B 2026: first impressions?
To all who sat the B-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to the very final B-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
For example, was the subject-matter
well understandable, for chemists as well as e/m candidates? Was the paper
easier than in recent years, or harder, or at a comparable level? Did you
experience a lot of time pressure?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of
the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper B is only
available on 10.03.2026, 13:00 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post our provisional answer in a separate blog post as soon as
possible after we have a copy of the paper, preferably in all three languages.
Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, 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 view/download
button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer
shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the
official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear.
Apart from any pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded.
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English.
In order to make responding to your
comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use
either your real name or a nickname. 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, and post responses to our
answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
We look forward to hearing from you!
I disagree. Simply having an annoying alarm going off doesn't impact or negate the technical effect of making a puddle to detect a leak. Also nothing says the battery must be charged. If tbe battery is dead all features are presented but no alarm. And the battery dying is presented as a possibility and part of the problem to be solved.
ReplyDeleteThe field of the invention is detecting a leak because that is what the characterising feature achieves.
I chose D2 as CPA for the following reasons:
ReplyDeleteMy tech effect was to not alert a user when condensation builds up, but to alert the user when a leak happens.
D1 does not alert when condensation is built up, but D1 does not alter when a leak is happening. So it does one and fails at the other.
D2 - same as above.
D3 alters a user when condensation builds up (cables on base will close loop when any amount of water is present) and when a leak happens. So as with D1 and D2, it does one and fails at the other.
Based on that, I couldn’t decide, so I opted for least modification/structural similarities. They are all structurally similar (front wall smaller than other walls). The height of the wall was not part of claim 1 was could not be used to assess CPA.
I then opted for D2 as it aimed to solve the problem of leaks occurring, whereas D1 was directed towards the front wall being damaged. D3 I thought required more structural modifications. The holes of D2 were closed during use so no structural modifications to remove them is required.
However, this is a claim directed to skirting board anyway? I did the same thing, and now I am having my concerns, since claiming for board was not really expected by the client as others pointed out. True that it resolves the clarity and unity issues, though. Just wondering how much I will be penalized.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous March 10, 2026 4:30 pm - the skilled person would not concern themselves with such a non-technical problem. As soon as you see problems or technical effects described in relation to costs, this should ring alarm bells that it might relate to non-technical subject-matter. Something to look out for in Paper C.
ReplyDeleteThe holes in the side walls are covered during use so no modification is required to this feature.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't hold out for the examiner to read the answer with synthetical propensity.
ReplyDeleteA 406. No you don't. The wire and alarm are just appendages. If you took the invention of claim 1, and added an alarm system, assuming claim 1 was already granted, you would infringe the claim. therefore presence of the alarm system is irrelevant to determining whether you have the invention. Therefore you have the invention as claimed as to have the invention all u need is all features of the invention. Additional features don't matter.
ReplyDeleteA406. No you don't. To infringe a claim you simply need to have all features of the claim. Additional features are irrelevant. Therefore to achieve the invention u can add a recess to D3. Then you have the invention with an alarm system which means you have arrived at the invention because claim 1 only defines the minimum essential features and additional features are allowed as no disclaimer exists
ReplyDeleteMarc, claim 6 wasn’t for the skirting board alone, it also had the tray.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is claim directed to the board, though, and not the combination itself. I made the same thing regrettably. True that it resolves clarity and unity objections. Hope that no severe penalization will be applied, but there will be some, definitely.
ReplyDeleteA406. No, you don't have to remove the alarm system
ReplyDeleteA421. The CPA is always the invention directed toward the same technical problem with most overlapping features. D1 and D2 are not directed toward detecting a leak. D3 is and has all features of the preamble. Just because it has additional features is irrelevant. Also, if you add a recess to D3 you arrive at the invention of the application. Just because it will then have an alarm system on top of the invention is irrelevant
ReplyDeleteBeware, otp is hot to prevent floorboard getting wet. Otp should not contain the solution.
Deleteagreed with the French candidate
ReplyDeleteA 406, No you don't, the alarm system does not interfere with how the recess achieves its inventive technical effect. Add a recess to D3 and you get the invention of the application with an alarm system on top. As the claim 1 doesn't have a disclaimer, the claim 1 comprising a recess has within its scope an additional alarm system. Remember to infringe a claim you only have to have all features of a claim - additional features are not relevant. Therefore, adding a recess to D3 gives you a tray within the scope of claim 1.
ReplyDeleteA409: Yeah sure if I wanted to fail :-)
@sunnyday.. my understanding is that the final product in situ does not have holes as they are sealed up. To me, those features done need to removed as they are “removed” in the working embodiment that catches the water.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the examining divison saying that None of the dependent claims is inventive? The recess is claimed in claim 3. Aren't we supposed to "believe" what they conclude?
ReplyDeleteThat is actually a good point.
DeleteThe recess in V-shape is not inventive, so in other shapes it is not inventive either. Another argument for including C height less than A height
For novelty the provided report is unlikely to ever be wrong, but inventive step I think it's appropriate in this case to use dependent claim 3 despite the objection, as the objection was not substantiated and there was a nice argument to weave through the prior art. Additionally claim 3 corresponded closely to what the client wanted.
DeleteIf claim 3 was dependent on claim 1 and claim 3 was not inventive, I don’t see how you can include claim 3 in claim 1 and still defend the inventive step of claim 1.
Deletewhy is it not inventive? just because the exam report says it "does not appear" to be doesn't mean that's not the case, it's based on the actual prior art available which in my opinion did not render a recess obvious. It has a clear technical effect and the examiner's inventive step objection was barely substantiated
DeleteNo, you're not supposed to believe everything they concluded.
DeleteI noticed something very weird at my submitted paper. Although I copied and pasted the claims as filed and only added the recess from claim 3, I noticed that the limitation "the front wall (5) being lower than the sidewalls (3) and the rear wall (4)" is not present in the text I pasted into the flow.
ReplyDeleteIs this the case for anyone else pasting the claims as filed directly into the flow, or did I actually delete that limitation by accident? Would that be heavily penalized you think?
This limitation was unnecessary but since the client want it I did amenes to polyolefin with at least one additive and added a preferably (i.e. not limited to) that additive being an antifungical such as triclosan.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for anyone who knows the answer - how many marks are lost if you forget the concluding part that states you request oral proceedings and has the signature, etc. ?
ReplyDeleteI don’t even think they give you any marks for that part
DeletePretty sure that is just a nice accessory that does but pick up marks. I'm any event, requesting oral proceedings isn't a requirement of an Art 94(3) response
DeleteRecess is clearly the feature in focus, however emphasis must be placed on "directed" in the arguments, i.e "directed onto the floor infront of" para012. Next, I think an independent claim on skirting board would fail IS since novelty would require floor support+snap fit, but where is synergy between these features? A combination type claim would face the same problem during IS assessment. Note that the skirting board in D3 would work, alltough not mentioning snap connection... Therefore I think a drip plate comprising a skirting board is the way to go... I did not write that unfortionately
ReplyDeleteIS for “a skirting board alone connectable to the drip tray “ is pretty straightforward but a bit tricky to spot.
DeleteD2 discloses snap connection and D3 discloses D height support. However, D2 teaches away from D3 and the skilled person is not prompted to find the solution in D3.
If I remember correctly, in D2 the skirtin board had to be completely removed to check the leak whereas in D3 it is raised above the floor and user can shine a light to check the leak without removing the skirting board.
I went for system/combination of drip tray and skirting Board with recess as feature for the drip tray and snap fit for the skirt board. Then treated them as separate features for IS Analysis.
DeleteYes, I did and also complained.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you complain about?
DeleteI think that prior art documents D1, D2, D3. should have at least the independent claim to allow the candidate to better understand the purpose of each in selecting CPA
ReplyDeleteA Paper bad concieved in general, Where is the utility to test candidate in 3 hour. Furthermore a large amout of marks are for inventive step for which you have to deal at the end of the paper when you don't have enough time.
ReplyDeleteI think they have no idea of what they wrote, otherwise they would have draft a straightrforward paper were clearly selectable and not a case of EBoA. Marking is mostly on the base of the majority of candidate wrote.
ReplyDeleteMe too, detection of leakage seemed to me a technical effect of alarm+wire+battery group. DeltaPatents on their books states to consider the main purpose/otp in considering cpa. I think that the main purpose is always to avoid the floorboard to get wet.
ReplyDeleteImmediate detection of leakage is a techical effect, the purpose sould be to prevent floorboard to get wet
ReplyDeleteMain purpose is for all D1, D2, D3 to prevent the floorboard getting wet. It's a classic CPA step by step selection to me. Same field, same purpose, Cpa is the document requiring minimum changes for reach the invention.
ReplyDeleteAny Idea when DP will provide their answer?
ReplyDeletei considered detection of leakage aa a technical solution and the otp how prevent floorboard to get wet
ReplyDeleteBeware to don't confuse the techical solution with the purpose OTP.
ReplyDeleteClaim 6 lack of unity "a posteriori" cause drip tray of claim 5 not new/not clear. Right? Amending claim 5 (connectable to instead connected) and put claim 6 in dependency of 5 was the correct amendment?
ReplyDeletelooks like DP are not going to provide a model solution for this paper, the official results will be out first!
ReplyDeleteIt's only been a day. DP have jobs to do too and the provisional answers are a free service. I'm sure they will upload as soon as they can
DeleteYeah, you are being really disrespectful. When's the last time you took a 3.5 hour exam just to give answers for free to the community? We should all thank them rather than complain.
DeleteDoes anybody know how it goes with the official results? When will these results be uploaded? In July/August after we get our results or earlier?
ReplyDeletewith new exam probably July August 2027
DeleteFor Delta P. : Hi, I would like to point out that it is possible to comment the posts relative to the new modules M1 and M2 only with a Google account, instead for the old papers it is possible to comment also anonymously.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, I found the first part of the paper straightforward and the second part confusing.
ReplyDeleteClaim 1. I limited it to the recess because none of the prior art contained one except D2, but in D2 the recess was on the sidewalls, whereas the invention had it on the front wall, defined as being lower than the rest of the walls. Therefore, this gave the claim novelty over D2 and the rest of the prior art. The recess from claim 3 and the base could be added from the application; the shape could be removed since it did not provide any technical effect and the application states that any shape is acceptable (and figure 1 even shows a different shape). It was also unnecessary to explain that it was “central”, as stated in the paragraph of the application, for the same reason. I justified that it was not an intermediate generalisation and that the height of the front wall (claim 2) could be removed from the embodiment (claims as filed were 3+2+1), because there is a paragraph stating that any height is possible, so not essential. I used D3 for the PSA because of the shared purpose of noticing the leakage.
Claim 2. I kept it unchanged.
Claim 3. I modified the dependency to “1 or 2” and the recess that I added to claim 1, leaving a claim for the V‑shape.
Claim 4. I justified that polyolefin is a polymer, and with this I limited it to “comprising one or more additives; preferably an anti‑mould additive such as triclosan” (not as a limiting feature but just to indicate it, because it seemed the client wanted it that way).
Claim 5. This is where everything became complicated for me. On the one hand, I could amend claim 5 so that it simply defined the combination of “drip tray according to claims 1–4 + skirting board”. This would have kept claims 5, 6 and 7 inventive and unified (Art. 82), because they would share the drip‑tray characteristics, which are inventive, for unity. Alternatively, I could claim the combination without referring to “according to claims 1 to 4”, but in that case I had to merge claims 5 and 6 in order to make the combination inventive because of the skirting‑board features; however, this second option resulted in a lack of unity. On papers B from other years this was not a problem but this time the Communication raised explicitly an objection of unity... In the end, I got nervous and made a bad mix: I limited claim 6 with the features of claim 5 unnecessarily and also referenced “drip tray according to claims 1 to 4”, and I even did a PSA for that when it was not required, since the drip tray in the combination was already inventive. I hope I managed to grab 50 points at least...
I think you and I are gonne be fine if indeed the recess in a lower wall was novel. I saw many here suggesting that it was not novel because D2 discloses a recess in side walls wherein one of the side walls is lower than the others i.e. a front wall is also a side wall since it is on a side of the base. Dunno anymore what is the right solution. Curious what DP thinks
Deleteit is almost certainly novel because the recess is in the front wall which itself is defined as the wall with lower height, so does not read onto D2 where the recesses are in the higher sidewalls
DeleteThe figure in D2 is not limiting.
DeleteDescription in D2 discloses recess in side walls, any of the 4 walls. The at the end D2 discloses that one wall is lower than the others. It is not cut clear novel in my opinion but might be novel…
With the addition that they recess serves as a drain, it is clearly novel in view of D2 in my opinion. -Nina
DeleteThe opening in D2 can also serve as a drain.
DeleteBesides, the functionality is not relevant for novelty.
If we don't pass paper B this year, we will sit paper M next years as resitters?
ReplyDeleteLook up the transitional measures - if you have already passed everything except paper B, you should only sit part 2 of paper M3 (a reply). The mock M3 provides only two and half hours for part 2 and it looks easier than most of previous B papers. Also the exemption for the passed papers only applies if you have actually got the grade "PASS" - a compensable fail will not be enough.
DeleteHappy to see this - I changes dependencies last minute after I realised the features were not synergistically linked and basically just assumed I could do this... hope I was correct because I didn't have time to find basis.
ReplyDelete…the ‘reply’ feature in this blog is doing its best
ReplyDelete