Paper C Online EQE 2022: 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?
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 - 2021?
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?
Any pleasant and/or unpleasant surprises?
The paper and our answers
We will give the core of our answer in a separate blog.
(We expect that the C paper will be made available soon in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, PaperC )
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 17-03-2022 17:03"), 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:
The pass percentage for this year will be high.
ReplyDeletewas it just me or the second half much easier than the first half?
Deletei wont pass it
DeleteBit uncalled for to make anyone who didn't find it as easy as you worried. You could very easily be the outlier in that you're the only one who found it so easy.
DeletePlease do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 17-03-2022 17:03"), 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.
DeleteI found this exam tough. Then again the C-exam has always had a bad reputation. I guess the brutality of EQE, where total success also means your marriage didn't collapse, is the reason few children of European patent attorneys follow in their parent's footsteps.
Deleteit was very confusing :(
ReplyDelete:( hope you're ok
DeleteWow - that is one of the worse paper C exam. So confusing. Very difficult. This is one of the most difficult paper. Was there a mistake in claim 1.
ReplyDeleteclaim 2 was using A5+A4?
ReplyDeleteThat's what I did! Hope it was right
DeleteSame
Deleteexcept A4 is CPA?
DeleteI went with A4+A5 for that one since A4 actually had a method production
DeleteA5 discloses a 'manufacturing process'
Deletepurpose is a method of making a yarn for high mech stress use - A4 doesn't disclose that purpose. So A5 must be CPA.
DeleteResit next year. Absolutely minefield of an exam. Not a chance.
ReplyDeleteNot as bad as 2021, but it has some issues with documents with mulitple dates (need to argue the printed version is evidence for the disclosed things). Also, all the embodiments was a little tricky (i.e., A3). But overall, not terrible.
ReplyDeleteIn did first part totally wring! for sure! any idea for computer implemented thing?
ReplyDeletelol me too, absolutely messed up part 1... oops.
DeleteThe CII was for a business model so I used Art. 52(2)(c).
DeleteMe too. I used Art. 52(2)(c) because it says that programs for computers are not regarded as inventions.
DeleteMy attacks:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 - Novelty A6
Claim 2 - IS A5+A4
Claim 3 - Novelty A6, Novelty A3
Claim 4 - IS A3+A2
Claim 5 - IS A3+A2 (A3+1st emb. for ball + 2nd emb. for "detachable"
Claim 6 - same as Cl 5, the added features of Cl 6 are non-technical and not relevant for IS, GL V-VII, 5.4
Claim 3 was added subject matter, I believe
DeleteClaim 1 - Novelty A5*
Deleteclaim 3 was added subject matter, yes.
Deletehow can A6 be novelty for c1 when there is no void in A6 by solvent.
DeleteC5 is actually a swap as A3 2nd embod is CPA.
DeleteWhere did you find "10-20 thin electrically conductive metal wires" in A6?
DeleteA6=TYPO
DeleteClaim 1 - Novelty A5
Where did you find a solvent in A5 then?
DeleteNot needed as product by process feature¬ limiting
DeleteAnonymous at 17:10:
DeleteProduct by process feature IS limiting, just not to the method per se. The claim says removed by solvent. Since A4 shows that many solvents do not require that all the polyamide is removed, this means that the product-by-process feature is not strictly limtiing to "all polyamide gone".
Saying that a product-by-process feature is not limiting, simply because it is a product-by-process feature, is not technically correct.
Product by process is limiting if it gives a technical property to the product, which in this case it does.
Delete@James
Deletegenerally I agree, but in this specific case it was not limiting. Any hollow structure no matter how it is produced anticipates the feature.
@A5
DeleteNo it does not, because the technical property needs to be DUE TO the process; the process here does not confer such as property.
Thus any hollow structure no matter how it is produced anticipates the feature.
I guess we are all saying the same thing here, but in different ways. The product-by-process feature does imply certain limitations; however, those limitations are already present due to the wording of the rest of the claim, so they have no effect on the assessment of novelty.
DeleteI would still be very careful of stating "not limiting" in an exam situation - potentially lose some marks there.
What I mean is that in the exam you would probably need to explain WHY it does not have the effect of limiting the claims, by analysis what the product-by-process feature means. Simply stating "not limiting" probably loses argumentation marks
DeleteEQE paper C 2022 was not environmentally friendly
ReplyDeleteI had the feeling that there weren't many attacks but that the attacks were quite long to type out. I had the following:
ReplyDeleteCL1: A.54(2) - A5
CL2: A.56 - A5+A4 (or rather slides shown in A4)
CL3: A.100(c)
CL4: Art.54(3) - A6
CL4: Art.56 - Ball 1st gen (A3) + A2
CL5: Set 1st gen (A3) + A2 + Set 2nd gen (A3) (partial problems)
CL6: Same as CL5 (same technical features)
excellent, see my response just under yours, looks like we got most of the same - A5 didn't disclose the void being by dissolution, which in my mind made for different end product because there was no leftover material, but in hindsight think your A54(2) there looks right
DeleteI'm with you on the different end properties for Cl1, so A5 can't be 54(2)
DeleteI go along with Rub. A5's void destroys the void in the claim because of the product-by-process formulation p\of the latter.
Delete@123 - perfect, that's reassuring ;)
DeleteI also hesitated with claim 1. I finally went with novelty since A4 teaches that solvents other than the triacetic thing also leave a residue of polyamide (if memory serves). since the product-by-process feature was not limited to the special solvent, i thought the end product would be the same.
My thinking was that my IS attack basically contains the entire N attack - that should be worth some marks, even if the Examiners think that the method feature is not limiting. But no idea if that is true.
DeleteHad exactly the same attacks!
DeleteHad same as you Rub except I missed the A54(3) for cl.4 - hopefully won't miss too many marks from that as I imagine more are for the IS attack.
DeleteProduct-by-process - claim 1 is not limited to a specific solvent so the void also may contain residue - thus cannot distinguish over A5's heat treatment process in the final product void.
Claim 3 also lacks novelty over A3(1st ball) too.
DeleteIf you have a claim that's added matter, usually, no other attacks are expected or awarded any marks. But I guess it doesn't hurt, as you could reuse some of it later on.
DeleteC1: A5+A4 (because A5 seemed to be only yarn for high mechanical stress conditions)
ReplyDeleteC2: A5+A4 (same reason as above, method must be for making high mechanical stress condition yarn)
C3: A123(2)
C4: A54(3) - A6 and A56 over A3(first embodiment) + A2 (because A3(1st) appeared to be only ball with integral fibres
C5: A56 partial problems A3(1st) + A2 and A3(2nd) (really thought A3(2nd) was closest prior art, but that didn't work at all for an IS argument)
C6: non-technical feature, so not inventive for same reason as C5
No idea if any of this is right, thought it was a pretty difficult one, too much chemistry, although better tech than 2021 (although not nearly as easy as 2018 and 2019)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn A6, the metal is on the inside. There does not seem to be an indication that they work as antenna. Maybe I overlooked something.
DeleteI had pretty much exactly the same as you, except I didn't notice using A6 against claim 4. Also, I used A4 as CPA for claim 2 because it relates to the method of making hybrid yarn.
Delete@hodge - no indication it wouldn't work... and A1 seemed to teach that it would.
Delete@Anon - that's good, I'm glad. I used A5 because purpose of C2 is a method of making a yarn for high mech stress use - A4 doesn't disclose that purpose. A5 does. So A5 must be CPA. But who knows really :)
Wow I was very very confused for claim 5 as for me A3(nd) was really the CPA by itdid not work for an IS argument either ! I had to start from the ball (A3(1st)) to be able to use the partial problems
Delete@NC glad I'm not the only one. Spent a good 30-40 minutes on A3(2nd) as CPA, but it just didn't make any sense as an IS argument. In all previous Paper C's I've seen, A3(2nd) would have been CPA, but here, I can't see how anyone can craft a convincing IS attack based on A3(2nd).
DeleteI went with A5 as CPA, there were clear pointers to wanting to find a better method of removing the polyamide fibres.
Delete@123 what were your issues with using a3(2) as cpa for claim 5? i framed the OTP as how to provide a goal detection arrangement more suitable for long-term use
Delete@Jjj - my issue was that to get to the goal detection arrangement more suitable for long-term use, you needed to combined A3(2nd) with A3(1st), but that wouldn't get you there, as you'd have to replace the yarn from A3(1st) with A2 - it didn't seem to work as a partial problem, and you can't combine 3 documents. But I'm not claiming this is right - A3(2nd) seemed like the more natural CPA, but I just couldn't make it work.
DeleteI think the thing with starting from A3(2) for claim 5 is that you need a stepwise solution, as suggested in the Guidelines. I did that, because A3(2) felt closer than A3(1), and invested s lot of time to take the skilled person by the hand. So, take the second embodiment, change to the ball of the first embodiment and sew that ball with the yarn of A2
DeleteBut that's not how IS at the EPO works is it? The skilled person should be able to get there from a single OTP - in this case, you need an OTP to get to the ball of first embodiment, and a second, and related, OTP to get to the modified ball of the first embodiment from A2. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you've written out what I had written out (because the CPA seemed better) but then replaced in a massive rush because it just didn't feel right, there just seemed to many steps for the skilled person to take to get there. I was surprised there wasn't a hint in A3 saying: "by the way, the first ball has also often been used with second goal detection arrangement", because then it would've been a pretty clear 2nd+1st + A2. I do hope the Examiner's consider this, whichever way the "model answer" goes.
Delete@123
DeleteAh okay, I pointed to it being common general knowledge that sewn footballs were advantageous compared to seamless footballs (said so in A3), sewn footballs all have a rubber bladder (A1) then basically just applied A2 to traditional football
@Jjj that sounds like a sensible attack - I think the only issue is that A3 says that there is a move back to seamless footballs, but not that the seamless football of 1st embodiment is being used again - there actually seem to be pretty good reason not to go back to 1st Vuwuseeler - it doesn't work very well. Who knows, we'll have to wait for the model answer to see what they wanted. Both of these seem like sensible lines of attack.
Delete@123
DeleteYes, but A2 said it could be used to provide more durable sports devices or something very close to that... that seemed like an obvious hint to just go > traditional football (not saying anything about a3(1) > ball of claim 4 in a1. who knows, we'll see!
C6 is not contrary to 52(2)?
ReplyDeleteI did that - there was a hint that betting was 'commercial' in A3.
DeleteIt makes use of a computer, therefore it's not excluded from patentability as a whole under Art.52(2). I did Art.56 here.
DeleteTechnically no, but practically yes. The "computer implemented method" wording takes it out of the 52(2) exclusion, but then all you've got left is the non-technical business method. Whether you treat it as 52(2) or 56 you get the same outcome, with similar arguments, just different legal basis.
DeleteAnd yeah, the commercial in A3 was a huge hint!
See GL G-II, 3.6 - claims directed to a computer-implemented method cannot be objected to under Art 52(2).
DeletePretty sure they can only give marks for an IS argument against C6 (mixed technical and non-technical features), not for Art 52(2) objection. Computer-implemented methods cannot, as a rule, be objected to under Art 52(2)
Delete@123 exaclty my thoughts. Seems very hard for a chemist though (IT is my technical domain so I was fine)
DeleteIn response to 3S - GL G-II 3.6 "If a claim is directed to a computer program which does not have a technical character, it is objected to under Art. 52(2)(c) and (3). If it passes the test for having technical character, the examiner then proceeds to the questions of novelty and inventive step (see G‑VI and G‑VII, in particular G‑VII, 5.4)."
DeleteHow about claim 6 is not patentable under Art 53(a)EPC for exception for patentability due to "commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public""?
DeleteA computer program isn't the same as a computer implemented method though - although this is a very nuanced point and rather unfair on anyone chem/bio
DeleteCII is a specific field within patent practice, it is not generic. How candidates are supposed to pick up on this nuanced point in an exam is unfair in my opinion.
DeleteI went with the claim being excluded on Art 52 grounds. No doubt the private practice zelots will come for me saying I should have known this as a prospective professional representative.
@Anonymous17 March 2022 at 16:54
DeleteIf claim 6 is contrary to "ordre public", I do wonder where you live.
@Adam, the nuance being that a computer-implemented method is not a computer program per se. This is a very unfair question to chemists/non-IT practicioners
DeleteI understand so, that claim 4 was added s.m. becuase it comprises FURTHER a yarn ... however, the yarn was a structural component which was claimed in claim 3. So, this was not present in A1 as filed. Claim 4 depending on 3 is added s.m. but the proprietor may add it to claim 3 during revocation, as it was as filed. In client letter it is stated that claim 3 was split!
ReplyDeleteThat was my reason, I dont know if I am right!??
claim 4 also states that the yarn (or at least the metal in the yarn) acts as THE passive antenna, so my interpretation of this wording is that you do not need BOTH a passive antenna and a yarn, but rather that the hybrid yarn fulfils both requirements.
Deleteclaim3 is broader and does not have essential feature according to the invention that is the hybrid yarn.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was an essential feature (how else would the ball hold?). However, essential feature is Art 84, which is not a ground for opposition. I did 100(a)/123(2), but made a note of the essential nature of the yarn. Probably worth 0 points.
DeleteThe term "essential feature" is the key. Have you seen the examiner raise an Art. 123(2) EPC objection for the lack of essential feature?
DeleteCan someone confirm whether this attack based on Art. 123(2) EPC is correct?
Requiring an essential feature from the description to be added is Art84, but broadening through deleting an essential feature is Art123(2). Both concern essential features, but from a different direction.
DeleteCondition 2 of the essentiality test H-V, 3.1 (the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognise that the feature is not, as such, indispensable for the function of the invention in the light of the technical problem the invention serves to solve)
DeleteGot it. You are right, SA. I missed the Art. 123(2) EPC issue, and did a novetly attack for claim 3 based on the first generation of the ball from A3. This approach, I hope the Examiners would count under the attack for claim 4's inventive step attack.
DeleteI had that A2, A3(first Vuwuseeler ball, smart goal), A3(second Vuwuseeler ball, smart referee), A4, and A5 are prior art for novelty (Art 54(2) EPC) and inventive step (Art 56 EPC).
ReplyDeleteA6 is prior art for novelty only (Art 54(3) EPC).
Claim 1 lacks inventive step over A5+A4 (A5=CPA).
Claim 2 lacks inventive step over A4+A5 (A4=CPA).
Claim 3 lacks novelty over A3. Claim 3 also added matter (intermed. generalisation separating claim 4 subject matter from original claim 3).
Claim 4 lacks inventive step over A3(first vuwuseeler) + A2, and separately A3(first vuwuseeler) + A5.
Claim 5 lacks inventive step over A3(first vuwuseeler) + A2 and A3(smart goal) + A3(smart referee) - it seemed there was partial problems here.
Claim 6 is unpatentable (Art 52(2)(c) EPC) as a business method for being commercial, used A3 last page as support.
I used A3 as support as well for mental act.
DeleteWhat problem does selecting materials solve for claim 2 (I did A5+A4)?
DeleteThe difference between claim 2 and A4, as I understand it, is that A4 doesn't disclose electrically conducting wires twisted around the inner layer and polyamide fibres. The technical effect of this difference is to allow the yarn to be used as an antenna ([0014] A1). This is solved by using A5 which discloses stainless steel which is electrically conductive (see A1), even if not every conductive and not a very good antenna it still can be used according to A1.
DeleteThus, combination of A4+A5 renders cl. 2 lacking inventive step in my opinion.
Okay, I see. But what would motivate making an antenna starting from A4?
DeleteThe fact it's an antenna is implicit - anything with the metal wire / conductive fibres in will act as an antenna. So it doesn't need to be explicitly disclosed.
DeleteIs it permissible to use A100(c) and then A100(a) (as a back up) for claim 3? I done this and now I am concerned tht I will actually receive no marks for using both.
DeletePlease do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 17-03-2022 17:03"), 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.
ReplyDeleteI did:
ReplyDelete1: A54(2) from A5, and A54(3) from A6
2: IS based on A4 as closest prior art in combination with A5 and A2. Partial problems with respect to the type of materials for the core and the outer part.
3: added matter
4: IS based on A3 (1gen ball) in combination with A2 yarn
5: IS based on A3 (Smart referee) in combination with A2 yarn and the baby transceiver
6: Non technical, IS attack continued from claim 5
i did a4 a5 a2
DeleteDo you mean novelty-destroying when writing 54(2) and 54(3)?
DeleteI do not see the 10-20 wires in A6.
I agree with A6 here. Pretty sure that the Cl.1 attack is just entirely incorrect.
DeleteA6 at 16:42,
DeleteSorry, for claim 1 I meant 1 novelty attack based on A5, and then a separate (very thin) novelty attack based on A6, as A54(3). The 54(3) attack based on A6 was probably just a miss.
C4 - A3 1st embodiment + A2.
ReplyDeleteFor C5, i think it should be A3 2nd embodiment + A2 and A5. C5 has a different purpose i.e. portable detection system.
I like this
DeleteI think CPA is A3 1st emb., as the system (detector+ball) is closer to Claim 5 - the system of A3, 2nd emb. has a very different ball.
DeleteAlso starting from A3 1st emb. you get a nice distuingishing feature - namely "portable" - which has an effect in A1 & A3, 2nd emb.
So Cl5 = CPA A3 1st emb. + A3 2nd emb.
Yep, but I took that as a clue to CPA for C5. They like to swap CPA around and because it relates to a system claim, it would be logically to swap it. It also said that features of 2nd and 1st are pretty much the same, apart from the rubber bladder - which you can find in A5. This works quite nicely.
DeleteBut the ball in 2nd embodiment doesn't only not have a bladder, it doesn't have seams! That's why I couldn't get from the seamless ball of 2nd embodiment to claim 5, so started with 1st embodiment, which gives nice partial problem from 2nd embodiment and A2.
DeleteOh the computer-implemented method twist of claim 6. Maybe should have seen that coming because of the COMVIK G1/19 decision? Hoping for some pity points...
ReplyDeleteAlso, it took some five minutes for the material to download, both for Part 1 and Part 2. I don't think it was an internet connection problem as I could access legal text right away. Five mins of course isn't that much, but it's still waiting, to get started, when you're stressed out already.
DeleteApart from claim 6, the set-up seemed much more straight-forward than last years Paper C. No real issues with effective dates or added subject-matter or priorities, and no need to start reading ALL annexes again for the second part. Now I'm of course thinking that I've missed something completely as this seemed less complicated than before. Maybe I just didn't realize the issues...
In my opinion, online exam is so much better: first of all, sitting at home, relatively comfortably (that is, without bras and in leggins, i.e. the standard remote work outfit), typing is so much quicker and efficient than hand-writing, and having used to non-paper working for years now, using a screen and multiple tabs is not such a big deal, especially since you're still able to print out the annexes. Copy-paste option is also nice.
Hear, hear. The online exam is great, despite its oddities.
DeleteI also had downloading problems, had to do a reload or two while adrenaline levels took to the sky. I lost about 5 minutes on these.
DeleteClaim 1 - novelty A5, important features in the claims
ReplyDeleteClaim 2 - Inventive Step, A5 + A4 (swap melting with the dissolving)
Claim 3 - Added Matter, broader than as filed (because hybrid yarn required)
Claim 4 - Inventive Step, A3 (first ball) + A2 (swap copper yarn with 'EPO' [ha ...] yarn)
Claim 5 - Ran out of time. Was going for inventive step, A3 (first ball) + A3 (latest detection set). All features of detection set disclosed. Not inventive to combine first ball embodiment with latest detection set embodiment.
Claim 6 - Contrary to A.52(2)(c) - hint in A3 that betting is considered as 'commercial' - GL G II 3.5.3.
I should also add, for claim 5, the newer detection set had all the features of the older detection set unless explicitly different.
DeleteFor claim 4 I though it lacked novelty over A6, A6 being citeable as 54(3)
DeleteBen, is there a bladder in A6?
DeleteMuch the same as you Adam, except that claim 6 cannot be objected to under Art 52(2)(c) (see other people's comments on the guidelines above - I think this was a trap for us chemists...)
DeletePeople are discussing A6 as 54(3) novelty destroying of claim 4. I need to double check everything, but for me there is no indication that the bladder must be made from rubber...
Bladder follows from A1[18] since the ball is made in the same way as disclosed therein.
DeleteBut I could only find the features of Cl3 in A6 -- not the added features of Cl4-
@Adam
DeleteA1 stated that ALL balls have bladders, thus an implicit feature.
For C5- the 2nd one had all features of 1st ball but the purpose of C5 has changed to portable device so I've done C5: 2nd embodiment A3 + A2 and A5 (rubber bladder). Seems to work well.
Delete@James A6 said something like suitable for stitching together segments of a traditional football. A3 said traditional footballs have segments and a bladder. A1 said bladder necessarily made of rubber for all stitched together footballs
DeleteI think people won't lose that much marks if they did an attack of A3 + A2 for claim 5 as opposed to A6 novelty only. Seemed quite a hidden attack.
DeleteThis paper was fairer than last year's.
ReplyDeleteWhat was awful for me was that I had to contact the invigilator in both parts because the editor was going out of focus by itself during the exam!
A major disruption in itself and also loss of concentration by having to chat! I HATE Wiseflow. These technical issues can be the difference between a pass and a fail! I speak from past experience!
This happened to me every time I opened the paper to sit side-by-side the text editor. For this reason, for the last two exams I only ever opened the exam paper in a tab. I agree, very annoying.
DeleteI just gave up trying to fix it and did the entire of both parts of the exam really blurry. Bit of a headache, but my eyes adjusted.
DeleteOMG - your eyes adjusted? what a joke that you have to adjust eyes to a blurry screen! What next?
DeleteEQE 2023: you have to do it standing on your head because the editor flips up-side-down during the exam??????? What a f**king joke!
I had the same issue with blurring
DeleteI had the same issue with blurring. This no doubt caused eye strain, frustration, and lost us valuable focus and time. I think this issue came up in the mock exams? I am not sure because it did not happen to me. But it was definitely an issue for this exam.
DeleteHappy St Patricks day from Ireland!
ReplyDeleteThat was a nice tour of randomness. Are we not doing patents as prior art anymore? Internet disclosure, evidence of prior use of 2 balls and 2 transceivers, and conference slides instead.
Then the essentiality test and COMVIK.
Apart from the oddness of it all, it didn't seem too bad.
Can I have a pint now?
Yes! It should be a sin to have paper C on st Patrick’s day! Very hard to concentrate in my apartment block today 😂.
DeleteFor the first time, I'm glad I mainly work with non-technical cases...
ReplyDeleteFor claim 6, GL-II, 3.5.3 reads "if the claimed subject-matter specifies technical means, such as computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus, for executing at least some steps of a business method, it is not limited to excluded subject-matter as such and thus not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2)(c) and (3)."
so only art.56 attack available here
If I recall correctly, claim 6 was directed to a 'computer-implemented method' rather than a physical 'technical' thing. Does a 'computer-implemented method' imply inclusion of the computer per se? I have no idea.
DeleteHow can you do an A56 attack if claim 6 was in the application as filed?
Delete@Adam yes "computer-implemented method" is sufficient to clear art.52(2) hurdle
Delete@Ben art.56 is inventive step no?
I attacked claim 6 under Art. 100(b) and Art. 83 EPC. There was a weird comment at the end of A3 that looked like a hint, "never been this()close"...
ReplyDeleteRaising sufficiency as a ground is violation of Rule 25(5) of the Implementing provisions to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIPREE
DeleteRule 25
Content of the examination – Opposition paper (Paper C)
(5) The notice of opposition shall contain all those grounds (and no others) – where possible against all the claims – which candidates consider in this particular case to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the patent. The omission of good grounds for opposition will lead to a loss of marks commensurate with the importance of the grounds in question. Article 100(b) EPC shall not be cited.
I found C this year much more manageable than last year. At least the subject matter is more comprehensible for candidates in all fields. In my opinion, the committee is nice enough not to hide the hints too deeply or making them too complicated to dig them out. And there is no first-applicatin issue and complex priorities to deal with... Unluckily, I had problems for login during the first part (speaker not detected! never happened before), so I had to reboot my laptop and lost around 15 min. Not sure if I should file a complaint..? as I feel I should be able to pass C this year..
ReplyDeleteC1: A5 + A4
ReplyDeleteC2: A4 + A2
C3: 123(2)
C4: A3(1st ball) + A2
C5: A3(1st ball) + A3 (smart goal) + A2
Cl 6: Art. 100(b)
A3 was too late in any case. Did you as A3 considered as a disclosure of prior use or common general knowledge? I opt for prior use, but not sure about it.
BI
yep, evidence of prior public use
DeleteLoads of people could not submit their answer in part 1 -confirmed to my by invigilator. so they lost time in their break!
ReplyDeleteYep, same here, almost had a heart attack!
DeleteSame, lost like 10-15 minutes ...
DeleteSame here, I had to call the helpdesk twice to get the problem fixed. In the end, I only had a 5 minute break and was totally stressed. So part 2 ended in disaster...
DeleteClaim 1 - novelty A5 (the new process does not make the product new)
ReplyDeleteClaim 2 - inventive Step, A5 + A4 (swap melting with the dissolving)
Claim 3 - novelty 1st ball; novelty A6 - i missed the 100c) attack because i figured the generalization was ok due to Annex 1 [0005]
Claim 4 - novelty A6; inventive step, 1st ball + A2 (swap copper yarn)
Claim 5 - inventive step with partial problems, 1st set supplied with 1st ball as CPA + 2nd set (portable) + A2 (swap copper yarn).
Claim 6 - inventive step over general knowledge, only distinguishing feature is non-technical
For A4: did you also use the conference itself or only the two slides duplicated in A4?
ReplyDeleteIPREE
Rule 25
Content of the examination – Opposition paper (Paper C)
(8) It is to be assumed that, for all annexes which claim a priority, the disclosures in the annexes are identical with those in the corresponding priority documents unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. If, however, any facts presented need to be confirmed, e.g. in the case of an alleged prior public disclosure, candidates are expected to state that such confirmation will be filed later. Regardless of the date of the client's letter, candidates are to assume that there is no possibility of conferring with him.
I went with "the presentation was handed out to all participants on USB sticks on DATE", which hopefully suffices. Maybe should have offered a witness, but didn't think of that at the time.
DeleteI welcome this year's Paper C like Paper B in the last year. It is more realistic and the technical contents is accessible to most of the candidates. However, great possibility that I have to resit the nex year, because I couldn't concentrate due to Covid. Tested positive and having high fieber since days...-:(
ReplyDeleteApart from CII, lets not normalise CII please.
DeleteCl1: Novelty, A5
ReplyDeletecl2: Inv A5+A4
cl3. 123(2) (no support for "passive antenna")
cl4: 4(3) inv A3+A2
Cl5: 5(4(3)) inv A3+A4,(nothing about emb2 of A3 not compatible with ball of emb1)
cl6: 52(2) (very very unsure about this)
Hope to have written this for the last time. Splitting the exam in 2 is very good for me, makes it more "handable". Writing on a keyboard about 100 times better than by hand!
system gave me almost heart attack when I couldnt hand in first part, took 8 minutes, was about to start crying! /IrmaL
C1: Inventive step attack from A5 + A4
ReplyDelete(on reflection, novelty attack from A5 enough)
C2: Inventive step attack from A5 + AT
C3: Added matter attack, claim didn't specify hybrid yarn to stitch together segments
C4: Novelty attack from A6
C5: Inventive step attack from A3(2nd embodiment) + A2
C6: inventive step attack, no technical problem solved
AT = A4 in C2 there, thanks autocorrect
DeleteAll in all, Wiseflow is sh*t!
ReplyDeleteagreed
DeleteFor everyone out there, I can confirm you do not need all the correct attacks or all of the correct arguments to gain points. I got a 42 in 2021, and I did not even have a single correct attack. So, they give points for good arguments and good use of information.
ReplyDeleteBut the issue is whether they give enough points to pass. A fail is a fail, whether you miss out on one mark or twenty.
DeleteMy perception is that if you happen to get all the subjectively 'correct' attacks and give rubbish reasoning and cursory arguments and reference the wrong things, you will scrape a pass. If you get the 'wrong' attacks, even with immaculate reasoning and really persuasive arguments, you will almost certainly fail (albeit not by many marks).
My attacks:
ReplyDeleteC1 - A5+A4 (here process causes a structural difference! complete removal)
C2 - no time
C3 - added matter (inadmissable intermediate generalization)
C4 - A6 (54(3) + common general knowlege from A3, p.3/l.24: ball contains bubble?)
C5 - A3+A2(A3: 1st gen. ball + 2nd gen. recognition device/A2: hybrid yarn instead of pure Cu)
Claim 6 - Art.52(2)c) non-technical
thoughts? Thx
That 123(2) attack on claim 3 took a while to figure out. It was not like other 123(2) attacks in paper C. A bit tricky (hidden like a Paper B issue).
ReplyDeleteWhy was the A. 123(2) claim 3 and not claim 4. Reading claim 4 gave me an impression that there was an additional antenna
DeleteIt was my understanding that claim 4 included all the features of originally filed claim 3 and was also supported by the description as filed.
DeleteI found the general topic to be too difficult. What is a "football" and a "goal"?
ReplyDeleteJK, although the references to football players were somewhat distracting, and I didn't like signing as Pele; felt wrong.
Had some minor issues with wiseflow, but nothing worrying.
Time was surprisingly OK in the first half, and still good in the 2nd half.
I appreciate that this year's EQE, the printable material was consistently available much earlier than the announced 10 minutes before the start of the flow. Gave extra 10-20 minutes for reading, which saved a lot of time.
I generally liked the setup of the paper, only two claims in part 1 which was good and a nice split between chemical and mechanical subject-matter.
ReplyDeleteI found the paper still quite hard though because for the IS attacks on claim 2 and on claim 5 there were at least 2 useful starting points and it was not very apparent which one would work better, so I spend a lot of time backtracking a switching my cpa.
Probably they will not mark down the "wrong" option too severely, but I still found this to be surprisingly difficult.
Furthermore, discussing the full package of documents and their acceptability and publishing date was surprising and though not super difficult, also more time consuming than the usual priority discussion.
Good comments. I agree with your assessment in full.
DeleteI find claim 5 especially difficult in selecting closest prior art. There are two options A3 1st or A3 2nd embodiments.
DeleteA3 2nd embodiment seems to be the closest to the purpose of claim 5 - I.e. a portal system. I do hope that they consider marks for A3 1 and 2nd embodiments as CPA.
I got most of the attacks very similar, but as always, I am bound to do some controverted things (unconsciously). I will explain: claim 2 is an independent method claim, with a false dependency on claim one (hybrid yarn). As far as I know the features of the product claim are only limiting for a claim of another category if they are achieved directly by the method, or are essential for it to work, etc. So, A4 explitity mentioned absolutely all steps of the method of claim 2, the only differenciating feature is the material of the outer layer (metallic and electrically conductive). Thus, I attacked such claim for novelty with A4, and expand for completeness that the fact that the outer layer could be a metallic electrical conductive material would be obvious by general knowledge or by minimal trial and error so if novelty os not convincing it would not be inventive. For claim 1 I did A5 + A4. What are your thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can say the method lacks novelty over A4 but that there is a differentiating feature. The fact that there is a differentiating feature means that it is novel...
DeleteThis exam is tricky not because of the difficulty. They have given pretty straight forward attacks to claims 3, and 4. But there are multiple attacks for each of claims 3, and 4 at least - Art. 123(2), 54(2) and 56 EPC attacks. It would be imperative to see how EPO's examining committee decides on the division of marks for these attacks. I, for one, went with the most promising attack while ignoring the other moderate ones for e.g., claim 3. But this may cost lot of marks if these attacks were not treated as alternatives, but as cumulative ones.
ReplyDeleteI think part 1 was very tricky and again not sufficient timing.
DeleteI do think C3 there were too many attacks and not sufficient times to do them efficiently so I hope for novelty attacks, either A3 or A6 novelty attack would attract full novelty marks plus A123(2) attack.
The late 1990s and early 2000s witnessed the rise of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). situs slot gacor
ReplyDelete