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
ReplyDeleteagreed 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
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
Delete