Mock 2's Paper C (2 Feb 2021)

"To allow candidates to test the system also close to the real examination conditions, a second mock (Mock 2) is planned for the week of 1 to 5 February 2021. The examination papers will take place during that week at the same week days and times as the real examination, see here." (see e-EQE webpage)

Today, 5 February 2021, Paper C of Mock 2 was organized, using the Wiseflow platform which will be used for the e-EQE 2021 in the week of 1-5 March 2021.

Paper C was split into two parts. The first part was to be completed before the break, the second part only became available after the break. It was not possible to go back to the first part after the break. (see also our previous post).

According to the FAQ:

  • The first part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the first part of the exam.
  • The second part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the second part of the exam.
  • The second part of the notice of opposition will form, together with the first part you already provided, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked. 
  • If an attack which is available in the first part of the paper is discussed only during the second part of the exam, no marks will be awarded to that attack.

  • You will be able to print your answer to the first part of paper C during the break between the two parts. To do this, you will have to go to the "information on flows" page (see point 6.5 in the user guide) and download your answer before printing it.

Paper

Mock 2's C paper was based on C 2017 (original paper here; original examiner's report here), adapted to the 2-part form of the C in e-EQE by providing only part of the claims of Annex 1 in part 1 (claims 5-7) and the rest in part 2 (claims 1-4), and by indicating that today is 8 March 2017.

This printable parts of the Mock 2 C paper comprises:

  • Letter from opponent - mock/C/EN/1-2:
    • We would like you to file an opposition on behalf of Tirez Cie against European Patent EP 2 394 232 B1 (Annex 1) granted to Zieher GmbH
    • Annex 1 claims priority from two EP applications, namely EP 10223223 and EP 11117055.
    • EP 10223223 consisted of claims 1-4, paragraphs [0001] to [0014] and the figures of Annex 1 as originally filed. The subject-matter of claims 5-7 of Annex 1 is identical to claims 12-14 of EP 11117055 and the content of paragraphs [0015] to [0018] of Annex 1 can be found in EP 11117055. However, no fees were paid and these previous applications are deemed withdrawn.
    • Claim 3 in Annex 1 as originally filed only depended on claim 1. During examination, the dependency was changed. No other amendments were carried out.
  • Annex 1 (without claims) - mock/C/EN/3-7
    • EP 2 394 232 B1 – Device for removing corks
    • Date of publication and mention of the grant of the patent: 15 June 2016 (Bulletin 2016/24)
    • The present invention relates to devices for removing corks and cork extraction elements.
    • Claims only available online
  • Annex 2 - mock/C/EN/10-13
    • IT TO20021082 A1 – Pneumatic bottle opener
  • Annex 3 - mock/C/EN/14-17
    • FR 2 625 455 – Champagne bottle opener
  • Annex 4 - mock/C/EN/18
    • Wine Review, May 2011 – Wine Fair in Oporto
    • “A particularly popular section of the fair was the corkscrew section.”
  • Annex 5 - mock/C/EN/19-22
    • EP 0 503 334 A1 – Bottle opener
  • Annex 6 - mock/C/EN/23-26
    • EP 2 088 778 A1 – Corkscrew
In the first part of Mock 2's paper C, only claims 5, 6 and 7 of Annex 1 were given.
These claims were directed to a cork extraction element (1 independent claim and 2 dependent claims).

I could download my answer to part 1 immediately after I handed it in.

In the second part, also claims 1 - 4 of Annex 1 were given. 
These claims were directed to a device for removing corks (1 independent claim and 3 dependent claims; compared to the claims as originally filed, claim 3 was amended during examination by including "or 2" in its dependency).

Please share your experiences with the platform, as well as any comments to the paper. Particularly, 

  • What was your experience doing the paper online in general, e.g. typing your answer rather than writing it by hand?
  • How did you manage keeping a clear overview of the various pieces of information (client's letter, A1, the other Annexes A2-A6)?
  • 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?
  • Could you download/print your answer to the first part during the lunch break? Did you use it during the second part? How?
  • Would your complete notice (answer to apart 1 and 2 together) gave been different if you would have done the paper in one session, without a break? E.g., because you could amend your answer to the first part (amend your attacks, add additional attacks) while working on the second part?
We allow you to post your comments anonymously, but it is recommended and appreciated if you identify yourself using your true name or a nick name - that makes communication much more pleasant and efficient than talking to "Anonymous 19 January 2021 22:23" and alike. 
Please refer to the "Problems with commenting" link on the top right of this blog page if you have problems with commenting (which may occur due to security settings, cookies, etc, esp when using Captcha with anonymous posts).