tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post1607267116774433067..comments2024-03-27T10:16:07.154+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents EQE Paper C: EQE Paper C 2015 - Carving out a solution DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-2614285965271709142015-03-05T08:31:48.520+01:002015-03-05T08:31:48.520+01:00If a value is dislosed and falls within the claime...If a value is dislosed and falls within the claimed range then the technical effect is irrelevant. Here 25Hz falls outside of 30-80Hz, unless one argues along the above suggested mergin of errors, as the values are not points.<br /><br />I have exactly the same attacks but more definitions from A1, which I used for the attacks, for example I ofetn used [0016] for the electric component and [0017] for the matrix. I also think there was a translation error in the German claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-68751879719644985722015-03-04T13:49:03.326+01:002015-03-04T13:49:03.326+01:00A summary of our Methodology and other EQE courses...A summary of our Methodology and other EQE courses is given in the parallel blog http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.nl/<br /><br />For more details, please refer to our website.DeltaPatents EQE Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13926591520841144736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-21805282716601672802015-03-04T13:33:50.884+01:002015-03-04T13:33:50.884+01:00Hi Martin,
Thx for expressing your appreciation f...Hi Martin,<br /><br />Thx for expressing your appreciation for our methodology courses!DeltaPatents EQE Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13926591520841144736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-65024702147967419112015-03-04T13:00:15.357+01:002015-03-04T13:00:15.357+01:00Confoosius write on the EQE Forum (02-03-15, 06:13...Confoosius write on the EQE Forum (02-03-15, 06:13 PM #40):<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Haas:<br />"You surely know effective dates of claims and usability of annexes A2 to A6 first. Of course, you should write down these things early."<br /><br />Effective Dates: yes, you have to know that right from the start according to the C-Book<br />Usability: No, you can decide on usability as CPA or combination document really after you wrote the list of features from document A2 to AX in the terms of the Claims. The argumentation why a certain document is CPA or a combination document is awarded lots of Points. This is also what most of the candidates with <45 pts get wrong / missing /incomplete and what causes their failure.<br /><br />Btw, I am not saying that this year's Exam could be done in 5 hrs, all that I am saying is (like Mr Pollard) that it is possible to achieve 45 or more Points even if you did not make it to the last Claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-16781834867723410632015-03-04T12:59:07.674+01:002015-03-04T12:59:07.674+01:00I can strongly recommend the DeltaPatents C Method...I can strongly recommend the DeltaPatents C Methodology courses, and their correction paper program.<br /><br />Thx to their course and their marking of & feedback to my papers, I could do this paper in 4h40 minutes and I expect to score about 55-60 marks based on what is all on this blog.<br /><br />They have a really good methodology, very time efficient: can really recommend!<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-77855388283878646552015-03-04T12:55:14.350+01:002015-03-04T12:55:14.350+01:00It is clearly required to have an approach in whic...It is clearly required to have an approach in which the time required for initial analysis is limited. We, at DeltaPatents, already many years ago developed a new technique (goal-oriented searching) which limits the time required for the initial analysis but nevertheless gives a good overview such that confidence in having seen the intended attacks increases. The technique has been developed over more than a decade and has tested by hundreds of candidates. The pass rates of our candidates and average number of marks has increased.The method is more or less stable for several years, having gone through many revisions. We've applied the technique in full detail to more than 10 papers.<br />Since no technique will suit everybody, we can also advise individual candidates who struggle passing the C exam on a more person-specific approach.Jelle Hoekstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06066000039386452752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-23807874891072952072015-03-04T12:55:00.176+01:002015-03-04T12:55:00.176+01:00Also on the EQE Forum:
Post of 02-03-15, 06:04 P...Also on the EQE Forum: <br /><br />Post of 02-03-15, 06:04 PM #39 by Confoosius <br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Haas:<br />"You surely know effective dates of claims and usability of annexes A2 to A6 first. Of course, you should write down these things early.<br />Then the A.100(c) attacks.<br />This is not in contradiction to what I said: the point of matter is the lions share of the marks, which is awarded to the A.100(a) attacks, and in particular to the inventive step attacks which you can do only at the end of the exam after a complete analysis of all annexes (and the patent and the clients letter, of course).<br /><br />And this means doing the complete analysis on all annexes with respect to all claims: while going through the annexes for writing novelty attacks, you simultaneously should also highlight all definitions of terms and all mentioned technical advantages or technical problems etc. which you may need for inventive step attacks later. If you do not, you must read the documents twice or more often, wasting additional time.<br />Whether you write the novelty attacks during this analysis and insert them into your opposition writ at a later point of time, or whether you first make a short feature table on a prepared table sheet (not copying the complete claim wording) and subsequently write the novetly attacks in detail, does not make a substantial difference as to time effort.<br /><br />The proper analysis was already done BEFORE (see paragraph above). In any method, you merely have to decide which documents to combine on the basis of the already conducted feature analysis (whatever form it has) using the highlighted technical problems etc. <br />Then writing the IS attacks (again: writing parts of the IS attacks earlier during analysis and arranging them inbetween additional text according to the C book, or analysing faster without writing "preliminary" novelty attacks for the IS attacks but writing the complete detailed IS attack in one pass later - there is no subtantial difference as to time effort, in particular the C book method does not seem to be advantageous when running out of time).<br /><br />And this is exactly what I said:<br />You can start writing the A.100(a) attacks (in particular the A.56 attacks which stand for the lions share of marks) only after having completely analysed all annexes."<br /><br />My C-Book has that different, if I remember correctly. You are attacking all Claims in a novelty style attack from each document. This is already a substantial amount of writing, not much analysis there. (and, you should also list the remaining differences in terms of features between document and claim). Then, you look at the Claims and the documents again. You have to decide which is Closest Prior Art (CPA) and which is a combination document. CPA is the document with the most Features in common with the claim, most of the time (do not write the most Features in common as a reason). You have to find the problem of the claim in this document. Next, check your novelty style attacks for the documents with the Features listed under difference. Again, find mention of the problem of the claim in this document. Then, fill out the missing parts of the attack.<br /><br />I never did it in the C-Book way because the cutting and gluing did not match my workstyle. And when it comes to the aspect of 'reading the document twice or more often' this is exactly what Delta patents says (again from Memory): of course, you will scan more . . .<br /><br />So, you do the analysis in steps according to the C-Book and not completely before you start to write . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-8915923201978512522015-03-04T12:51:06.883+01:002015-03-04T12:51:06.883+01:00Today, Sibelius wrrote (4-3-2015 10:36 AM #47)
I ...Today, Sibelius wrrote (4-3-2015 10:36 AM #47)<br /><br />I agree that five hours was too short for this exam. Hopefully there will be some way of compensation in the marking.<br /><br />Although I was (in my humble opinion) very well prepared also here time pressure became an issue at the end of the exam. Analyzing the prior art and to determine how to possibly deal with it (and how certainly not), determining effective dates and how to solve how everything could be used in attacks took a significant amount of time. Hopefully this whole analysis, which I wrote down pretty detailed, will also attract a serious amount of marks.<br /><br />As Mr. Pollard indicated it is not the goal to finish the paper but to gain enough marks to pass the exam. Hopefully I wrote down enough in sufficient detail to get enough marks to pass. After finishing the exam I had at least the feeling that I did everything that I could (both during preparation and during the exam) and that gives at least some relieve: “I know that I’m fit for practice” ;-).<br /><br />Having a look at the expected (!) attacks (according to BLOG at the DeltaPatents website), it appears that I did 7 of the 9 attacks as expected and that for one of the two incorrect attacks I did a novelty attack starting from the closest prior art for the expected inventive step attack (so no full inventive step attack; but the analysis of what the closest prior art discloses should provide at least some marks). Also I was not able to even think/start with the attack on claim 6… So in the end I missed two Inventive Step attacks. I expect/hope that this is not ‘deadly’.<br /><br />I indicated the above ‘feeling’ in my response back in the questionnaire to the EQE Secretariat. Hope that the correctors will be extra nice to us, but mostly I hope that I will never have to re-sit the C-paper exam! (meaning that I passed all papers and will become an European Patent Attorney in 2015).<br /><br />So now fingers-crossed during the next few months!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-851581013795030442015-03-04T12:49:54.082+01:002015-03-04T12:49:54.082+01:00With made Haas to react on 02-03-15, 08:51 PM #41:...With made Haas to react on 02-03-15, 08:51 PM #41:<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Confoosius:<br />"Effective Dates: yes, you have to know that right from the start according to the C-Book<br />Usability: No, you can decide on usability as CPA or combination document ..."<br /><br />I meant usability with respect to the 54(2)(3) question.<br /><br />"Btw, I am not saying that this year's Exam could be done in 5 hrs, all that I am saying is (like Mr Pollard) that it is possible to achieve 45 or more Points even if you did not make it to the last Claim."<br /><br />Yes, that's correct.<br />I do not say that it is implossible to pass.<br />But the tipping point is the time pressure: Having enough time (15-20 min) for writing down the third of in total five (already prepared) IS attacks is decisive for achieving 45 or 50 marks - irrespective of the fact that you have proven the understanding of IS attacks twice with reasonably correct IS attacks for claims 2 and 3, for example. On the other hand, writing the IS attacks in less detail in order to finish all attacks does not help, because you gain marks on the details only.<br />And exactly that is the problem for a considerable portion of the candidates.<br /><br />I do not say that time pressure is the only criterion in paper C and that candidates only fail because of time pressure.<br />I say: time pressure is (very often) a too dominant criterion because of its _overproportional_ effect in paper C, and that this is not an adequate method for testing "fitness to practice" in paper C.<br />Of course, varying time pressure is a very easy way to adjust the pass rate. <br />But why is a pass rate of 1/3 per se desirable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-25888995868658982342015-03-04T12:48:29.515+01:002015-03-04T12:48:29.515+01:00And, 02-03-15, 06:13 PM #40, Confoosius wrote;
Qu...And, 02-03-15, 06:13 PM #40, Confoosius wrote;<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Haas:<br />"You surely know effective dates of claims and usability of annexes A2 to A6 first. Of course, you should write down these things early."<br /><br />Effective Dates: yes, you have to know that right from the start according to the C-Book<br />Usability: No, you can decide on usability as CPA or combination document really after you wrote the list of features from document A2 to AX in the terms of the Claims. The argumentation why a certain document is CPA or a combination document is awarded lots of Points. This is also what most of the candidates with <45 pts get wrong / missing /incomplete and what causes their failure.<br /><br />Btw, I am not saying that this year's Exam could be done in 5 hrs, all that I am saying is (like Mr Pollard) that it is possible to achieve 45 or more Points even if you did not make it to the last Claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-83556096432678798052015-03-04T12:47:24.050+01:002015-03-04T12:47:24.050+01:00Confoosius did NOT AGREE about time being a proble...Confoosius did NOT AGREE about time being a problem (02-03-15, 05:47 PM #38):<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Haas:<br />"Missing time (for writing) at the end of paper C means missing an overproportional amount of marks.<br /><br />Yes.<br />One can suppose that nearly every candidate is using one of the recommended methods of tackling paper C taught by the C-book or other competent sources.<br />And nevertheless, a considerable portion of the candidates is able to adequately use the information presented and to argue correctly for gaining marks, but fails only on grounds of time pressure.<br />This cannot be the meaning of the EQE.<br />Time pressure should not be a dominating criterion, in particular in paper C.<br />As mentioned by others here, this problem is even worse for non-native speakers."<br /><br />I failed C THREE times, but NEVER for time pressureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-65446817601267286762015-03-04T12:45:13.495+01:002015-03-04T12:45:13.495+01:00And then (02-03-15, 11:56 AM #35) burninggu replie...And then (02-03-15, 11:56 AM #35) burninggu replied:<br /><br />I'm a first sitter for all papers, so I do not expect much for this year. In any case, I've studied the methodology for C, and tried some past papers. ABD were not particularly time pressing this year though i'm a first sitter, but C was quite pressing. Just after examination, I thought I were not prepared enough and did not have managed hours of examination properly. But after reading articles in this forum, it seems that the paper C of this year was not easy itself compared to past papers in terms of time management. <br /><br />When I tried paper C of 2014 as a test, I became quite relieved after finding out that the stuff needed to be written were drastically reduced compared to other past papers. <br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Confoosius:<br />"If there is a novelty attack possible, it will be in the stack of paper. If you need an inventive step attack, you start the analysis AFTER you wrote down the novelty attacks and you just have to find out which documents to combine and fill in the reasoning in between these novelty attacks which are citing the features of the claim under attack."<br /><br />This year, as far as I remember, there were 3 or 4 possible novelty attacks to claim 1. None of these could be skipped because the attacks to the dependent claims were more or less relevant to the attack of the claim 1. Just writing NOVELTY ATTACKS to claim 1 required considerable time. Some guys having a robot arm capable of writing at a speed 100 WPM (words per minute) might write even inventive step attack to claim 1. <br /><br />Confoosius is saying something very theoretical. If you read some articles from other people who posted their possible answer, nobody has ever said they attacked claim 1 with inventive step. Many people, at least writing in this forum, would be prepared enough to decide to avoid redundant attacks if there is no time. <br /><br />The problem of this year's paper may be that even though a candidate reduces issues to be discussed as much as possible time was not enough. The MINIMUM BUT ABSOLUTE information to be dealt with in the paper was a lot. <br /><br />As I mentioned above, a human being equipped with a robot arm capable of writing at a speed of 100 WPM would write everything he wants. <br /><br />I'm not very concerned about this year's result, but I'm quite concerned of next's year's paper if I need to resit. Difficulty for analysis, technology, and English, I think, was moderate, i.e. not particularly difficult. But, time was short. <br /><br />So, what I can do for another one year may be to register a gym, and strengthen my index finger, thumb, wrist, and shoulder to write like a machine. Maybe not too bad, because I can get at least health.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-89152616727441761622015-03-04T12:44:05.579+01:002015-03-04T12:44:05.579+01:00And, with post of 02-03-15, 07:32 AM #34, Confoosi...And, with post of 02-03-15, 07:32 AM #34, Confoosius:<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Haas:<br /><br />"But time pressure has an _overproportional_ effect in paper C, since you cannot omit any analysing step before starting writing the first of the A.100(a) attacks, which account for the lion's share of marks. <br />It is not true that you can choose "what to do and how much detail" you prepare when going through the annexes."<br /><br />I attended C four times, 2011 till 2014 until I finally passed. I attended only the CEIPI 2 day prep course in Strasbourg and bought the C-Book. I also looked at Delta Patents Methodology and Rosenich's Focussing. None of these three methods is advising you to do a full analysis for all claims. On the contrary, they advise you in all three methods to start collecting points as early as possible by writing down as much as you surely know. C-Book tells you to write novelty attacks on all claims based on all documents. If there is a novelty attack possible, it will be in the stack of paper. If you need an inventive step attack, you start the analysis AFTER you wrote down the novelty attacks and you just have to find out which documents to combine and fill in the reasoning in between these novelty attacks which are citing the features of the claim under attack.<br /><br />None of these three methods is recommending to fill out several tables, requiring you to copy the claims entirely (see TabbyCat). As TabbyCat noticed, such a method simply takes too much time.<br />Rethinking the method of analysis has already been done and recommended by at least three authors. It did NOT affect the pass rate, which has been around one third for years, with exceptions like 2007 and maybe 2012 (which was promptly followed by a higher pass rate in 2013).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-52577994327300734752015-03-04T12:42:54.288+01:002015-03-04T12:42:54.288+01:00Whereto Haas replied (01-03-15, 03:19 PM #33):
Qu...Whereto Haas replied (01-03-15, 03:19 PM #33):<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by TabbyCat:<br /><br />"So could it be time to rethink the method for the analysis?<br />Maybe the C-course at Maastricht University [NL] offers help in this respect. They teach a newly developed method that does not require copying large amount of text or filling out huge tables, but is still accurate. Maybe this method is better suited for the current exams."<br /><br />Having a more efficient analysing method may help a smaller number of candidates by gaining an advantage over the other candidates.<br />So far so good.<br /><br />But this cannot work for the majority of candidates, as long as the EQE committee will continue to press the pass rate down to 1/3 by then further increasing the time pressure.<br />And obviously, exactly this appears to be the target of the EQE committee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-71003293534439908132015-03-04T12:41:45.175+01:002015-03-04T12:41:45.175+01:00To with TabbyCat agreed (01-03-15, 01:26 PM #32):
...To with TabbyCat agreed (01-03-15, 01:26 PM #32):<br /><br />Default efficiency in analysis<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by Haas:<br /><br />"But time pressure has an _overproportional_ effect in paper C, since you cannot omit any analysing step before starting writing the first of the A.100(a) attacks, which account for the lion's share of marks. <br />It is not true that you can choose "what to do and how much detail" you prepare when going through the annexes.<br />You will gain any marks ONLY on the use of details and the corresponding argumentation.<br />There is no opportunity to take a shortcut. You must do the complete analysing work first in complete detail."<br /><br />I agree with Haas that time pressure is high and that you cannot skip part of the analysis. This means that you have to analyse the paper efficiently in order to have enough time left to write your argumentation and score your marks. Maybe that efficency of analysis is something they try to test you for as well?<br /><br />i note that many preparation courses teach a method for the analysis that makes you fill out several tables, requiring you to copy the claims entirely etc. These methods may look very thorough, but are also very time consuming. So could it be time to rethink the method for the analysis?<br />Maybe the C-course at Maastricht University [NL] offers help in this respect. They teach a newly developed method that does not require copying large amount of text or filling out huge tables, but is still accurate. Maybe this method is better suited for the current exams.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-38573175789835005582015-03-04T12:40:18.714+01:002015-03-04T12:40:18.714+01:00And Haas wrote in response to all this (28-02-15, ...And Haas wrote in response to all this (28-02-15, 10:17 AM #31):<br /><br />I do _not_ think that paper C 2015 was too difficult or has any unfair traps.<br />Difficulty of paper C 2015 was ok, testing "fitness to practice" in an adequate manner.<br />Except the time pressure.<br /><br />Quote Originally Posted by PollardP:<br />"Everybody involved is trying to make a fair paper with the means that they have available. There is not a conspiracy to fail as many people as possible."<br /><br />If you look on on the C papers 2012 to 2015, you will see that the committee obviously tries to press the (unintended?) high pass rate of 2013 down again to about 1/3 by increasing time pressure.<br />It seems that there is a conspiracy to fail at least 2/3 of candidates in paper C.<br /><br />""Nowhere in the regulations does it say that it has to be made such that everybody can finish - they are making an exam that a well-prepared candidate can pass. This is a common exam technique - they force you to make choices about what to do and how much detail."<br /><br />This statement can be accepted for other papers, such as paper D. In paper D, if you cannot finish, you will be missing marks according to the percentage you are too slow and miss questions, or according to the reduced deepness of details - you have a choice when working on paper D.<br />However, the problem is that time pressure has a much more fatal effect in paper C than in paper D. In paper D you are writing your answers step by step from the beginning more or less continuously over the 5 hours.<br />But time pressure has an _overproportional_ effect in paper C, since you cannot omit any analysing step before starting writing the first of the A.100(a) attacks, which account for the lion's share of marks. <br />It is not true that you can choose "what to do and how much detail" you prepare when going through the annexes.<br />You will gain any marks ONLY on the use of details and the corresponding argumentation.<br />There is no opportunity to take a shortcut. You must do the complete analysing work first in complete detail.<br /><br />Thus, if you miss 20% (1h) extra for writing all well prepared attacks, your writ is missing 50% of the A.100(a) attacks and you will fail for sure.<br />Then, 15 min more would have been enough to write an additional attack and achieve the 45+ marks.<br /><br />This means that, for many candidates, passing paper C depends on speed only and 15min more or less are very often the tipping point.<br />The result is that many candidates who are really fit for practice fail paper C only because of inadequate time pressure, not because of their incapability of writing an opposition writ.<br /><br />Can this be the meaning of the EQE?<br />Clearly not.<br />Why is it important for the EQE committee, that the pass rate in paper C is as low as 1/3?<br />What is the problem of >40% of candidates passing, if there is less time pressure like in 2013?<br />Would this be a problem for the EPO, or for the epi, or for industries?<br /><br />In short: It is not adequate and there is no reasonable argument for making time pressure the dominating criterion for paper C.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-10248179336090034602015-03-04T12:38:27.118+01:002015-03-04T12:38:27.118+01:00Which made legrandblond to submit (27-02-15, 09:25...Which made legrandblond to submit (27-02-15, 09:25 PM #29)<br /><br /><br />I would like to reply to the comments of PollardP and UserX. I feel that we are discussing two separate problems here. The first one is the difficulty of this year's C exam. The second problem is the additional complication for non-native speaker problem. EPO attorneys are supposed to be able to communicate with the EPO examiners in one of the official EPO languages. While for non-native speakers, this is not a problem under everyday working conditions. But not being a native speaker can become a serious handicap under exam conditions. There are some statistics out there on the EQE pass rate per country. See for example http://www.jddcourses.co.uk/wp-conte...QE-courses.pdf page 5 (or even clearer graph 1 from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=fr) (please note that the latter article is from cache as the original web site seems to be unavailable). One can read from these graphs that for example in Italy the pass rates are far below that of other countries. I do not think that this is due to a poor education level of the Italian candidates. Rather I believe that this is a clear demonstration of the accrued time needed to work through the exam due to the additional language problem. The graphs show that this is not a minor issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-54440715107932103872015-03-04T12:37:10.574+01:002015-03-04T12:37:10.574+01:00Which led 27-02-15, 06:51 PM #27 PollardP (Tutor) ...Which led 27-02-15, 06:51 PM #27 PollardP (Tutor) to submit the following:<br /><br />I am not a member of the Examination Committees or Board - just a tutor who has been involved in the exams for several years and I have talked to a number of people in the committees over the years. I am commenting to clear up some of the comments made.<br /><br /><br />The exam is made jointly by epi members and the EPO - it is not an EPO exam.<br />Everybody involved is trying to make a fair paper with the means that they have available. There is not a conspiracy to fail as many people as possible.<br />The timing is tested during the process of making the exam - they have a number of guinea-pigs who test the exam under exam conditions.<br />Nowhere in the regulations does it say that it has to be made such that everybody can finish - they are making an exam that a well-prepared candidate can pass. This is a common exam technique - they force you to make choices about what to do and how much detail.<br />They take into account that not everyone is working in their mother language as much as possible<br />To pass you only need 50 (in most cases 45 points)<br />You do not know how the points will be allotted (for which claims and which attacks) when you do the exam<br /><br /><br />If you feel strongly enough, then file a complaint. The Examination Board will take it seriously and they will discuss it. <br /><br />The EQE tutors have a meeting every year with the Examination Committees to discuss the papers, so we will certainly bring this up. <br /><br />I hope you all pass of course, but if you do fail, don't make the mistake of wishing the exam is something else - such a negative attitude makes it difficult to approach the exam correctly next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-81531834638126827412015-03-04T12:36:00.372+01:002015-03-04T12:36:00.372+01:00Further posts on the EQE Forum as to the length:
...Further posts on the EQE Forum as to the length:<br /><br />nunofeup on 26-02-15, 05:33 PM:<br /><br />5h? For this paper? Not fair<br /><br /><br />27-02-15, 09:58 AM #16, Rozanna:<br /><br />yeah, 5h is not enough, for those who didn't write in their mother tongue it was a horror, not fair (<br /><br /><br />27-02-15, 05:00 PM #24, caromuffa:<br /><br />I just received an email with the survey https://www.esurveycreator.com/s/29d6e5a, <br />I suggest the people like me thinking that Paper C was terribly time consuming to reflect their concerns on this survey.<br /><br /><br />27-02-15, 05:00 PM #25, lucho:<br /><br />I agree almost in everything. The main problem for me is that persons of the Comitee who prepared or wrote the exam are separated or live in a different world than the candidates. I couldn't finish the exam. Comitee seemed that reduced one hour because reduced the material needed, but they increased it in the last exam. This is unfair, totally unfair, specially if you are not a native speaker of one of the official languages.<br /><br />Comitee should realize that if a native-speaker reads a document in 10 minutes there is a multiplier factor for those who don't have these official languages. It's not a question to write in your language, it's a question of reading.<br /><br />To which UserX responded (27-02-15, 05:36 PM #26) with:<br /><br />...the EQE is not the exclusive playground of the EPO. The only body with an interest in keeping pass rates down would be the existing body of attorneys, not the EPO (think it through).<br />...because you are supposed to be able to represent in the official languages of the EPC.<br />...Paper C has already been simplified to one official language, rather than requiring at least understanding of another (something we attorneys should bear that in mind when reading posts about EPO examiners who speak at least three and wouldn't mind AT ALL having that condition back, or even adding an active section - which would stuff many of us!).<br />The papers are written and checked every year by a panel, the marking is moderated to be as fair as possible; I failed a paper last year and resat it - that's life.<br />I'd say I hope we ALL pass, but that would be stretching anyone's credibility<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-60885503079294630862015-03-04T12:32:28.334+01:002015-03-04T12:32:28.334+01:00Also on the EQE Forum:
26-02-15, 04:33 PM, Tony:
...Also on the EQE Forum:<br /><br />26-02-15, 04:33 PM, Tony:<br /><br />Time was not enough. My attacks: <br />C1: N-A5, N-A6<br />C2: IS. A3+A4<br />C3: IS. A2+A6+A3 <br />C4+2: IS A3+A4<br />C4+3: 123(2)<br />C5: IS A5 + A3<br />C6: IS A2 + A3<br /><br />I couldn't write all the attacks.<br /><br />And on 26-02-15, 04:37 PM, ny123 posted (as corrected on 26-02-15, 04:39 PM) :<br /><br />My attacks:<br />1: novelty A5; novelty A6; IS A3 + A4<br />2: IS A3 + A4<br />3: IS A2 + A6<br />4(2): IS A3 + A4<br />4(3): added matter<br />5: IS A5 + A3<br />6: ran out of time...<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-55341197317675742922015-03-04T12:30:13.231+01:002015-03-04T12:30:13.231+01:00The EQE Forum shows some comments worth repeating ...The EQE Forum shows some comments worth repeating here:<br /><br />On 26-02-15, 03:25 PM, slartibartfast posted:<br /><br />That was definitely a 6 hour paper... 4 attacks against claim 1 and arguably multiple attacks against others. Lots of priority issues. An internet page as evidence of oral disclosure. Really very unpleasant<br /><br />To which jinping responded on 26-02-15, 04:10 PM with;<br /><br />yes, 6 hours paper.<br /><br />And on 26-02-15, 04:14 PM, weansa0 -2011 candidate- posted:<br /><br />C2015 - One extra hour was needed indeed.<br /><br />Which was also the opinion of Floriani (26-02-15, 04:16 PM):<br /><br />Sehr umfangreiche Aufgabe. Viele Informationen im Mandantenschreiben, 7 Ansprüche, 5 Entgegenhaltungen, Nicht einfaches A. 123 (2) Problem, 26 Seiten insgesamt......Good Luck !<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-15289599176599116542015-03-03T18:09:22.485+01:002015-03-03T18:09:22.485+01:00Thanks a lot, Jelle, understood �� Thanks a lot, Jelle, understood �� Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-80811888533600283022015-03-03T13:46:46.441+01:002015-03-03T13:46:46.441+01:00See my response further down, where this question ...See my response further down, where this question is asked again.Jelle Hoekstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06066000039386452752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-16287884912834717412015-03-03T13:45:32.783+01:002015-03-03T13:45:32.783+01:00Added subject-matter claim 4.
Added is that the p...Added subject-matter claim 4. <br />Added is that the piezoelectric material is P27.<br />You need to check the description for a potential basis for this.<br />[0013] introduces P27 and also [0014] mentions it.<br />[0013] introduces an embodiment wherein the peizoelectric material is formed into a flat piece (e.g. a platelet). For this embodiment, P27 is preferred. In [0014] P27 is mentioned again, in a flat form. There is no indication of using P27 in a non-flat form.<br />Claim 4(2) is restricted to a flat piece (the other features of claims 1 and 2 also have a basis). Thus claim 4(2) does not have added subject-matter.<br /><br />Claim 4(3) is NOT restricted to using a flat piece. Instead this relates to another embodiment, whererin no platelets are used but fibres made of a piezoelectric materail embedded in a matrix, e.g. polymer resin. This embodiment is described in [0017] wherein it does not mention P27 but uses PGGB as the piezoelectric material. Thus the claimed embodiment of 4(3) is not disclosed. Jelle Hoekstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06066000039386452752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-479165730362492593.post-69728489902834757392015-03-03T11:49:15.888+01:002015-03-03T11:49:15.888+01:00Our answer to A-chemistry was published yesterday ...Our answer to A-chemistry was published yesterday evening. B-chemistry probably later today.<br /><br />Our answers to DI and DII as well as Pre-Exam are also available on the respective blogs.<br /><br />Also refer to http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com