Tuesday, 16 March 2010

EQE 2010 - First impressions

The work is done. Now we only have to wait a few months for the results. Of course, also the DeltaPatents tutors have tried to come up with a complete and correct solution to this year's C paper. Starting from today we will, on a regular basis (twice a week) give some of our thoughts and opinions about some important aspects of this exam.

You are free to discuss our opinions in the comments or to contact us with specific viewpoints or questions via e-mail.

Today my first impressions of the C paper of 2010:
  • Claims 1 to 3 can be attacked in a relatively straightforward manner. The 54(3) attack on claim 1 may be easy to miss, but the inventive step attacks follow normal problem-solution patterns. It is however important that you know how to deal with partial problem situations
  • Claims 4 to 6 are more tricky. The exam committee played a lot with effective dates and prior rights. However, when you use a structured approach for determining effective dates and the usability of annexes, finding the right attacks is certainly possible.
  • Another important issue for claims 4 and 5 is the use of ranges. Different prior art documents describe different ranges. Many prior art ranges are, at least partially, overlapping the claimed ranges. It may be difficult to decide how to attack the ranges in the claims. Novelty? Inventive step?

4 comments:

  1. Really interested in your take on claims 4 and 5

    - a bit of debate on the EQE forum about whether to attack under NOV or I.S. due to differing takes on the selction criteria are fulfilled

    - especially whether the sub-range is 'purposive' or not.

    http://eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7603

    ReplyDelete
  2. My next posting will certainly be about ranges. I am planning to do that one next Tuesday.

    Hint: read GL C-IV 9.8 (ii)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are the attacks of claims 2 and 3 both "partial problem attacks"? Or are the effects non-synergistic in case of claim 2.

    I did a partial problem attack for claim 2 and 3.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although I did a partial problem attack for claim 2 - i was a bit confused if this was correct - because the two features were linked (though had different effects)

    was a more general (i.e. not strict partial problem approach) approach required?

    ReplyDelete