Friday, 5 March 2021

Paper C 2021 - First solution

We're still working on double checking the solution to Paper C 2021, but we didn't want to delay posting a solution any longer.  

My first impression was that the first half was a bit more work than the second half. The claims related to some fairly complex mechanical structures, so in the first half you spent quite some time getting a grip on things. The second half had more tricky features though, although perhaps a bit less work.  

A funny detail is that some of the dramatis personae of Paper C 2015 returned in this paper. In 2015 Mr. Eilasie Kacez of Sabela Sports Industries asked the attorney Ms Molly Dorsett Pauley to file an opposition against Winterwute Corp. Now in 2021, Eilasie Kaceth (the same person?) switched jobs, but again asks Ms Molly Dorsett Pauley to file an opposition against Winterwute Corp.


We found the following attacks against the claims in the first part

Claim 1: Not novel against A3

Claim 2: Not inventive against A3 + A4 + A6

Claim 3:  Not novel against A3

 

For the claims in the second part

Claim 4: Not novel against A5

Claim 5: Not inventive against A4 + A5

Claim 6 +1 : added subject matter, no disclosure for spacers and 35% of RZCH

Claim 6+5 + range 17-23 has partial priority from P2. Is not inventive against A4+A5

Claim 6+5 + range 23-35 has the filing date. Is not inventive against A2+A6

Paper C e-EQE 2021: first impressions?

To all who sat the C-paper today:

What are your first impressions to this year's C-paper? Any general or specific comments?

What was the effect of doing it online? Of typing your answer rather than writing it by hand? Could you benefit from being able to copy from the exam paper into your answer? And from copying parts of your answer elsewhere into your answer?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center?
(How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a  part could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?

How did you handle the situation with the paper being split into two parts?
What was the effect of the paper being split into two parts? 
How did you use the break?

How did this year's C-paper compare to the C papers of 2013 - 2019?

Any pleasant and/or unpleasant surprises?

The paper and our answers

[Update 7 March 2021:] A copy of the paper, together with the claims for part 2, is available here
(We expect that the  C paper will be made available in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, PaperC )

We give the core of our answer in a separate blog: here.

We look forward to your comments!

Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 05-03-2021 16:56"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Paper C 2021 blog will open after the end of the exam, 5 March 2021 16:15

Good luck with paper C!

Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the Pre-ExamABand shortly after the exams. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam. To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies.

Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered the breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conducts, etc (see, e.g.,  e-EQE website and the emails from the EQE secretariat).

All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2021, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname if you wish to hide your identify.

The DeltaPatents team


NB: you can not comment to this blog post; comments will be accepted from a new blog post as of 16:15


Friday, 5 February 2021

Mock 2's Paper C (2 Feb 2021)

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

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

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

According to the FAQ:

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

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

Paper

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

This printable parts of the Mock 2 C paper comprises:

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 18 December 2020

Paper C split into two parts in e-EQE 2021

The FAQ on the EQE website has been updated today to provide the following information (emphasis added and reformatted):

Updated 12/2020 - How will paper C be structured and what do I have to take into account when answering it?

The EQE 2021's paper C will be split into two parts.

In the first part of the paper, you will be provided with:
  - a letter from a client, 
  - prior-art documents,
  - a description of the patent to be opposed and
  - a number of its claims.

Within the allotted time, you will be required to draft as much of a notice of opposition as it is possible based on the documents at hand.
This first part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the first part of the exam.

In the second part, you will be provided with:
   - one or more additional claims of the same patent.
You may also receive further information such as:
   - another letter from the client,
   - further prior art and/or supplementary parts of the patent's description.

You will be required to draft a second part of the notice of opposition.
The second part which will form, together with the first part you already provided, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked. 
This second part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the second part of the exam.

If an attack which is available in the first part of the paper is discussed only during the second part of the exam, no marks will be awarded to that attack.

Graphically, this may be represented graphically as:


---

Update 28/01/2021: The FAQ on the EQE website has been extended with the following extra information (emphasis added and reformatted):

Updated 01/2021 - For paper C, will I be able to see my answer to the first part during the second part?

No

but you will be able to print your answer to the first part of paper C during the break between the two parts. 

To do this, you will have to go to the "information on flows" page (see point 6.5 in the user guide) and download your answer before printing it. 

Note from the blog editor: Point 6.5 of the user guide for Mock 1 ("WISEflow guide for EQE candidates (Version for Mock 1)", available from the e-EQE page; check the page for new editions of the Guide) provides:

"6.5. Terminating the flow

To submit your answer, click the “Go to hand in” button and confirm the submission in the window which pops up. [...]

Once you have handed in your answer, you should close the LockDown browser and log out. [...].

To view your submitted answer, you can log in again and navigate to the flow information page without launching FLOWlock. You can download a copy of your answer and request a receipt for its submission from the flow information page. [...]."

Updated 01/2021 - Since the opposition form has been abolished, how can I provide the required information in my answer?



Thursday, 15 August 2019

Rule 25(3) IPREE amended

A Decision of the Supervisory Board amending Rule 25 of the Implementing provisions to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives has been published in the Official Journal - OJ 2019, A66.

The decision amends Rule 25(3) IPREE with immediate effect.

Earlier Rule 25(3) read:
"(3) Candidates are expected to put themselves in the position of the representative and, using only the information provided by the client, prepare a notice of opposition which when typed would be ready for filing. The pre-printed opposition form provided may be used, but it is not obligatory and marks will not be lost if it is not used."

Amended Rule 25(3) IPREE reads:
"(3) Candidates are expected to put themselves in the position of the representative and, using only the information provided by the client, prepare a notice of opposition which when typed would be ready for filing."

I.e., the text “The pre-printed opposition form provided may be used, but it is not obligatory and marks will not be lost if it is not used.” has been deleted from the Rule.

No further information is available yet as to the reasons for this change and the effects, e.g., as to whether the pre-printed opposition form will still be handed out as part of the C paper, whether it will be allowed to bring (and hand-in) a copy yourself to the exam (probably not in view of Art. 6 and 9(d) from the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination), or whether it is still necessary to provide all the infornation usually provided by candidates on the form to get an admissible opposition (esp. the information referred to in Art. 99(1), Rule 76(2)(c) and Rule 77(1) EPC) and a signature.

(15.08.2019)

Update 30.09.2019:
The following Notice from the Examination Board of the European qualifying examination (EQE) was published om the EQE website today:


Thursday, 28 February 2019

Paper C 2019 Ironing device

Here a quick first answer to the paper.

So far only two of our C tutors (Joeri Beetz and me) have made the paper, so we may make some amendments tomorrow when more tutors will have made it.

Priority: valid for claims 1-5; invalid for claims 6 and 7 (claims and supporting paragraphs [17] and [18] respectively were not present in the priority application).

Evidence list: A2, A4, A5, A6: 54(2) for all claims (one option in claim 1 gets no date).
 A3 is 54(2) for claims 6 and 7; not useable for claims 1-5 (US application, not useable under 54(3))

Claims 1 is an and/or claim and covers three embodiments.
Claim 1 has been amended after filing: 'or' has been changed to 'and/or'. This introduces a third option: the 'and' embodiment KeraMa and KeraSi layer. This embodiment is not derivable from A1 as filed (the two options are only mentioned separately in A1 [16] and filed claim 1). Thus, perform an attack on this embodiment under Art.100(c), 123(2). No date is assigned to this embodiment and no further attack performed.

Claim 1 Kerama: lack of novelty in view of A4 first test.

Claim 1: KeraSi: lack of inventive step in view A4 first test + A4 second test

Claim 2(1) [limited to Kerama]: Inv. step A2 + A4 first test

Claim 3(2) [limited to Kerama]: Inv. step A2 + A4 first test. Basically same attack as claim 2. Is a product-by-process claim. Process not shown, but same product

Claim 4(ind): Inv. step A6 +A2

Claim 5(4): Inv. step A6 + A2 + A5

Claim 6(4): Nov. A3

Claim 7(6): Inv. Step A3 + A6

Looking forward to your comments.

Jelle Hoekstra