Mock C under exam conditions on 10 December 2021 - and on 21 December 2021 (and in 3 Feb 2022)
A mock C exam under exam conditions allowing you to test the updated WISEflow version with video/audio invigilation is available on 10 December 2021. See here.
The main purpose of the December Mocks is to test your equipment and settings, including camera and audio.
You can practice the papers at a later moment, as they will again be made available as Mock papers for a longer period, but without invigilation.
It has also been announced by email from the EQE secretariat to all candidates that, i a further mock under exam conditions will be conducted on 3 February 2022. The purpose of this mock is to check your equipment and settings. This mock will not contain a new paper, but a known paper used in the currently open mocks.
Please feel invited to post your experiences with the Mock and the platform, comments and tips as comments to this blog. It is appreciated if you use your name or a nickname in your post, for easy reference (you can use the Anonymous option and close the message with your name, or use the google account or name option).
Update 14 December 2021:
Today, the EQE secretariat has informed the candidates by email of a new date for the epi December Mock with a new paper, as well as with information on the further availability of the Mocks as well as a date for a further mock under exam conditions (3 February 2022) to check your equipment and settings.
The email is cited below in full (colouring added):
Dear candidate,
- The
mock paper C which was offered to you last Friday, 10 December 2021, was a
repetition of a mock paper made available already in January and October
2021.
That is why a new mock paper provided by epi will be made available on:
21 December 2021,
Part C1 9:30 – 12:30 h CET;
Part C2 13:15 – 16:15 h CET.
You will be able to test WISEflow under exam conditions, i.e.: timed examination with video and audio invigilation (AI and human). However, there will only be very few human invigilators present (far less than during the recent mocks).
- The
flows for papers for A, B and D containing the mock papers provided
by epi in December 2021 will be reopened as of 15
December 2021.
The flow with the new epi December mock paper C will be re-opened shortly after 21 December 2021.
These flows will not be under exam conditions, hence not timed and without any video and audio invigilation (AI nor human).
- In
addition, a further mock under exam conditions will be
conducted on 3 February 2022. The purpose of this mock is to
check your equipment and settings. This mock will not contain a new paper,
but a known paper used in the currently open mocks. Further details on
this mock will be communicated in due course.
- For
your convenience, we repeat some useful links:
- WISEflow
recommendations for the configuration of the environment for the upcoming
EQE: https://epo-wiseflow.ladesk.com/772936-Lockdown-computer-recommendations
- documentation
on the examination system (user guides, troubleshooting, etc) available on
the dedicated WISEflow website.
Please note that testing your equipment under
exam conditions is indispensable. Support might not be possible for equipment
which has not been tested in advance.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères
salutations
Examination Secretariat
European Qualifying Examination EQE
European Patent Office
Wiseflow/Flowclock has been improved for the main exam papers:
ReplyDeleteThe pdf viewer now allows annotation:
- highlight, underline,
- free form shapes/drawing, shapes in 4 colors,
- comments on the page, comment balloons
The editor now allows:
- strikethrough
- copying from the pdf viewer into the editor using Ctrl-C - Ctrl-V has been improved (it does no longer break every line after several characters, which it dod before)
Use the opportunity to test the updated, improved version with the Mocks, and familiarize yourself with the tools and options!
It is nice that those functions have been added, but it does not really help much because nothing can be highlighted in the pdf copy that can be displayed next to the editor. One still has to scroll down the page and click to get to the next page instead of simply scrolling and thereby allowing to quickly go through the pdf copy (= exam paper).
ReplyDeleteAlso, what does one do when one fails to enter the mock? Last year one could contact zendesk separately, while this year the only way to contact the invigilators is to actually be in the lockdown browser. I hope a solution to this will be provided before the actual exam.
As to the first item:
DeleteIndeed, annotation only works in the "Open in separate tab"-version of the paper.
I personally do not use the side-by-side view at all in any of the main exam paper; do not know whether many do.
For C, I do not use the pdf version at all, except to find the claim set -- I use the printed documents, which I find much more easy to annotate and which you can keep side-by-side with as many pages as you like.
As to the side-by-side view:
There is no need to scroll down the page and click to get to the next page:
you can resize the window (by dragging the left side of it to the right) so that a whole page is visible including the navigation buttons at the bottom ("< Page 4/28 >") - then you do not need to scroll in the side-by-side window but can directly click on the arrows.
By the way, additional advantages of the separate tab version are:
- you can open each prior art in a separate tab (up to the maximum that is defined by your screen width)
- you can open an Outline at the left, which will give you direct clickable links to "Title page", "Opponent's letter", "Annex 1", "Annex 1 - Claims", "Annex 2", "Annex 3", "Annex 4", "Annex 5", and "Annex 6"
Thank you for your advice. I also prefer printing the paper. However, in case the printing does not work for whatever reason, I would like to be prepared and be able to do the exam without having the printed pages. I find it easier to look at the pdf in the side-by-side view when working on my answer, but it is rather cumbersome to go through the pages, e.g. when one quickly needs to compare A2 with A6, it takes a lot of clicking instead of scrolling like in the tab. In addition, without the possibility of highlighting working with the side-by-side view pdf is very cumbersome, because one has to re-read passages instead of being able to just read the highlighted (i.e. important/relevant) passages.
DeleteReally disheartened today: the file to print out before the exam was wrong. It was identical to epi 2021 (corkscrew).
ReplyDeleteAnyone else had this?
OH WAIT!! So I think that the epi uploaded the wrong mock paper for today's exam - since the compendium & the papers uploaded to the epi's website (https://www.epi-learning.org/course/view.php?id=44) related to a seal system for a residual limb - I only know this, because immediately after the exam I went to fetch the compendium and was surprised that it wasn't about corks at all. I emailed them afterwards to ask them about this issue and it seems that they have now completely removed the Mock Paper C section - I have saved the compendium before this happened.
DeleteI THINK that the epi gave us the 'wrong paper' to do :D :D :D :D :D since they actually made us do the 'Mock Paper C (epi 2021) Part 1' and part 2 - but note the dates, since one was only available today with today's dates and the correct timing as per Paper C, and the other is available 15 October - 6 March - but both have pretty much the same names.
So it seems that someone made a mistake since the epi didn't actually provide us with a 'new' paper, but simply, accidentally made the same mock 2021 epi paper available, for which we had access to since forever, as today's new exam paper instead of the intended paper that supposedly concerns a 'seal system for residual limbs'.
What a mess.
Seems like it, yes. However, I don't understand why they took down the correct Mock paper from their website. Even if we were not able to do the Mock exam under exam conditions, it would have been nice to have access to it so that one can practice a bit more :/
DeleteI agree.It's obvious that a mistake was made and we did Mock C from last year(C 2017)but at least we could have the paper prepared for yesterday to practice without exam conditions
DeleteI agree too. Would like to have more mock exams to practice C! going to write them to ask if they can release the correct C mock exam for practice...could you guys/girls also write them, please? if more of us ask, maybe they will agree to release the correct mock C exam! thanks! :)
DeleteAs there is no model solution on the epi website, you may want to check the official Examiner's report of the original C 2017 paper in the Compendium:
Deletehttps://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/7C370EF0DC1D496FC1258154004BEAC8/$File/ExRep_2017_C_EN_for_web.pdf
NB: I did not check whether the epi version differs from the original C 2017 paper (apart from splitting the claimset in two parts to get a two-part C paper)
Hi Roel, thank you for the info! But I want to practice new C paper... Sonja pointed out that epi actually uploaded another C paper related to a seal system on Friday after the mock-exam but removed it afterwards. As I have practiced many old papers for the preparation last two years (including the one 2017) but didn't pass C-2021.. I am looking for more new C papers to practice :)
DeleteSame here - as I practised all C papers between 2009 and 2019 at leat once (some as 2017, 2019 even three times) last 2 years, I would like to see a fresh new paper from epi.
DeleteI checked the official Examiner's report of the original C 2017 paper in the Compendium and I'm very happy with my solution of friday's Mock
As far as I read the paper, the epi version does not differ from the original C 2017 paper
@Kelly:
Deleteyou can find our extensive model solutions to the 2015/2016/2017/2018/2019 C papers in our webshop: https://webshop.deltapatents.com/paper_c_solutions
You can learn a lot from doing papers that you already did before! review carefully where and why you missed an attack, missed significant detail in an attack, or wrote an incorrect attack.
if you only do new papers all the time, you run the risk of making the same type of errors all the time.
if you do a paper that you did before, you can also check whether you did not make the same errors again!
Good point, thank you
DeleteYeah.. indeed! Thanks :)
DeleteFor Pre-Exam and D, I usually recommend candidate to make and continuously update a list of their individual frequently make errors (FMEs) and omissions (FMOs) - in my experience, every candidate has some weak or black spots, but if you are ware of those and have it as a checklist on paper next to you in the exam, you will most likely be able to prevent those errors.
DeleteAs an example, I most often go wrong with calculating a 16-month time limit (that is very very persistent, even after 10 years of tutoring! I usually fo 1 yr + 6 months... so a total of 18 rather than 16).. so have a 3-item list that shows "16 <> 18, provisional protection, 6 January" when I do a D paper in preparation of our blog and when making new questions or updating questions for our legal Q&A books.
The epi seems to have uploaded the wrong documents to the website - i.e. the wrong exam paper and the wrong compendium.. :) I am pretty sure that today's paper was 'Mock Paper C (epi Dec 2021) part 1' and part 2 (with today's dates on it) that was about corkscrews - if not, I probably did the wrong paper but under real exam conditions at least..! :D
ReplyDeleteAlthough the names ARE confusing confusing in Wiseflow and the only way to distinguish between the papers is by looking at the dates/times of the mocks. I hope all of these currently available practice papers will be removed before the main exam because I don't want to accidentally enter the wrong exam/paper/mock/whatever available.
I have no issues with Wiseflow generally but oh my, that sh** table they have..! I use the tables to insert data, compare the features etc. etc. and not only you cannot adjust the size/height/etc of the table, which makes it one long unreadable blob, but also, when you then try and scroll down to under the table, the hole page somehow scrolls and everything disappears for a second only to have to scroll back up. So I have to be always super careful not to scroll 'too much' or constantly click into the text editor (although I am working in the text editor so there'd be no reason to do this) to scroll the editor and not the page itself. Also, technically when you look at the scroll bar on the right hand side when working in the editor & have the paper open on the side, it doesn't seem to allow to scroll UNDER the text editor, but it constantly does and I end up somewhere at the bottom of the page, well below the text editor and the open paper and then I have to scroll back up to find where I was. It seems to be a glitch because it happens often and is extremely annoying. Also, you cannot copy-paste the table and copy pasting data from the table is extremely tedious. IMO the table needs some serious improvement because it's so basic it hurts.
Otherwise, Paper C was quite alright though I felt that the distribution was not so well done - I finished about 30 minutes early in Part 1 but felt much more rushed in Part 2.
Hi Sonja,
DeleteI found that I could resize the table by clicking on the lines and dragging them. The mouse doesn't change when you hover over a line so it looks like it's not possible but it actually worked when I clicked and dragged.
What I would love is to be able to access the table I did for Part 1 in Part 2 as I prefer to do the table digitally but it looks like I will have to stick with a paper table.
Hi James,
DeleteMany thanks - I will try this! I tried grabbing and pulling but probably I was a bit impatient :)
I partly agree about the accessibility to the table in part 2 as well, though for me it doesn't actually pose a problem, since part 1 concerns different claims (and thus e.g. different prior art or at least, different sections of the prior art) than part 2.
E.g. in today's mock, part 2 was on claims 5-7 and part 1 was on claims 1-4, so when I did the feature analysis to check if the features can be found in the prior art, it wouldn't have been useful to see those answers I provided for claims 5-7 in the second part.
So, I think, I will stick to the table and just simply quickly re-do the table as needed, with the appropriate claims inserted.
Hi Sonja, you can print your submission for part 1 after the first half - I did it today and used that information for the second half?
DeleteI hope this is provided in the real exam too
Hi Monifa,
DeleteThanks for the tip!! Although I'm practicing to do the entire exam digitally (I didn't and don't actually print anything) - I think for me this is easier and more real-life-like since I don't print anything (or very seldom) at work as well.
Maybe it's time to buy a printer ;)
I thought it was OK. I didn't expect the claims to be withheld for part of the exam?
ReplyDeleteI only have 1 question so far: is there anyway to format the paper to be A3 in wiseflow? I would prefer to put all the tabulated information on one table, but with the A4 format limiting the width, the only adjustment I could make make next time is font size?
As far as I know, you cannot change the size of the editor window to portrait. If anyone found a way to do so, please post a comment!
DeleteBut you can use a sheet of paper of A3 size so that you can have any of your tools side-by-side on your desk when you answer the exam in the editor.
I lost all highlighting in the first part of paper C using the new pdf function. Would it be possible to keep your highlighted paper C paper for the second part.
ReplyDeleteI had the paper open in multiple tabs, one for each Annex. Annotations of the Annexes were also in multiple tabs.
DeleteDoes anyone know what would have happened if I would accidentally close the first tab with annotated Annex 1, and opened Annex 1 again in a new Tab? Are the annotations saved for the pdf for all tabs together such that I would still have my annotations? Or does every Tab has its own copy of the paper and would the annotations thus have gotten lost at the moment I closed the tab?
In Papers A and B, the annotations are saved for all the new tabs opened.
DeleteThank you. Then probably also in C, but only in the active part because the pdf for the first and second parts are different?
DeleteI found wiseflow ok but loading time for paper C is a big problem. It was far too slow for me. Had about 8 tabs open which took about 15 minutes for complete loading.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone got news of another paper C mock next week. It's quite late to tell us and I can't do it. Too close to Christmas too.
ReplyDeleteSee the update of the blog post of yesterday:
DeleteNew mock paper provided by epi will be made available on:
21 December 2021,
Part C1 9:30 – 12:30 h CET;
Part C2 13:15 – 16:15 h CET.
You will be able to test WISEflow under exam conditions, i.e.: timed examination with video and audio invigilation (AI and human). However, there will only be very few human invigilators present (far less than during the recent mocks).
The flow with the new epi December mock paper C will be re-opened shortly after 21 December 2021.
In the Mock of today (21 Dec), loading time for C1-part 1 (28 pages) was back to only about 25 seconds for me (while it was several minutes with the Mock of 10 Dec).
ReplyDeleteAlso different from the last MOCKs: I wasn't able to print the full exam by using Ctrl + P in the new-tab function of the exam anymore. Luckily for C you can print almost everything prior to doing the exam.
DeleteI considered the last exam to be quite difficult. Does the epi offers an offical solution?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epi-learning.org/course/view.php?id=44
Deletethe Mock EXam on 21th:
ReplyDeleteI took A6 as the closest prior art for claim 2. A6 mentions the seal pieace to be used with "conventional liner". since the cup A4 does not allow a flexible positioning, i thought A6 is more suitabel.
The model solution does not seem to specify this point, I appriciate if someone can share thoughts.
I didn't complete this paper as I found it too difficult and too long...the split was not good because a lot more time is needed for claims 1-3. Also, the model solution is not detailed (or lacking even for claim 6) and very little argumentation as to why a certain CPA is chosen.
DeleteI agree. I always feel rushed in the first part and then I miss important hints and get the attacks. I am not a speed reader and it usually takes me a while to get through the material, but then I am quick in drafting the attacks. However, now that we only have three hours, I really struggle to get anything done in time. It takes me usually about 2.5-3 hours to get through the material, do the feature matrix and determine the effective dates + writing the notice of opposition and the effective dates analysis part. However, that leaves me only like 30 mins (if I am lucky) to draft the attacks on the claims. The new split really punishes people who don't read as quickly and who are not writing the exam in their mother tongue...I wonder if anyone could share a few tips on how to approach the new split and not run out of time. Is it best to just focus on claim 1 (and hope to get full points on that) and then aim to get most of the points in part 2 as by then one is already familiar with the documents?
DeleteI also have the feeling that the split in this paper is not the best. According to the model solution, it is 53 points for claims 1 to 3, where you also need to do most of the basic facts and argument part and the reading of all references. Then it is only 35 points in the 2nd part for claims 4 to 6... This paper may be useful for training the inventive step, but it is hard for me to imagine, how you could also train how to be in time, at least in the first part...
DeleteFirst part was completely not fit for the time given. Also - I took A3 as CPA for the reasons that it could be used in sealed system A3[3]. BUT I completely had no time to properly think and complete it. I did much better in part II but that's because more reasonable time was given.
DeleteThey needed to provide a balance between Part I and II. Part I - i was completely overwhelmed and could not work quick enough or allowed sufficient thinking time.
On the mock exam from EPI, Part I, A6 is filed by the same applicant as A1, PR-US and PR-JP are also filed by the same applicant, no Art. 87(4) issue, and A6 discloses something similar to claim 1. However, A6 appears to be missing a "reinforced outer covering." While A1, [004] discloses that "liners are typically made of....and may include an outer covering different from the elastomic material," A1 does not unambgiuously indicate that all liners have reiforceable covers (i.e., "always have"). So, A6 does not disclose the subject matter of claim 1, and there is no same invention issue for this claim. Maybe I missed in the model solution? I mean, I don't think it matters, but I am suprised that point was not explained. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMock Paper C 21 Dec:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the model solution claim 4 lacks an inventive step over A6 in combination with A5.
Could somebody explain to me why the skilled person would turn to A5 starting from A6 to arrive at claim 4? They are in the same field, but according to the model solution A5 teaches away from the purpose of claim 4 because the protrusion is rigid and only provides good vacuum when it doesn´t collapse (argument as to why A5 is not closes prior art). Thus, by implementing the blades of A5 into A6 one would basically end up with exactly what A5 teaches not to do. In addition, according to A6, the airtight seal is provided by the hollow ring. (para 6) which appears to correspond to “the empty space included in the seal lip as described in para 18 of A1 that provides for the seal. However, if the feature of A5 is implemented into A6 then then there is no empty space. For it to work, A6 has to be modified just like described in A1, but I don’t understand how that would be done based on the disclosure of A5. I have probably just misunderstood something. Hence, I would be very grateful is somebody could just briefly explain to me the reasons for combining A6 with A5.
If this was the real paper then there is no chance of passing. Part I was too long and far too difficult to resolve in 3 hours. I hope the real papers are provided with more reason. Candidates need to be given sufficient time to read as well as attack the claims in part I.
ReplyDeleteCould someone explained why A4 is not a novelty attack for C1. According to model solution, A4 does not disclose elastomer made of silicone but in A47] - it disclolses lining with rubber or silicone. A1[11] - e liner is made of elastic polymer, also known as elastomer, for example natural rubber, latex or silicone rubber.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the model solution. Also - this paper was well too difficult to do with the allocated time.
Exactly, do not really get it. I did in French. A4 §6 stipule que dans le 2ème mode de réalisation la couche 2 peut être la même que la première couche 2 ci-avant(donc celle du 1er mode, qui correspond à la gaine) et porte donc la même référecence numérique sur les figures. Le §7 de A4 dit ensuite qu'il y a les anneaux d'étanchéité et que l'effet de ces anneaux fontionne encoe mieux lorsque la partie supérieure cupulaire (= l'emboiture) est elle-même gainée par du caoutchouc ou du silicone, ce qui selon les défintion dans A1 §11 (pour silicone) sont des exemples d'élastomères.
DeleteWhere can we find the model solution ? the link provided "https://www.epi-learning.org/course/view.php?id=44" does not seem to work, at least today...
ReplyDeleteI found it..
DeleteCan someone explain me why A6 is not the first application for claim 1 subject matter? The seal component (12) in A1 is the same as (10) in A6.
ReplyDeletecould it be that the mock exams are not very good? Are they written by other peple?
ReplyDeleteA6 does not disclose a number of features as in claim 1 of A1. For instance "reinforced outer covering an adjustable seal component". Read carefully [006]. The seal is not described to be adjustable, as well as no outer covering that is reinforced.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, could someone please kindly upload the Claims 4-6 from the Part 2? It's not in printable documents...