Paper C e-EQE 2021: first impressions?
To all who sat the C-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's C-paper? Any general or specific comments?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? 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?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
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) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
How did you handle the situation with the paper being split into two parts?
What was the effect of the paper being split into two parts?
How did you use the break?
How did this year's C-paper compare to the C papers of 2013 - 2019?
Any pleasant and/or unpleasant surprises?
The paper and our answers
[Update 7 March 2021:] A copy of the paper, together with the claims for part 2, is available here.
(We expect that the C paper will be made available in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, PaperC )
We give the core of our answer in a separate blog: here.
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 05-03-2021 16:56"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym 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.
SHARE:
and EPO continues 'bullying' candidates!
ReplyDeleteVery difficult subject-matter to understand.
C1 was really tough as I had to read 6 documents and have to attack 3 claims.
C2 was relatively okayish as there was no new prior art.
Agreed! I am a medicinal chemist so it took me most of C1 to just understand the invention and I could only attack 1 claim!!! Anti-buoyance, buckling resistance, ownward force, it was all too mechanical for me! C2 was much better because I'd familiarised with the s-m
DeleteIt was tragic... it took me so much time to read and understand. I am biologist ...
DeleteTbh this paper was difficult, but not as bad as yesterday's B (which was impossible in my opinion)
DeleteVery curious to hear if you could use A2 as a novelty attack against claim 4? I don't think so as the wires were not visible. Even if know that PI-F or PI-R in the 1970s, you don't know which wires they are using. So, I don't think novelty works. So I went for inventive step A5+A2. Petrolum industry always wins!
ReplyDeleteI found C hard, but not as hard as B yesterday. I'll need a good score in the first section to have a chance in the second section. The attaks in part 2 were much harder than part 1!
A2 was 54(3) I think, not suitable for I.S.
DeleteI said A2 with CGK (inventive step), but at the end realised maybe A2 + A5 works also
DeleteA2 was not 54(3) for claim 4, only 54(3) for claim 1
DeleteA2 is not an EP application, it cannot be A.54(3) for any claim
DeleteI attacked claim 4 for lack of novelty over A5
DeleteA2 was "published on 06.08.2015", but it states "in the last week of May" so it is evidence of public disclosure from May 2015, which is before effective date of claim 4, 5 and 6.
DeleteI also did lack of novelty over A5 for claim 4. The extent of the public disclosure in A2 was only the drawing on the first page, not all of the interview... I did not use the public disclosure in any attack...
DeleteDue to cultural differences, I was confused with the publication date of A2, and thought it published in June 8 2015, rather than 6 August 2015. I applied the law correctly, given the misunderstanding, and in any case didn't use it to attack subject-matter benefiting from priority, but I bet I lost some points on the prior art section :(
Delete^Exactly, StefanoR
DeleteIn my opinion A2 was only for explaining the knowledge of the expert: Definion of the wire in A5 and closeness of the fields of fossil energy storage and electrical Energy storage.
DeleteA2 was divided into 3 disclosures, a public one, the article one and a CGK one. The article was not prior art for any of the claims. Claim 4 could be attacked starting from A2 (public disclosure) as CPA. I think that if you find you havn't used all of the documents in your attacks, then there is something worng
Deletethis above. You beat me to it. i did both from A2public and A5 and A4 and A5.
DeleteFor part of the range of 6+5(+4) i used the A2 (published doc) as was published before teh filing date of A1. the range had partial priroty for 17-23% but teh range 23%-35% had an effective date of filing, so A2 published doc was god to go
A5 was missing the buckling resistance for C4
Delete@anon: A5 had double walls filled with concrete. For me that is enough buckling resistance.
DeleteIndeed Anon 18:52: I think A3 was evidence that - despite A5 saying it did not guard against the water pressure - the embodiment of A5 indeed had enough buckling resistance for shallow water in line with claim of A1 (because of the double walls filled with concrete)
DeleteI now see my fatal mistake. A2 had three separate dates, date of publication, last week of May, and 1 week ago. Thus, depending on what you use and when, it is prior art or it is not. Also, A2 mentions the 1970s, which means it can be used as evidence of common general knowledge for any date (as the 1970s was as long time ago). All that in reference! This is why I failed paper C. Next time, I will read the paper from start to finish and not just look at the dates, especially when it is non-patent literature.
DeleteAnonymous 18.52 - No way, A5 specifically said the "walls are not built to resist forces arising from hydrostatic pressure"! I think saying that the are is quite a stretch... quite a long one too
DeleteOC 17.39, range of 23 - 35% added subject matter (classic "added during examination"). It doesn't have an effective date, so no need to attack it
Delete@anon I See your point, in particular in combination with the definiton of buckling resistance in the contested patent par 0004.
DeleteHowever I would argue that in the scope of claim 1 there ist no need that the buckling resistance must provide a resistance against the water pressure. PI could restrict the claim accordingly in the opposition proceedings ��
Very tough first half. I struggled with the subject matter and didn't even start attacking claim 3. Second half went much better for me but still didn't quite finish.
ReplyDeletelong. very very long. not sure it was manageable in time given. Same as B yesterday - we need to complain to let them know.
ReplyDeleteAttacks
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: Novelty using A3, second embodiment
Claim 2: inventive step using A2 + A5 (this one is incorrect I think)
Claim 3: inventive step using A3, first embodiment + second embodiment
Claim 4: inventive step using A2 + CGK
Claim 5: inventive step using A4 + A5 + A2
Claim 6 (dependent on 1): added matter (novelty attack may also have been possible using A3)
Claim 6 (dependent on 5): Inventive step using A4 + A6
Let us know what people think…
But claim 6 was dependent on 5 and clam 5 was dependen on 4
Deleteand Had A2 a metal wire
very true. oopsies. thanks haha don't know why i though claim 5 + claim 6, when actually it was claim 4+5+6.
DeleteClaim 2 I have A3 + A6.
DeleteClaim 3 I have lack of novelty over A3.
I put a second inventive step attack for claim 4 (A2 public disclosure plus A5).
Claim 5 I had A4 + A5.
Also, claim 6 I put A4 + A5 because the messing feature was the same as for claim 5.
Yeah I know my claim 2 attack is incorrect so no worries, and I realise now that claim 6 dependent on 5 should have a different attack too but hopefully will gain some marks
DeleteCan claim 6 (dependent on 5) be attacked using A4+A2+A6?, if you used A4+A2 to attack claim 5 I mean
DeleteFinally it's all over! I thought C was OK, at least when compared to B, lol.
ReplyDeleteBut who knows. I found the 2nd part easy somehow, I hope not too easy and I missed something huge. But ah well who knows.
I don't know what the exam committee wants to candidates but from the content of the papers B, C and A, seems that they really want only few people to pass this year. Why this, why ?
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: A4 (art. 54(3)); claim 2 (A3+A6, Art. 56), claim 3 A3 (ARt. 54(2); claim 4 (A5+A2), no clue claim 5, Claim 6a (ARt. 123(2) and claim 6b (something with A4)....damn!
ReplyDeleteAttacks
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: Novelty using A3
Claim 2: inventive step using A3 + A4+A6 (partial problem)
Claim 3: Novelty using A3
Claim 4: Novelty using A5
Claim 5: inventive step using A6 + A5 + Prior art in A1
Claim 6 (dependent on 1): added matter
Claim 6 (dependent on 5): Inventive step using A5 + A6
I have the same attacks :) hope you are right
Deleteactually, I used A2 article for attacking claim 6(5)
DeleteFor 1,2,3 and 4 same.
Deletecl. 5 A5+A3
cl. partial A5+A3+A6
as i remembr cl 6 was dependent on 5 and cl. 5 was dependent on 4.
:(
I had to do inventive step for Claim 3, because the embodiment with the elastic buffers and the embodiments with a plurality of units were different embodiments
DeleteI have something very similar too; except for claim 5 = A4+A5+A2
DeleteWho else found C part 1 really hectic but C part 2 very easy going...
ReplyDeleteAttacks:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: novelty A3
Claim 2: i.s. A3+A4+A6
Claim 3: novelty A3
Claim 4: novelty A5
Claim 5: i.s. A5+A3
Claim 6(1): Art. 123 (2)
Claim 6(5) 17-23% i.s. A5+A3+A4
Claim 6(5) 23-35% i.s. A2+A6
my attacks are almost the same as yours, except for claim 5 and claim 6 (17-23)...here i used A6 as closest prior art... however, that may be wrong...
DeleteI also used A6 for C5 because A2 said something about petroleum storage tanks not being suitable for the electric stuff. FOr the rest, similar to OP
DeleteRetrospectively, I agree with your attacks, even if mine were a bit different :(
DeleteI think for claim 6 A2+A6 was enough because it attacked the whole range of the claim and prevented an amendment in the range 23-35% of interest of the client, as specified in the letter.
C6 23-35 added subject matter. C4 was two IS attacks starting from a part of A2 I believe
DeleteStarting at it soon. Not going to look here for hints of course :)
ReplyDeleteFirst impression: They have re-used some attorneys, inventors and applicants from past papers. I wonder if there are some hidden hints there ...
For all who sat the exams: It's done. Enjoy your weekend(s). Don't worry about the exams too much. Nothing you can do about it for a while.
The clue is that Molly Dorsett Pauley failed the snowboard paper...
Deleteor maybe it's just this :-)
Deletehttps://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Molly_Millions
https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Case
https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Dixie_Flatline
A2 was published after both Priority Dates. It was only relevant for claims without valid priority.
ReplyDeleteTrue for the document itself, but it was evidence of an earlier public disclosure in May 2015
DeleteI'd spotted that in the break - was gutting 'cause I know there aren't marks for saying it in part 2...
DeleteApart from a public disclosure and the article (which was not prior art for any claim), A2 also had CGK. I used the public disclosure and the CGK but extensively in my IS attacks against C4
DeleteMy Attacks:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: A3 novelty
Claim 2: A3 + A4 + A6 partial problems
Claim 3: No time
Claim 4: A4 + A5
Claim 5: A4 + A5
Claim 6 dependent on claim 1: A123(2)
Claim 6 dependent on claim 5, 17 to 23%: A4 + A5
Claim 6 dependent on claim 5, 23 to 35%: A2 + A6
I got absolutely identical to you, plus claim 3 A3 novelty
DeleteI also got identical to this. I went with novelty over A3 for claim 3, but this was a rush and I think IS over the embodiments in A3 would have been better.
DeleteI think A3 is nov for both Cl 1+ Cl3. But also A6 is novelty-destroying against Cl1. Usually in C there is always a different A. 54(2) document for each claim
DeleteMy attacks:
Deletecl 1: novelty A3
cl 2: IS A6+A4+A3 (A6 was same purpose of mesopelagic depth, so CPA)
cl 3: novelty A3
Cl 4: IS A5 + CGK (missing feature is antibluncking structure)
cl 5: IS A4+A5
Cla 6(1): A. 123(2)
Cl. 6(5 - 17-23): IS A4 +A5
Cl. 6 (5 - 23-35): IS A4+A5+A6 (but it should be A2+A6 imo)
I got the same as this, except I took A5 as novelty destroying against claim 4
DeleteSame as yours, +claim 3 not new over D3, and for claim 4 I made and additional attack: A2(the public use)+A5.
DeleteFor claim 2 I used A3 as CPA, as you, but I have some doubts about A6 as CPA
F.
Well, what a huge paper.. couldn't flesh out everything
ReplyDeleteMy pick of attacks below:
Claim 1: novelty (A3)
Claim 2: IS (prior public use proved in A2 as CPA, + 3 partial problems solved with A3, A3, A4)
Claim 3: IS (A3 as CPA + A4, although A3+A6 may have been more straightforward)
Claim 4: IS (A6, 2nd embodiment as CPA + A5)
Claim 5: following up the previous attack
Claim 6: 3 alternatives
Claim 6/1: A100c)
Claim 6/5, 17-23%: following up the previous attacks, so A6, 2nd embodiment as CPA + A5 + A4 as 2 partial problems
Claim 6/5, 23-35%: A2 as CPA + A6
Why have people split claim 6 in two ranges? I hit it with A2+A6, why do I care where? One value is enough, claim falls.
ReplyDeletebecause the range 17 to 23 is for shallow depths and 23 to 35 is for deeper water
Deletetwo ranges because the prior art was different for these ranges. For one you could use A2, for the other not.
Deleteyea but the claim didn't disclose alternatives. If I find one value that is obvious, I do not care that it applies to deep water only. The claim is obvious. There is no "partial inventiveness" concept is there?
Deletethere is partial priority
DeleteI find it strange, too. There is only one claim with a single embodiment. How can you have different CPA? So I also did A2+A4, and A2+A6. A4 and A6 could both be used for another part of the range.
Deleteit's to kill the claim completely, so that the proprietor can't just restrict the scope and get away with it
DeletePartial priority. Have to split it.
DeleteThe range of claim 6(b) (17 to 23%) was anticipated by A4 (10-20%). A6 discloses 30% RZCH which is outside the range
DeleteI used an attack for each range (A2+A4 for 20% and A2+A6 for 30%) because client emphasised that they were interested in both sub-ranges so I thought that was a hint for a thorough attack.
DeleteNot really a clear-cut partial priority case, I think. Also, Annex 4 and Annex 6 are the documents disclosing a specific amount of RZCH, neither of them is published in the relevant priority interval (10.6.2015-5.3.2016). According to G1/15, partial priority is only to be assessed if there is a disclosure in the priority interval. I don't really see what partial priority brings here?
Deletethe 23 (not including 23%) to 35% range added subject matter....
DeleteThe client stressed that he needed both ranges, so it should be done. Moreover, for AN2 the partial priority is relevant, as a part of the range can be attacked with AN2 as CPA+AN6.
DeleteF.
Who found that ridiculously difficult.
ReplyDeleteyEP - THAT WAS SO HARD
DeleteMe...I'm a chemist :(
DeleteI feel you. I am also a chemist and was totally confused with this subject matter
DeleteAt least it didn't have the CII like paper B yesterday! I think this C was hard, but C is always hard. Yesterday's B however, nearly impossible in the given time
DeleteClaim 1: A3 second embodiment
ReplyDeleteClaim 2: A3 + A4 + A6 (partial problem)
Claim 3: A3 second embodiment
Claim 4: A4 + A5
Claim 5: A4 + A5
Claim 6(1): added matter
Claim 6(1) (17-23%): A4 + A5
Claim 6(2) (23-35%): A2 + A6
I did this (Except I did not have time for claim 3). Now I realise that A5 was novelty destroying for claim 4, because of the definition of buckling resistance in A1 [4].
DeleteWow, I didn't see that too. This is very tricky. Luckily novelty does not have a lot of marks...
DeleteI did this, but I said A5 was novelty destroying to Cl 4
DeleteI did the same. I think that A5 does not disclose a structure for providing buckling resistance. A5 does not collapse because it is always at the same pressure as the outside water, but no structure for avoiding collapse is there.
DeleteSeems to be the best solution. I'm wondering why everybody here thinks that the buckling feature of the wall aid claim 4 is comprised in A5? You certainly need A4 for it.
DeleteThere were so many possible combinations....arrgghhhh
ReplyDeleteMine were:
ReplyDeleteC1: novelty over A3
C2: IS A3+A6+A4
C3: novelty over A3
C4: IS A2(public)+CGK, A2(public)+A5
C5: IS A4+A5
C6: IS A4+A5
For claim 4 - A4 + A5
ReplyDeleteClaim - A4 + A5 + A2
For claim 6 - I went with A5 + A6
Did anyone else find flicking between claims and text editor an absolute nightmare. We really needed claims set next to us for comparison.
ReplyDeleteshould attack on claim 3 be inventive step attack and not novelty attack? because you had to combine two embodiments - even though second embodiment said it included all of the first embodiment I don't think it was enabled for a large pedestal?
ReplyDeleteI would agree at first but the claim of recited "at least one pedestal" so you could have as many as you like. I nearly missed it as i never focus enough on the claims of the prior art in C.
Deletesecond embodiment of A3 had all the feature of the first
DeletePfew, part 1 was really tough. The s-m was alien, so I could not quickly split up the documents in 'relevant now' vs. 'relevant later'. Tensioning ropes..? I honestly thought way too long that it was a type of attaching means for the first part. I just did not get it without the rest of the information.
ReplyDeleteAnd there were a lot of cross-references needed to back up statements. I really got lost in part 1 and did not finish.
Part 2: Hurray! I finally saw the complete picture, and I finished everything, All puzzle pieces fell together, and I even managed to attach claim 6 twice.
So the splitting did not work for me with this s-m, although I thought it worked well for the mock 1 and 2.
And now, champagne, whatever the outcome...
Attack claim 6 three times, actually: amendment when dep. on claim 1, IS when dependent on claim 5, and IS for embodiment in par. 23.
ReplyDeletefolks, how do you think of A2, my opinion is
ReplyDeleteFigure can be used for attack due to visit in the last week of may,
but interview not... because the last sentence on page 1 of A2 "last week our...", last week before publication date August 6, 2015...very questionable, the content of interview can be seen in the visit???
very hard paper...
A2 had information of the publisher concerning PI-F and PI-R from the 1970s, which was needed for inv. step A4+A5 against Claim 4 and 5, imo. This paper was super difficult/too difficult.
DeleteFound this one incredibly hard - and I did quite well on D, A, B the last days.
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: novelty A6 and A3
Claim 2: no time
Claim 3: novelty A3
Claim 4: novelty A5
Claim 5: is A4+A5 + knowledge from A1/A2 for the use
Claim 6/1: A100c)
partial prio: no time
and Claim 4: IS A4+A5
DeleteThree claims for part I is a little bit much, considering the fact that most reading should be done in part I. And we still need time to plan attacks and to write. Each attach costs about 20 mins for writing. Then you can do the math...
ReplyDeleterange of claim 6 with 23-35% had as effective date the application date. For this A2 was prior art (54(2))
ReplyDeleteIs A4 Art. 54(3) prior art against claim 1? If yes, I wonder if a novelty attack could be used?
ReplyDeleteIt was A54(3) for claim 1, but it did not disclose "spacers" so not novelty destroying
DeleteI tried it, but it was not straightforward because of the protrusion. Had a slightly doubtful explanation for that one :)
Deletethere were "gaskets" made of elastomer, and the spacers in the claim did not include additional limitations. I think there is enough. But I could be wrong!
DeleteNo, gasket is not spacer.
DeleteI thought that A4 would have A54(3) attack too, but it didn't... very tricky paper :(
The two part format makes the game difficult to play. It's like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle where you can only see half the pieces but a lot of the pieces are nearly the same shape. Should this piece be used in part 1 or part 2?
ReplyDeleteI only used A2 for CGK which seemed odd. I was expecting a method claim in part 2 to make it useful.
I spent ages trying to work out the 54(3) attack on claim 1 because usually for 54(3) art you do a quick novelty attack and then another attack. It was only in part 2 that I saw what the point of the document was.
Timing seemed off, too much to do in part 1 but part 2 was relaxed.
Overall not as bad as B, which is faint praise
My attacks:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: novelty A3
Claim 2: IS A6 + A3 + A4 (i think i got this very wrong)
Claim 3: novelty A3, 2nd embodiment
Claim 4: novelty A5
Claim 4: auxiliary attack: lack of IS A5 + A3
Claim 5: IS A4 + A5
Claim 6(1): Art. 123 (2)
Claim 6(1): auxiliary attack: IS A3 + A6
Claim 6(5) 17-23% IS A4 + A5
Claim 6(5) 23-35% IS A2 + A6
got the same, except mistaking CPA for claim 6(23-35). For claim 4, I have A5+CGK (A1, [4])
Delete23-35% in claim 6 added subject matter. Plus you haven't really used A2 at all
DeleteMy attacks:
DeleteClaim 1: I agree
Claim 2: I AGREE WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Claim 3: I agree
Claim 4: I agree (implicit right?)
Claim 4: I wanted to do this but I don't remember if I did and now it's time for scotch.
Claim 5: I agree
Claim 5: I also had A5+A6+CGK
Claim 6(1): Art. 123 (2)
Claim 6(1): I disagree
Claim 6(5) 17-23% I agree
Claim 6(5) 23-35% I agree
Did nobody else see a novelty attack against claim 1 over A6?
ReplyDeleteNo protrusion, no holding means releasably engaging the protrusion
DeleteThe lid is a protrusion in a broad sense, metal rods engage 18 with the lid.
DeleteI think that would be a bit of a stretch in paper C. They don't really want you to 'construe' anything.
DeleteBut two times A3 for novelty? Seems very unusual. Also, from time to time there are novelty attacks like that in C (C 2016 - the method with the cows)
DeleteFIRST PART TOO LITTLE TIME!
ReplyDeleteI agree, and too much time in the second part. I think they should have moved at least claim 3 attack to part 2.
DeleteAgreed, first time too short.
DeleteSecond part had a slick idea to make us use A2 on claim 1 subject-matter
Many people seem to think that the range of 20-35% in claim 6 did not add subject matter???
ReplyDeleteA5 is not built to resist forces arising from hydrostatic pressure - p10 of A5, thus it does not comprises a anti buckling means. cannot be used for novelty attack of claim 4.
ReplyDeletepitre
A1 0004 - buckling resistance means 'at the deployment depth the reservoir does not collapse irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment'
DeleteA5 0010 - the tank will not collapse, irrespective of the amount of water pushed away by the fluid.
oooh, i missed this. but my IS arguments were on point
DeleteIn my opinion par 10 of A5 states that the tank does not collapse due to the fact that pressure inside the tank is equal to pressure outside the tank, but no structure is provided for actively providing this resistance. In fact if the tank was emptied, the walls would not resist forces arising hydrostatic pressure. So no structure for providing buckling resistance is there.
DeleteI think the double steel walls filled with concrete were described in A3 as being sufficient for buckling resistance. A5 also had such walls. I therefore argued that it was implicitly disclosed.
DeleteWell, actually, the membrane and the water inlet are structural means which ensure that the tank does not buckle... No ? (I.e. they result in the constant hydrostatic pressure)... Additionally, the tank comprises a double metallic wall filled with concrete which, according to A4, is a structural means for resisting buckling
DeleteNo way, A5 specifically said the "walls are not built to resist forces arising from hydrostatic pressure"! I think saying that the are is quite a stretch... quite a long one too
DeleteAh yes, indeed, the membrane ensures constant hydrostatic pressure. The membrane is a structural feature. The claim did not require that the wall per se was anti-buckling...
DeleteHave they really adapted these papers for online!!!.....No!!!....What is up with these folks - this week has been a shambles.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure we have just sat the papers written for 2020, albeit very slightly adapted.
DeleteOnly adaption I can see is just splitting for the two parts. No reduction in the material. They are just lazy and didn't bother changing any substantial part and know they can just get away with it while playing with candidates careers and livelihood. An absolute joke.
DeleteThanks, I thought I am the only one who think that this all was too much stuff for to leas time.
DeleteFor part of the range of 6+5(+4) i used the A2 (published doc) as was published before teh filing date of A1. the range had partial priroty for 17-23% but teh range 23%-35% had an effective date of filing, so A2 published doc was god to go
ReplyDeletesame
DeleteCPA for claim 2? I went for embodiment 2 A6. People saying A3 but that wasn't specifically for deep water? A6 embodiment 2 CPA + A3 (spacers) and A4 (skeleton ballast enforcement). Not that I wrote this out properly with the time in part 1...
ReplyDeleteAbsolute train wreck of an exam for me, ran out of time for IS of claim 2 and also didn't spot partial priority for claim 6. Spend too long banging on about public use disclosures.
I thought A3 because was for the same technical purpose - underwater energy storage device that allows for insertion and extraction A3 0001, A1 0006
DeleteI went for A3 too
DeleteA6 is CPA for claim 2. I agree
DeleteFor claim 6 (dependency on claim 1 or on claim 5), both, in my view should be dealt with Art. 123(2) EPC because the claimed range is 17 to 35%. Para 22 of A1 has 17 to 23 % and para 23 (added on filing) mentions an "alternative" to what was disclosed at para 22 of A1. There is clear case of violation of Art. 123(2) EPC. The grounds however should be refined. For instance, claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), support at para 11 of A1 is clearly not enough. As for dependency of claim 6 to claim 5, the combination of disclosures at paragraphs 0022 and 0023 amounts to generalisation. Thus, both the alternatives of claim 6 are to be attacked under "added subject-matter". I don't understand why others above suggest attacking this claim under inventive step combinations, at all.
ReplyDeleteI did both. Also case law says you cant take an indefinite range and combine with another range. at least 17% is a range and so cant just add in an alternative embodiment end point. As back up i said if Oppo div doesn't agree see my IS comments below...
DeleteI agree with that, I also see an added-matter issue only here. 17-23 and _alternatively_ 23-35 each range having also different effects cannot be „glued together“ to get 17-35 imo.
DeleteYes, I read some comments above. Lot of them forget the fact that claim 6 was added during the "examination" and not filing. Thus, where is the question of partial priority coming from. It is a matter that has to be with added subject-matter.
DeleteI suppose that, since the client says he is very interested in using both these ranges, it would be very weak to attack claim 6 on added subject matter based on a range issue (which I did not find in the GL indeed) and leave the proprietor free to amend it to recite 17-23 or 23-35.
DeleteI think claim 6 as dependent on claim 5 still had support in the application as filed in [22] and [23] which were both there at filing
DeleteThe upper range of 23-35 was however only disclosed in [23], so there was a partial priority and A2 was only prior art for the upper range
Claim 6 as dependent on claim 1 was added subject-matter
i think combining the ranges of [22] and [23] was ok under Art. 123(2)
DeleteMMM: I would consider Art. 123(3) EPC trap issue here. Once a generalised claim (such as claim 6) gets granted, it has to be justified that the amendment (with a narrower range) in combination with the features of claim 5 should also be taken into account. It seems to be difficult to introduce a claim feature with a narrower range of paragraph 0023 to be introduced into claim 6.
DeleteI dont think there is a A123(3) issue here
DeleteClaim 6 as granted had 17-35, so everything within that range is narrowing the scope and ok under A123(3)
Even if 6+5+4 violates 123(2) (i think it doesnt), the attack would be weak, since it could easily be overcome, therefore I think 6+5+4 needs to be attacked for patentability
My try:
ReplyDeleteC1: A3 Novelty
C2: partial Problems A3 + A6 and A3 + A4
C3: A3 Novelty
C4: Novelty A5 plus info about wires from A2 and info about related fields from A2
C5: A5 + A3
C6_1: Art. 123 (2)
C6_5: A5 + A6 or partial problems A5 + A3 and A5 + A6.
And for the Potential lower rzch fallback A5+A4
all same apart from missed novelty on C4 and went instep A2public + CGK + A5 and also did A4 + A5 + CGK
Deleteand C.6 i did A2published + A6 for higher end of range and
A4 + previous ones for rest of difference part from range as all solved different problems
Correction: and info about related fields from A2 was used for Claim 5
DeleteHave the same attacks for
DeleteCl3 - Nov A3
Cl4 - Nov A5 - I used the info from A2 concerning PI-R here
Cl5+4: A4+A5 + Info from A2 + Info from A1/A3
Cl6+1 A123)2)
Cl6+5 also A123(2). I think 17-23 and _alternatively_ 23-35, each range providing different effects, does not provide any basis for 17-35. Since this sjm is not disclosed, there cannot be a partial priority issue, I think
did copy+paste regress for everyone today?
ReplyDeleteI was getting a line break every 32 (?)characters . really annoying they didn't fix that for this paper (ctrl+shift+v doesn't seem to help on my system)
C1 A3
ReplyDeleteC2 A4+A3
C3 A3
C4 A4+A5
C5 A4+A5+ A3 as common general knowledge
C6a A123(2)
C6b A2+A6
Am I the only one felt that the amount of info in this exam is overwhelming and way more than the previous years? Maybe comparable with the COW paper? 2 slots of 3 hours is mission impossible for me to even read all documents in the first part.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the distribution of paper was completely disequilibrated. A lot of info for processing in first part and later there is no time for writing down all together. As for paper, it is ok, not too complicated, not too easy, having tricks.
ReplyDeleteI also have had technical issue with camara connected to usb. It was blocked after the first part. It seems lockdown somehow affects it, because before I used it for zoom, team, webex, etc… and it was ok.
Certainly this system has a lot of technical issues and is not optimal.
I think they should have omitted A2 and A5 for the first part...I needed only some definitions from A2/A5 for first part and they could have shifted these definitions to other documents to have less to read for the first part
DeleteI also found this incredibly hard and unbalanced. And I was well-prepared, have done many practice C‘s and did well on D,A,B the last days.The distribution of the content for both parts was really off. So little time and so many documents. So many misleading statements and prior art. It came more down to luck than preparation/fitness for practice to single out the correct document in the given time.
DeleteC1: Novelty A3
ReplyDeleteC2: Partial problems A3+A4 and A4+A6
C3: I went IS A3+A6, but I suppose lack of IS over A3 alone is correct
C4: Novelty A5
C5: Lack of IS A4+A5 (shift of CPA, since now it is electrical energy) + CGK of A3
C6+1: A123(2)
C6+5(17-23): A4+A5 (A4 disclosed 20%)
C6+5(23-35): A2+A6 (A6 disclosed 30, cannot use A4, since it taught against using more than 20%)
Correction: C2: A3+A4 and A3+A6 (partial problems)
DeleteAgree, except for claim 3 novelty A3.
DeleteAnd C5 = A4 + A5 only. A4 and A3 had same proprietor so could use definition of electric module thingy from A3 and import into A4. But agree that A4 is CPA for C5 as easiest to modify - already had channels just needed to string the ropes through.
Sorry if that doesn't make any sense, I've had a few celebratory beers !!
did not even notice that A3 and A4 had same proprietor
Deletebut yes, only A4+A5 (never use three documents except for partial problems), I used A3 only for the definition of the electrical stuff, however, it is more than a definition, but rather an implicit disclosure in A4 and A3 is evidence of implicity
To begin I want to say that the new C format is just awful.
ReplyDeleteWith the old format, made for one seating, you start with a handful of claims and a handful of documents. The task of totally ruining the patent is initially daunting, but you just working, with full knowledge that everything you are reading is useful to earning points by the end of the test.
In the new format however, you start with a subset of claims, but all of the annexes. You know that you have to ruin the patent, but the time you have available during the first part only counts towards a subset of the points available for the entire test. Therefore, when you start working, you have in the back of your mind this worry that most of what you are reading is not going to earn you any points on the first part of the test, and any time you spend reading material that is irrelevant to the claims of the first part is time wasted as far as those precious first-part points are concerned.
This worry is a huge psychological burden, and makes work during the first part extremely inefficient. Although the test has been extended by 30mn total, the first part only gets 15mn more time than half of a traditional C exam would have, and 15mn is not enough time to make up for this psychological burden.
I did not feel like the mock exams prepared me for this surprising and worrying situation, and since the compendium tests are all formatted for single-sitting, they cannot prepare candidates for it either.
I also want to say that the computer-based format does not lend itself well to changes of mind, which occur frequently during a C exam, especially when preparing inventive step attacks.
When preparing for EQE2020, I often wrote material that looked like it would be useful for one attack, but then set it aside because I decided not to use it, and finally decided to use it in a different attack. For a paper test, I simply remove the unwanted sheet, set it aside, and then reinsert it into my answer when I find its new purpose. On the text editor this is not possible – there is no option to keep track of things once you decide initially that you do not want them in your answer.
Finally
Claim 1 novelty A3
Claim 2 inventive step A3+A6+A4
Claim 3 novelty A3
Claim 4 novelty A5
Claim 5 inventive step A6+A5+CGK inventive step A4+A5
A1C6(1) subject-matter
A1C6(5)1723 inventive step A4+A5
A1C6(5)2335 inventive step A2+A6
I think you did just fine ��
DeleteI have almost the same solution and the attacks worked out well this way
DeleteWith respect to doing it online, I just put all the "notes" into the editor, made a section in the end and wrote in bold red letters that the following is merely a note/draft etc and not part of the solution
that way, you can keep stuff that you may or may not use later in whatever part of the answer
In the end it takes 5 secs to delete the notes/draft section and should you be unable to due to lack of time, they will clearly not take away points, if your answer containts some notes that are clearly marked as such
Finally, an exam which felt OK to answer. Only thing I was unsure on was the CPA for claim 2: A3 felt like the inventive step attack flowed the best, but the container of A3 was not suitable for use at dephts under 200m, only the pedestal was. A6 was a better CPA in my view, because totally suitable for use at depths under 200m, but the IS attack didnt go as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the end I just did both.
I think the container of A3 was not suitable for depth > 200m, however there were hints in A3 that it would be compatible, if it could be made suitable
DeleteThus I treated the "for depth > 200m" as a distinguishing feature, which is obvious from A6, since it was clear from A3 that, if the structure could be enforced, the container of A3 would work fine in deep depth and had the advantage of automatic maintenance
Agree with Jan. A6 is better CPA. CPA is always about purpose first and A6 was clearly related with big depth. A3 on the contrary indicated that for big depths, modifications were required. Partial problem worked just fine. A6 actually said that any commercial reservoir would work, such as the one of A3 (YT-something)
DeleteHowever, A6 is not reusable and the point of the invention is to have a container that can easily be reused, this purpose is independet from the depth, A3 points towards deep depth and the particularly advantage of the reusable container (A3:[9])
DeleteA4 I thought was the CPA for C2
DeleteDid anyone do C1 - A4 Art 54(3)
ReplyDeleteyes.
DeleteI wanted to but I couldn't find the spacer.
DeleteYes I did.
DeleteThen I used A4 as CPA for claim 2. Purpose was clear for C2 with A4.
Claim 1: Novelty A3 second
ReplyDeleteClaim 2: Inventive step A3+A6+A4
Claim 3: Novelty A3 second
Claim 4: Novelty A5 implicit
Claim 5: A6+A5+CGK & A4+A5
Claim 6(1): added matter
Claim 6(5) (17-23%): A4 + A5
Claim 6(5) (23-35%): A2 + A6
both claim 6(1) and 6(5) have 123(2) issues. claim 6(5) is also not fulfilling A123(2) because it combines two alternative ranges as described in 22 and 23.
ReplyDelete17-35 is effectively the same subject-matter as "17-23 or 23-35" and the latter was clearly and unambigiously disclosed in [22] and [23], both ranges referred to exactly the same parameter/elastomer
DeleteIn any case, I think 6+5+4 should be attacked for patentability, because if there would be a 123(2) issue it could easily resolved by amending to "17 to 23 or 23 to 35", which would not extend the scope and be allowable under 123(3), which would make the 123(2) attack a weak attack
No 17 to 23 and _alternatively_ (!) 23 to 35 is not the same as 17-35 under the EPO‘s standard of disclosure. The ranges have also contradicting effects and are for different depths - see [22] and [23]. So there‘s no hint for 23-35, rather 2 points which speak against it: „alternatively“ and the contradicting effects
DeleteIt is not a mathematical operation!
DeleteA1 discloses product1 which has a value in range "17-23" or a product2 which has a value in range "23-35". Claim 6 discloses product3 which has a value in range "17-35" which is different from product1 and product2. There is no explicit disclosure of product3 in A1.
Way too much to read in part I, I thought they’d said we wouldn’t get all the annexes in part I and more would be added in part II? That would have made so much more sense with timing.
ReplyDeleteNothing too challenging if you have time, but two priority dates, A 54(3), partial priority with ranges, and an oral disclosure - it’s an awful lot to write out sufficiently! I think I’ve got most of the attacks but I don’t think I’ve got anywhere near enough marks because there just wasn’t enough time to explain myself!!! Feel very disappointed.
Agreed!
DeleteI'm hoping they do something like 50 marks for the formal matters, otherwise I need to start studying for next year...
I don't think in all fairness EPO clocked the time (accurately), which is required for preparing a proper attack for each of claims 1 to 3 in the first half giving due consideration to the amount of information given in there. A1 had 17 paragraphs, 3 claims; A2 had 4 pages of information; A3 has 11 paragraphs and 3 claims; A4 had 12 paragraphs and 3 claims; A5 had 12 paragraphs and 2 claims; A6 has 13 paragraphs and 2 claims. I have just purposefully excluded the drawings, but count them, if you will. Finally, all this information needs to be recorded and 3 attacks need to be formulated. Yes, 1 and half hours was not enough at all. Part-I was very much non-rewarding at the end and makes one furious to realize, why would EPO ask a question for which it doesn't want an answer or will not give the right amount of time to answer. Beats me.
ReplyDeletePart 2, while the amount of information to read was less, it was nevertheless quite a lot of writing.
For future reference, EPO may consider splitting the time and the information provided evenly so that the attacks are also clear. I find no rationale in giving me prior art information and references in Part-I that was not necessary for an attack.
Oh dear, what a panic I had at the end of Part-I today.
Wiseflow is not fit for purpose. All things being equal, I could have done 20-30% better in the paper exam.
ReplyDelete2 guinea pigs at the job center.
ReplyDeleteOne says to the other: tough life, eh? The other replies: yeah, thanks to thoses EQE candidates!
A3 could not be closest prior art for C2. C2 was for use under 200m. The last paragraph of A3 said that it needed to be adapted to go at that depth. So that means that the device disclosed in A3 was not adapted as it is. So it cannot be closest prior art.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree. That's why I went for A4 as CPA.it was clear A4 was for 200m below sea level.
DeleteDid anybody combine A5 with the common information about 7 wires provided in the footnote of A2?
ReplyDeleteI made it and the combination fitted like a glove 🥊
Many here did novelty from A5 but there was this difference, I wonder why so few people spotted it.
Then, many went for a CPA switch for claim 5 and said A4 is CPA. Really ?? How is one going to fit wires inside the walls of A4? Wouldn’t be much easier to take the modules of A3 and connect them to the already existing pipes 16,18 of the tank of A5?
Sorry guys, but I feel I'm an alien in this patent world... Claim 6 when dependent on claim 1 (claim 6a) reads: the elastomer contains 17 to 35% by weight of RZCH. All people here said that's added subject matter....but isn't it disclosed in [11] of A1? "The spacers are made from elastomer [...] Preferably, the elastomer contains 13 to 47% by weight of RZCH" - I was thinking the range 17 -35% of claim 6a falls within the scope of 13 to 47% of [11], and thus there is no added matter? Could somebody please help me with this here...? why is claim 6a added matter? thanks!
ReplyDeleteThe upper value of 47 conceptually comprises 35, but does not disclose it. It’s a genug vs species thing, like metal does not disclose copper.
DeleteI failed B in 2019 because I added 120 instead of 130. If you don’t know the paper : it was disclosed a range 110 to 350 with a test results explicitly stated at 130. 130 was explicitly disclosed, 120 was implicitly disclosed. I failed B.
DeleteThanks a lot! I was thinking if an applicant wants to narrow a range on his own, why not, that's only harm to himself... I should have considered the other way around that this subrange will be novel over the broad range if someone else wants to claim this subrange based on a particular effect...then the subrange is indeed added matter.
DeleteI actually practiced with paper B-2019 but some time ago already. I was also surprised about 120 being added matter but again forgot how bloody strict Art. 123(2) is... Wish you a pass on B this year!
I ended up getting two long partial problems IS attacks (no 💣) for claim 6B (6 depending on 5):
ReplyDeleteA5+A2+A3+A4 and A5+A2+A3+A6 .
This kills claim 6 completely. The partial priority G15 refers to an OR claim but here we had a single range to deal with. How would you ’split’ this range of claim 6 in two smaller ranges? We are supposed to kill claims not description paragraphs.
I found the paper was very long (39 pages!) and there was simply too much to read and process in Part 1. Paper C does not work well in online format when split, particularly when you get all the prior art in the first part.
ReplyDeleteI am very disappointed with the paper I made. I think the paper was harder than in recent years but I would have done better if I took it in paper form.
Why is a single person called Anonymous posting so many different opinions and answers? Do not you all have a name? Read the blog post: DeltaPatents asks you to use your name or a nickname.
ReplyDeleteThe range in claim 6 was formed by the combination of the lower and higher point values of the ranges found in paragraphs [22] and [23]. However, paragraph [23] was added during examination (as well as claim 6), therefore there is no basis in the application as filed for the 23-35% range. This part of the range adds subject matter (no need for an inventive step attack). There is basis in [22] for 17 to 23% and this needed to be wiped out as requested by the client.
ReplyDeleteOnly claim 6 was added during the examination, par 023 was added at filing date.
ReplyDeleteJust one comment, in A1, the buckling resistance is described in connection to the hydrostatic pressure [04].
ReplyDeleteIn A5 [010], the tank not collapsing when water is being pumped out is described decoupled with hydrostatic pressure since there is no none hydrostatic pressure in the first place.
So, not sure if A5 really disclosed buckling resistance. I also noticed the structure of the reservoirs in A4 and A5 are very similar, double steel wall with concrete filing.
However, in A5, the statement that said structure providing buckling resistance is absent. If it is not a unfortunate mistake by EPO, then A5 cannot be used as novelty destroying document for claim 4. Just my opinion.
I think you are right. Because of this you even cannot use A5 as closest prior art. It has to be A, despite the number of differences. A4 has to be combined with A5 to attack claim 4
DeleteAccording to Annex 1 [0004], "the reservoir necessarily has a structure providing buckling resistance. Buckling resistance according to this invention means that at the deployment depth the reservoir does not collapse irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment." With this definition, Annex 5 provides such a structure. So I think Annex 5 is novelty-destroying.
ReplyDeleteA1 [04] reads as follows:
DeleteThe reservoir experiences mechanical stress caused by hydrostatic pressure
when water is pumped out of the compartment. Therefore, the reservoir necessarily has a structure providing buckling resistance. Buckling resistance according to this invention means that at the deployment depth the reservoir does not collapse irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment. It is well known that the wall of the reservoir may be designed to be part of such a structure providing buckling resistance.
It is clear that the buckling resistance is needed as a consequence of the reservoir experiencing mechanical pressure due to hydrostatic pressure.
I do not think it is proper to isolate the buckling resistance and rely on the sentence
"Buckling resistance according to this invention
means that at the deployment depth the reservoir does not collapse irrespective of the amount of water pumped out of the compartment"
only.
Since this way, the big picture is distorted.
C1 - novelty A3 and A4 (Art 54(3))
ReplyDeleteC2 - IS A4+A6
C3 - Novelty A3
C4 - Novelty A5
C5 - IS A4+A5+A2
C6(1) - Added matter
C6(5) - A5+A6