionality obtained by the amended claims.
For this Exam, I would have much liked about 30 minutes more to be more thorough with my IS argumentation, and to double check my claim wording and spelling throughout my Exam.
Agreed with every point. I also chose D3 as CPA but changed by mind, and chose D1 instead.
DeleteI maintained D3 as cpa and argued that none of the others hints at the serial solution. It was a brutal paper time-wise, d3 having 8 embodiments to check and discuss plus D1+D2. So quite long inv step arguments why the embodiments of d3 do not arrive at the solution, particularly because embodiment 8 is an alternative to reduce components and embodiment 4 with 1 detector and many magnets is incompatible (button vs rotary key). D1 focusing on polarity and geometric shapes was not hinting at serial reading and D2 with polarity and some stuff I forgot already neither. Of course I discussed claims 1 and 6 together arguing the characterising portion, for which I left only the serial readout and put the fewer magnets part in the preamble… who knows :(((
DeleteI really do not enjoy the stress of having to do this in far less time than necessary to arrive at a structured, pertinent and complete reply to all objections. Having another 6h exam would suck too.
I hate this exam with a passion of a thousand suns. The retarded mix of paper and digital work makes it twice as complicated having to scroll and search for cross-references and features, etc
The exam was too long, too many details! I did yesterday paper B from 2018 to practice and I had the feeling B 2025 was much more complex and long. How does it come that the exam level changes every year 🤔
ReplyDeleteI also did 2018 exam yesterday and found it pretty understandable ! Nothing to see with 2025...
DeleteI decided with 1hr to go that claim 6 is not novel over D3, then panicked and changed everything. Ran out of time in the process :(
ReplyDeleteI had the same problem. I started looking for what I could add to the claim and run out of time to change anything. I did nit manage to argue inventive step. What a crazy paper
DeleteI felt lost right from the start. The long independent claims threw me off. I tried to find basis for the features but couldn't locate them directly. By the time I started to read D3, I completely forgot the details of the invention itself. In the end, I just went with something but have no idea if it was disclosed in D3 or not, because time ran out before I reached inventive step.
DeleteI entered the fact of the serial reading, and made claim 7 depending on cl. 1 justifying equivalence of the terms
ReplyDeleteI had the same idea but was too complicated to me
DeleteD3 is closest prior art and technical difference is serial reading?
ReplyDeleteI don't think serial reading is enough, need the features which would enable it, like the position of the detectors. But I really don't know!
DeleteAnother shitty paper to pass on to posterity
ReplyDeleteI was really confused by the statement in the official communication that claims 5 and 6 are patentable (if I understand correctly) and was looking for other potential amendments and wasted so much time....Like some people, I have no idea which one is the CPA...
ReplyDeleteFor claim 1 was D1 for claim 7 was D2 i thought
DeleteI did the same: For claim 1 was D1 for claim 7 was D2
Delete@Stella I think it was intended to throw us off so we didn't really investigate novelty/IS. Claim 5/6 were not novel as an embodiment of D3 discloses the single detector and multiple magnets (not quite that wording but something similiar).
DeleteIf I'm right, then that's a pretty horrible thing to put in the exam.
Was claim 7 to be deleted?
ReplyDeleteI did not delete any claims
DeleteI moved Claim 6 to Claim 1 and 11 to 7. However I still do not get why Claim 6 should be novel and inventive over D3. I was really confused by the statement in the communication. I realised all of this 1h before the end when I wanted to start with the inventiveness argumentation. I started panicking. So I did not finish the paper and still think my Claom is not novel over D3
ReplyDeleteI argued novelty over all 8 embodiments of d3 and embodiments are not combinable for novelty. Emb 4 with the fewer magnets and serial reading didn’t have the rest of the features because it was a button and emb 8 with rotary key and magnets was also not a serial reading to provide the signal because all magnets aligned over detectors at the same time.
DeleteFor everyone who said they simply combined claims 1+6 and 7+11, I say this is not allowed!! I've had this issue in an opposition procedure. You cannot isolate claim 6 from claim 5 since it is dependent on it, same for claims 10 and 11.
ReplyDeleteYou'll need to find basis in the description of the application as filed, not in the claims.
I have added this to claim 1:
, wherein at least one of said one or plurality of detectors (37, 37') is postionned at an entrance of said passage (34) and is configured to detect a presence
and a polarity of the magnets (15) which are on a row along the insertion axis of said key (10) while the key (10) is being introduced into the passage (34) untill said key (10) is fully inserted;
, wherein said electronic circuit means are configured to analyze a series of electrical signals produced by said at least one of said one or plurality of
detectors and compare said series of electrical signals with expected series corresponding to the lock system.
The basis are in [18], [20] and [25] in the description.
I had 15 minutes to argue novelty and inventive step.
I barely made it to the end of inventive step of claim 1.
I needed 20-30 more minutes to finish.
You clearly can since the description as filed states that claim 6 is an embodiment which can be used independantly
DeleteIn my opinion, the description allowed for isolating claim 6 from claim 5. There were paragraphs that in my opinion allowed for this and thereby satisfied the intermediate generalisation test.
Delete@Stephan: same analysis, same solution, same end result (time issue)
DeleteConfident in the solution (using par. 18 in both C1 and original C7) but lack of time meant the unity and novelty/IS arguments were very short, possibly much too short. Needed just 15 extra minutes
Correction of my above-comment: my distinguishing feature differs from yours - importantly, the “at the entrance” was imho not necessarily to be included because it was indicated to be merely “preferable”
Deletewrong
Delete@JBH, i added "positioned at the entrance" because D3 had a combination of a single detector and a plurality of magntes all placed along a row of the insertion axis.
DeleteMaybe i was wrong. When in doubt I always prefer to limit the claims a bit rather than writing a non-novel claim.
For me, the wording of latter part of claims 6/11 was sufficient, because it was something with „as they pass“ over the detector in a serial reading . Most of the solutions all aligned (and stopped) over the detector, and the ones which passed were buttons. So basically just 1+6+argue generalisation from desc basis.
DeleteI guess next paper B will be 57 pages with 4 independent claims. in 3 hours
ReplyDelete🤣🤣🤣
DeleteI spent 1.5 hours trying to understand what was going on before even starting. It was far too confusing and too much information. I needed at least another 1-2 hours to give this a good shot. Another paper B fail for me.
ReplyDeleteI totally can relate to this. It was also very confusing for me. There were too many features and functions to grasp in such a short time. I opted for an amended claim 1 including an and/or a combination (for Features of claim 5 and 6). I am pretty sure, that I failed.
DeleteIt was a very long and complicated paper with so many variants which were hard to comprehend properly and keep track of in the given time for non-engineers. The biologists were definitely at a big disadvantage. In real life, it would not be expected to solve this kind of a complicated case in just 3.5 hours. It was a race againt time from the very start.
DeleteIt was the same for me. I' m a chemist and it was very difficult to understand what I had to do. Paper very long and complex for people that are not in the field and are not mother toungue
DeleteThe exam was way too long. A lot of different details to consider. The amendments portion took me a long time to write down due to explaining why there was no intermediate generalisations. Also, two independent claims to argue inventive step on definitely made time an issue for this paper. The fact you have only one screen and therefore have to switch between tabs for a paper that is so detailed was not ideal. This paper was not good for the current e-EQE format.
ReplyDeleteToo long, too confusing. I gave up.
ReplyDeleteI already know I am going to re-seat this paper next year
ReplyDeletesame here
DeleteBe positive! You never know.
DeleteI added claim 6 to claim 1 (and claim 11 to claim 7), as the description provided indications that this does not constitute an intermediate generalization.
ReplyDeleteSince D3 solely describes a rotating switch, it was, in my view, sufficient for novelty. The subject matter was also inventive, as neither D1 (for the new claim 1) nor D2 (for the new claim 6) could be combined with D3 to achieve serial detection when inserting a key(card).
The closest prior art was D1 for the new claim 1 and D2 for the new claim 6.
I am uncertain about the argument regarding unity. I argued that a common special feature exists under Rule 44(1).
Since the client was not intrested in file divisional I opted to delete claim 7 and avoid all other clarity objections. But I'm afraid it was not a good choice
DeleteI think it is not sufficient to add claim 6 into claim 1, although indeed it does not constitute an intermediate generalization. However, D3 was cited by the examiner for novelty. Adding only claim 6 does not generate a novel locking system, due to §004 of D3, stating that it is possible to use several magnets and one transducer along the axis 8. This implicitly discloses serial reading (as is also clear from the further explanation in §004 of D3 : "such arrangement makes it possible to detect whether the push button is in an open position, a closed position or any intermediate position").
DeleteI think therefore an additional feature should have been added to the first claim to become novel over D3.
I argued inventivness based on features from the description that the detektor is configures to detect magnets in series as they are inserted Along the axis of insertion
ReplyDeleteNot exactly formulated lite that but you get the point
I added claim 6 into 1 and claim 11 into 7. The description [020] and [025] states, that serial reading can be realised without any other features (claim 5 or claim 10).
ReplyDeleteFurther, i added a sentence from the description [018] that the control compares the series of signals with an expected series to activate the closing mechanism. Thus, the comparision of the series distinguish claim 1 and 7 from D3 (one sensor and multiple magnets).
What do you think?
German:
Deletewobei der eine Magnetfelddetektor so konfiguriert ist, dass durch das serielle Lesen eine Abfolge von elektrischen Signalen erzeugt werden, und wobei das elektronische Schaltkreismittel so konfiguriert ist, die von dem einen Magnetfelddetektor empfangene Abfolge von Signalen zu analysieren und mit einer erwarteten, der Verriegelung entsprechenden Abfolge zu vergleichen.
English translation:
wherein the one magnetic field detector is configured to generate a sequence of electrical signals by the serial reading, and wherein the electronic circuit means is configured to analyze and compare the sequence of signals received from the one magnetic field detector with an expected sequence corresponding to the interlock.
I was really confused by this paper, in particular by the indication that claim 5 would have been inventive. To me, it seems that claims 1 and 5 were even not novel over D2 alone. If the push-button of D3 can read on the elongated key, which is inserted in the housing of claim 1, I am not sure why the keycard of D2 cannot anticipate the elongated key. All other features are there: from [003] of D2 there is a 1:1 correspondence between recesses and detectors, and when you insert the card of Fig. 1a of D2 into the reader, you also get the axially spaced consecutive magnets with different polarities. The other constructional details (the latch, [001]; the connection to the circuit 15, etc.) seemed also all there.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else think that the inclusion of the word 'specific' was important in relation to the magnetic field detector in relation to the serial reading embodiment? The wording of the description referred only to a 'specific magnetic field detector' when describing that embodiment.
ReplyDeleteNo, specific does not describes anything in a way that can be said to add anything usable for anyone
DeleteHow could you test a candidate with a confusionary paper like this
ReplyDeleteFor those who didn't just amend claim 1 to claim 6, and claim 7 to claim 11, what was your 'special technical feature' unifying amended claims 1 and 7? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI added claim 6 into claim 1, then realising it is not novel over D3.
ReplyDeleteD3 also discloses that there are fewer detectors than magnets, and also discloses the serial reading when the key is inserted into the housing. This is described in §004 of D3: it is possible to use several magnets and one transducer along the axis B. This is implicitly disclosing the serial reading of the several magnets.
Therefore I looked at what made the invention different from D3. My conclusion was that the magnets are positioned on the key in recesses in discs. The consequence of this, is that is allows the magnets to be provided in those recesses, as well as open spaces; Thus the security can be improved. There was a paragraph about the discs and the recesses and the open spaces and the programming of a code with this. Therefore I thought it was relevant.
Claim 6 was dependent on claim 5, but I didn't add claim 5 because the client didn't wish to protect this embodiment.
separating claim 6 from claim 5 is however allowable because there is enough basis in the text to exclude an intermediate generalization.
Claim 7 (new claim 5) was amended to improve clarity (change hall effect transducer to magnetic field detector) and to add the features of previous claim 11.
By doing so, the unity objection should be gone, in my opinion. The serial reading, in my opinion, is a special technical feature that links both the inventions.
I have no idea whether this is the right approach and to be honest I feel depressed about the whole paper. It was very long again, the complexity was high (not so high that it is not understandable though), and I just cannot process this amount of information in 3.5 hours time... I only have 3/4 of an inventive step argumentation (which I feel could be stronger with more time). I did not arrive at discussing inventive step of the second independent claim unfortunately.
I think the paper would have been complex enough without the second embodiment.
Hoping for a compensable fail.
by the way, claim 6 was only deemed allowable by the examiner by virtue of its dependence on claim 5 - I think.
DeleteYou do not have the serial reading in D3. It is highlighted several times in D3 that the system is configured to detect three independant position but there are no means configured to serially read. In D3, the circuit is only configured to read one position (the one at a time t) but not to serially read as in the invention.
DeleteBut serial readings equals reading one at a time - one after another? Otherwise it would be parallel reading?
Deletepar 4 is in a different embodiment.. it should have been combined with par 3 as well.. so not a novelty distroying embodiment by itself.
DeleteI also wonder why they would have added §004 of D3, if it was not to make sure that merely adding claim 6 in claim 1 would not confer novelty over D3.
DeleteOtherwise it would have been better not to add that paragraph in D3 when making the exam... does it have another value in the whole content of the exam?
I mean, the serial reading is about 1 detector reading different magnets that pass by it one after another. "detecting a position" equals "reading" . So the electronic circuit must be configured to read the position...
@anonymous, I see your point, although the embodiment specifies only the amount of detectors and magnets further (no other alterations to the contactless switching device are provided). So, all the other parts of the embodiment are the same as the others.
Delete"It is possible to use several magnets and one transducer along the axis 8" seems to refer back to §003, such that the alternative embodiment §004 is just a different execution form of fig 1b/§003. I do not see how else to fill the gaps of this alternative embodiment, if you are not allowed to refer back to the alternative embodiment of Fig 1b.
I also argued that the magnets were not on the key in D3. In D3, magnets are used for detecting one position among a few position and not recognizing one combination among a lot of combinations. But this looks a bit far-fetched. Reading comments, I do prefer the solution where you put detector at the entrance only. Well...
DeleteI don't know who drafted this paper, how can you deal with this mess in 3 hours.
ReplyDeleteThat is a question I would like to ask the author of the paper as well. But in general in real life which patent attorney writes responses in 3 hours?
DeleteAs a general point, there is absolutely no way the novelty/inventive step argument for Paper B was essentially just the subject matter of claim 6 (or any dependent claim) being introduced into claim 1. The examiner pointing out the allowability is too 'obvious' as too many people would pass with basic arguments akin to 'This is novel because no prior art discloses X. This is inventive as there is no teaching or suggestion of X'.
ReplyDeleteThis requires no substantive thought from the examinee (intermediate generalisation was too easily dealt with to warrant it being the main point of the exam), I believe the 2016 paper had situation where the examiner was incorrect with their assertion on novelty and you had to therefore argue against this.
The examiner is always right.
DeleteThe difficulty here was to check if claim 6 alone, without claim 5, was novel and inventive and also if it could be separated from claim 5.
The other difficulty was to perform two lines of reasoning of novelty and inventive step : one for claim 1 and one for initial claim 7.
The examiner stated that 6 and 11 were patentable where they depended on 5 and 10, so perhaps the challenge was meant to be further arguing that 5 and 6 could be split (and so could 10 and 11) to allow you to add claims 6 and 11 into the independent claims because they were allowable intermediate generalisations.
DeleteLet me rephrase , claim 6 is dependent on clam 5, we are given no indication by the examiner of what subject matter is novel/inventive. The polarisation step appears to be novel and inventive (not disclosed in any prior art docs) the client states they don't want the polarisation and they want the serial reading subject matter.
DeleteChances are that 6 was only ever novel by virtue of its dependency, well I say this as its feature is disclosed in D3.
Therefore, we have to show how we can isolate the serial reading matter from the polarising one without an IG and a further amendment is required to distinguish over the prior art.
No need for a further amendment. D3 does not disclose electronic circuit means configured to implement a serial reading. In D3, several positions may be detected but independently, there is nothing about a serial reading. Hence, in D3, the circuit means are not CONFIGURED TO implement a serial reading.
DeleteI wouldn't say the client didn't want polarisation. In fact, they were happy to put it in the claim. They just wanted you to go broader if possible.
DeleteI can’t believe that EPO would give us an exam in which EPO is wrong about patentability of claims! /oldlady
ReplyDeleteThus would he bad, but I had the feeling during the exam that thus may well be the case. Unfortunately I got this feeling too late and could not change my answer anymore
DeleteThat would be really mean.
DeleteThe examiner is always right.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty here was to check if claim 6 alone, without claim 5, was novel and inventive and also if it could be separated from claim 5.
The other difficulty was to perform two lines of reasoning of novelty and inventive step : one for claim 1 and one for initial claim 7.
Agree
DeleteI passed B a few years ago with the score of 91, and after seeing this paper, I'd most likely fail this one.
ReplyDeleteI also went for 1+6 and 7+11.
ReplyDeleteRegarding novelty over D3 because of the disclosure of one magnet and several detectors in D3, I additionaly argued that D3 does not sufficiently disclose how multiple positions can be detected, as D3 gives no hint how the signal generated by one magnet could be distingushed from the signal generated by another magnet, in particular as serial reading was nowhere mentioned or hinted at in D3. D3 only mentions the geometrical arrangement of detectors and magnets, which appears to teach away from serial reading.
I don't understand all the comments about claims 6/11 not being enough for being novel over D3... There is nothing at all in D3 (or D1/D2 for that matter) that disclosed a serial reading of electric signals in any way - or did I miss something obvious?
ReplyDeleteSure, D3 discloses having one detector for multiple magnets (in two different embodiments), but not that the system/circuit is configured to serially read the electronic signal of the detector as a key is inserted into the housing.
Not only is it not mentioned, I don't even think (but I have to admit that completely understanding the technology of D3 was difficult for me) it would be relevant to use in any of the two different switches mentioned in D3 (push-button and rotary). Since the switch is self-contained and does not function by inserting anything external into it, serially detecting makes no sense (at least how I understand it).
Agreed! Also D3 explicitly says that the geometrical arrangement and the number of detectors/magnets allows to detect multiple positions, which IMHO clearly teaches away from serial reading.
DeleteCompletely agree ! I do not understand all the comments debating about that
DeleteI think the term “serial reading” on its own does not carry much meaning. The application actually explicitly states that “serial reading” is just what they (the applicants/inventors) are calling their system. The normal meaning of the word serial is just “taking place in series”. So, claim 6 just defines that the electronic circuit means takes a series of readings from the detector as the key is being inserted and a plurality of magnets pass the detector.
DeleteNow, consider what happens in D3 when the button is depressed (in the embodiment with multiple magnets and one detector). First, the circuit takes a first reading from the detector corresponding to one of the magnets, indicating that the button is open; then the circuit takes a second reading from the detector corresponding to another magnet, indicating that the button is in an intermediate position; and then the circuit takes a third reading from the detector corresponding to another magnet, indicating that the button is in the closed position. In doing this, the circuit has taken a series of readings from the detector as a plurality of magnets pass the detector, and so has performed “serial reading”.
Admittedly, what I have just explained is not explicit in D3, but I think it is implicit because what else would/could happen as the button is depressed?
I have put across my POV above, but I accept that this point is far from definite. For the EPO to set the paper up so it relies completely on a completely arguable point of novelty is incredibly harsh IMO, and I (like many others from the sound of things) spent a long time debating this issue during the exam which caused significant detriment to the quality of my arguments.
It does carry a meaning. In the application, it is written : "This produces a series of electrical signals which are analysed by the processing circuit and compared with the expected series". This is what it is meant by "the circuit is configured to implement a serial reading". In D3, the circuit is not configured to process series, it only processes one signal relating to a given position.
DeleteJust to finish, as the examiner has already equated the push button of D3 with the key of the claims (weird, but I think you have to go with it), the push button being pressed and thus going further into the chamber amounts to insertion of a key.
Delete"configured for serial reading" is a functional feature. D3 has all the structural features. The question is the whether the apparatus can take one reading at the time (I.e serially). The answer to that looks like a yes to me. So I added further features
DeleteMy best guess would be that it's a confusion about the limitations imposed by the phrasing that the electronic means "configurd to implement..." compare to that they are "suitable for".
DeleteI really hope it doesn't end up with me being the confused one...
Agreed with Err - the set up is there, so even if not novel it was difficult for me to see an inventive step.
DeleteIn response to B, I agree that what the applicants/inventors mean by serial reading is “This produces a series of electrical signals which are analysed by the processing circuit and compared with the expected series”. However, this is not would one would normally understand from the term “serial reading” in isolation. (Especially if you give “serial reading” its broadest possible, reasonable interpretation: it is a well-established principle laid down by the boards' case law that a non-specific definition in a claim should be given its broadest technically sensible meaning (see T 79/96, T 596/96).
DeleteInterpreting “serial reading” to mean “This produces a series of electrical signals which are analysed by the processing circuit and compared with the expected series” relies on using the description to interpret the claims, which is very dodgy IMO - we are waiting for the outcome of G1/24, so there is no certainty on this point at all.
In my answer, I added an amendment along the lines of “This produces a series of electrical signals which are analysed by the processing circuit and compared with the expected series” to avoid the need to rely on the description.
For those who have complained about the subject or technical field, please remember that what seemed easy to you in past papers might have been difficult for others.
ReplyDeleteIt is not about hard or easy, it is a paper which requires much more that 3,5 hours, especially for who is not mother language
DeleteI agree with Anonymous, English is my mother tongue and I only JUST finished in 3h30... I am impressed by those whose mother tongue is not an EPO language who can finish the paper!
DeleteThis is definitely an issue. English is also not my mother tongue and while i can read and understand pretty fast, writing down my thoughts does take much more time than it would in my mother tongue.
DeleteThe point is that people that do not are mother toungue and do not known the field, they can not easly and rapidly do said paper. The examiners have to consider that there are a lot of people well prepared that have these difficulties. I'm an italian chemist.....and I did
DeleteDoes anyone have the URL of the complaints form? WiseFlow crashed for me during setup and I want to complain, but thankfully I managed to get into the exam before the expiry of the countdown... still want to complain! There does not appear to be a form on the EQE website that is linked to above in this blog post...
ReplyDeletehttps://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUOU9EUEpBWUxNSTM0ODlWVzYyTTlZSDBTQS4u&route=shorturl
DeleteIt is a waste of time to file a complaint
DeleteThank you but this link does not work. I have another office form link from Paper D but that form is closed too. I'm not sure if the office form link for Paper B has been posted by the EPO. I have submitted my complaint using their general contact us form for now. But if anyone has the paper B link please do share, thank you
Deletehttps://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUOVZPSUZPSkRMWllEOEtBTldSUDBST0lGVC4u&route=shorturl
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
DeleteScroll down to "EQE online" and expand it. The form is in there.
Extremely long and complicated paper. I decided to follow the instructions of the client regarding a serial reading function of the sequence of magnets §17, and replaced the magnetic field detectors in claim 1 and claim 7 with a single magnetic field detector at the entrance, configured to detect a series of signals using the wording of §18.
ReplyDeleteThis works with all the other features, and in addition with multiple further magnetic field detectors according to claim 5 and claim 6.
After last year's paper B I thought this year's paper B couldn't be more difficult. Boy, was I wrong. Paper B used to be the easiest paper in EQE. I still remember DeltaPatents tutor saying that it's most straightforward paper and the paper should give you plenty of clear hints how to proceed. Well, this time I got stuck already at the beginning. I had to change my claims three times and in the end, I was still not sure which was CPA. Not to mention there were just not enough time to really comprehend which variants of the embodiments are important and what is disclosed in prior art. If you figured it out at the early stage which amendments to do, then you propably managed to have enough time to finish the inventive step arguments. But for me, I barely reached novelty. I'm really disappointed overall, how paper B has turned out for this year and last year. It's no longer how to make a proper response according to EPC but how fast you read and understand the complex invention and the prior art. For a chemist as myself, this year's paper B suc*ed.
ReplyDeleteI still remember when Deltapatent tutor were used to say this. This paper was in my opinion too long and confusionary, 2 independent claim, 3 prior art document the Examiner objections were less clear then the description which in some parts seem to contadict the previous statement. Just to asses inventive step for 2 independent claims and 3 prior art document 3,5 hours was not enough
DeleteAlso, D3 comprised several different embodiments, and you had to argue why none/or any of them were CPA...
DeleteHello J, as chemist myself I completely agree with your analysis. I also just got to argue novelty. It seems that they don't have guidelines on how to write EQE papers, that is how many words in total how many claims etc...it would be nice to have some consistency on the level of difficulty from year to year.
DeleteI'm a chemist too and I had the same idea. I was worried when I so the paper and It's content. Also I'm very said becuase I think that in this way It is very difficult to pass all EQE exams
DeleteI don't know but tutors and Epi check these paper before they are released?
DeleteI didn't add claim 6, but instead went for the corresponding features as described in the description paragraph 18.
ReplyDeleteThe distinguishing features from D3 is the rotation vs linear insertion.
Hope that I am correct, given most of the ppl here say they went with claim 6.
But once the amendments were in place, I felt that all reasoning aligned quite well.
Finished just in time - got very sloppy at the end.
Fingers crossed
It may make more sense than "just" adding R6 in R1 and R11 in R7. On reflecting a bit more, this direct solution looks a bit too easy and "symetric". Well, we'll see.
DeleteI added both claim 6 and the features in para 18 :(
DeleteWhat concerns me is that para 18 limits the embodiments to one where the passage is cylindrical.
Then what have you done for the second embodiment? in this case it will have a different purpose and there wont be unitary between two independent claims?
DeleteSimilar idea for me - hope you are correct :)
DeleteI added similar festures to claim 7, considered it unitary since the special technical effect for both claim are the same, that is, they are related to having fewer detectors. Key or key card are just different alternatives already known in prior art.
DeleteThe feature could be added to claim 7 as supported by paragraph 25
And about the cylindrical passage - i noticed this and last minute changed it to housing, but in retrospect I should probably have done it the other way around. Unfortunately, i didn't have time to investigate the options. But I agree that the limitation troubled me.
DeleteE - I agree with the support, still tricky to get the exact wording correct as the features are slightly different for the key card. This was however also my solution.
DeleteMagnus, happy to hear that I am not alone with my solution! :D
DeleteLycka till!
C'était long et vraiment pas facile.
ReplyDeleteJ'ai choisi, comme pas mal de monde, d'intégrer R6 dans R1 et R11 dans R7. La nouveauté de R1 est alors assurée par le fait que la clé de D3 ne porte pas d'aimants.
J'ai été très (trop) détaillé sur les pbs d'unité d'invention, d'admissibilité, et quand il a fallu discuter nouveauté et activité inventive, je me suis rendu compte que D1 + D3 était quand même très proche de ma revendication modifiée...
J'ai failli retourner en arrière mais il était trop tard. J'ai continué, et l'argumentation d'AI est un peu bancale, en s'appuyant que le problème dans D3 est de détecter des positions (parmi un petit nombre de positions), pas si un élément inséré porte une combinaison compliquée d'aimants (parmi un grand nombre de combinaisons possibles). Si l'homme du métier avait ajouté l'enseignement de D3 à D1, il aurait retiré les aimants de la clé et n'aurait pas trouvé la solution.
Bon, je ne sais pas si je suis convaincu à la relecture...
Je me dis aussi que c'est trop facile si la solution est identique dans R1 et dans R7.
Bon, on verra.
This is how paper are drafted. They took a clear straightforward technical description understandable to everybody, and modifiyng it making tens of pages of confusionary ununderstadable mess.
ReplyDeleteEPO probably looks at this blog while laughing maniacally at us peasants complaining... it would be unfortunate if the outcome of the exam relies on your interpretation of novelty, especially since it was not really clear cut this time.
ReplyDeleteHa ha funny but not really :/
DeleteI used the wording of paragraph 18 (+8 for processing unit information); correspondign claim for claim 7 used the same information + par 25 (and some more introducing some features - quite some argumentation needed here which makes me think it may not be the best). I think it is sufficient basis and will have novelty and inventive step by the sequence and series of electrical signals used for actuating the latch.
ReplyDeleteI chose different CPA D1/D2 due to key/keycard and a better fit to the different claims. Problem is to simplify the solution (as discussed in par 17 I think). D3 indicates a simplification but it will not indicate to detect a sequence and produce a series of signals in the same manner as in par 18.
I think claim 6/11 may have been too broad wording? Initially I thought of going with this "but it cant just bet this simple" :) Just having detectors and magnets in series may be prejudical to these? Aslo D3 par 4"Similarly, it is possible to use several magnets and one transducer along the axis 8. "=> i.e., they are detected by serial reading.
simplify solution = simplify the system, i.e., it is too complicated/complex.
Delete"[017] The presence of all the detectors 37 necessary to decode the key in the variants
described above makes the locking system complicated to manufacture and requires
many components. To improve this, it is also possible to provide what we call a serial
reading function of the sequence of magnets."
This was my reasoning concerning "serial reading": In the description as filed it was made clear that the magnetic detector would be able to process several signals (i.e. serial reading as in a collective reading of several signals and based on that outputting a result, as opposed to reading a signal one by one and after each reading outputting a result one by one. In D3, in my opinion, the latter case is applicable. In the embodiment as view in Fig. 1B (or whatever), the key could measure any positions, closed, open, intermediate or whatever it was, but as I understand it, the system determines in what position the key is soon as the magnet passes the detector. Hence, there is no "serial" reading within the meaning of the description.
DeleteWhat is your opinion on this? I thought the subject-matter of this paper limited by ability to thoroughly establish inventive step arguments :/
David - you may be correct, but also just amending with claim 6 is intermediate generalisation, at least if claim 6 is your basis for the amendment (as that will always include claim 5).
DeleteRegarding D3 is still think that the magnets will e read in series along the row i.e., implement a serial reading of said detectors',
Each detection will trigger a signal, i.e., electric signals as the key is being inserted into the housing and a plurality of magnets pass in proximity to one of the magnetic field detectors (only one in D3 but I think you can argue for more).
(original claim 1) actuating said latch based on the one or several electrical signals generated by the one or plurality of magnetic field detectors. (Maybe this can be read just from par 1 D3, in that it is used for opening and closing)
Idk, it looks like a hard argument, but then again, maybe I am reading too much into it which is not in the documents.
Thank you for your thoughts, Magnus. Let us hope for the best.
DeleteNaturally, my basis was not merely claim 6. Good luck.
Best of luck David!!
DeleteI think if you write a good problem-solution and try to write about every objection you have all chances in the world. I suspect I may have some art 123(2) issues and I am not sure if my unity argumentation is sufficient - but, time is short..
Very difficult to do in 3.5 hours. The length of the claims and the four alternative embodiments in D3 (that all required individual attention in a proper novelty analysis imo) took a long time and I had very little time for inventive step analysis. My condolences to everyone in Chemistry.
ReplyDeleteI amended claim 1+6 and 7 with the same features allowable because the serial reader could be adapted to the key card. No need to include claim 5, since claim 6 worked independently from the two required detectors from claim 5. In that way both independent claims were related to the serial reader that made the system easier to produce, and both solved the same problem and thus allowable under 43(2)(c). I restricted the keycard holder to Hall-sensors since I found no basis to broaden the definition for this embodiment.
That left me with about 30 minutes for inventive step analysis...
In my opinion the whole idea of the serial detection was that a detector could be placed and detect multiple magnets on a row ALONG the axis of the key... I did not find that D1 disclosed anything about magnets on a row, only that the magnets could be placed around the axis and the figure of D1 did not suggest that the key could be made any longer. I therefore opted for D2 as CPA for both inventions...
I did similar amendments. However, I replaced the Hall-effect transducers with a broader wording.
DeleteThis was indeed a difficult paper, not least for the subject-matter.
The examination paper was significantly longer than previous ones, containing a greater number of claims and clearly focused on electronic engineering. Given the extensive number of pages and complex schematics, the allotted 3.5-hour timeframe posed a particular challenge for candidates with a biological background, such as myself, placing us at a disadvantage in terms of completion time. I spent about 1.5 hours just to figure things out in the schemes and then comparing to prior art, with all the further challenges…have to sit B again next year(((
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else feel like Paper B is becoming more and more like Paper A? They give you very few hints in the communication and client’s letter about the amendments to make. You have to think about how to create novelty and inventive activity versus the prior art. All of this in 3.5 hours (compared to the 4 hours of Paper A), and on top of that, you have to write an entire letter worth 70 points of the total exam. What’s the point of this?
ReplyDeletePaper B used to be about properly arguing the letter after having already figured out which amendments to make to the claims. Now it seems like they want you to do a lot of things in just 3.5 hours, which is unrealistic.
IMO, Paper B ought to mainly test your ability to apply laws of the EPC. When reading the paper, it feels more like being measured with regards to your technical understanding. Surely, this ought not to be the intention of Paper B...
Delete100% agreed. I repeatedly come to the question: what is the point of this?! How can THIS demonstrate what I know about patent law and procedure??
DeleteThis is way too mechanical/electrical than a normal paper B should be. There are too many variations in two embodiments. D3 wtf... I could totally undestand D1 and D2 in paper B but all the different embodiments in D3 (3 pages of text) just made my head hurt. And how did the EQE committee really think we can finish two problem-solution arguments in addition to that. This year's paper B is a bad joke.
ReplyDeleteNot fair at all: a lot hard work for nothing!
ReplyDeleteTopic quite complex for a person with no mecanical background.
Very hard to find the CPA considering the lack of knowledge in the topic.
Too much claims to analayze and too much embodiment in prior art to consider for novelty assesment.
3,5h is not enough
See you next year!
So disappointed - just because one couldnt finish the exam in time, because of the way the exam is designed, one shouldnt be penalised by failing and wait for another year of slogging, studying and no life. I am sure most of us can draft an acceptablle response in real life without consulting the client.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure most of us can draft an acceptable response in real life when we have days/weeks/months of time to study the invention and the prior art. I don't know in what universe 3,5 hours is enough for completely undestanding them and additionally write down a substantive and complete response.
DeleteI didn't finish yet, leaved lot of part incomplete and undone
DeleteHopefully Examination commitee will be fair and lenient in marking 🤞
DeleteThe problem is, if you spent too much time on amending the claims, such as myself, there was no time to write down a reasonable inventive step argument, not to mention two of them. Wiseflow literally cut me mid-sentece when I was writingabout CPA of claim 1. So for me the points will just not add up, even if I get the amendments correctly, which I did not. Now looking back, what I should have done was to decide on one amendment, regardless of if it was right or wrong as long as it's novel, and start writing the arguments as soon as possible to collect some points for inventive step arguments.
DeleteI never could have imagined paper B being this complicated for the allotted time. Resitting it next year for sure.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else add claim 6 plus ‘radial magnets’ feature from claim 4 (I think it was) into claim 1? Really wasn’t happy with just adding claim 6 given [4] of D3 and how strictly a lack of novelty has been marked previously.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't finish any part so frustrating.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who works on both mechanical and chemical cases in my practice, the 2024 paper was a breeze compared with this. The number of claims and documents in 2024 was a paper tiger, because there was a signposted magic amendment with a technical effect which made everything fall into place.
ReplyDeleteIn 2025, you are pointed to the serial reading, and then you have serious doubts about novelty and cpa with many prior art embodiments to check, and two separate independent claims which both need substantive attention while considering unity, and the question of whether to import features from the description. I ended up adding the serial configuration part from the dependent claim, and further clarification of what that means using the description, plus placing the detector at the entrance to be safe on novelty. Cpa D2 for both independent claims, mainly because I had no time and needed to argue the two claims were unified.