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?
In this respect, please consult the Notice of the Examination Board.
Note from the blog editor: Guidelines D-III, 6 "Content of the notice of opposition" may be helpful.
---
Also see "Information on the schedule for the EQE 2021 examination papers" and our other blogs in our general EQE section
Thanks for informing us.
ReplyDeleteIt seems quite clear. Would have preferred if they also indicated what type of attacks will be required in the first part and what type in the second? And whether you will need to make additional attacks on the claims of the first part when working on the second part, when you have the further letter from the client and the further prior art which allows additional attacks. The last sentence suggest that that may be a possibility (a new attack that was not yet possible in the first part as there was not sufficient prior art or not sufficient common general knowledge yet).
The “may” about the further information with the second part probably means “will”? ;)
Nice, this allows me to proceed as planned.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the attacks are as in earlier papers: attack first claim 1 with documents that seem for for that, then claim 2 with documents that seem fit for that, etc.
In first part, only first claims with a limited set of documents. So is effectively a reduced length C paper.
In second part, more documents, so will check whether they have an impact on the claim in the first part: maybe an additional attack (inventive step on a claim for which there was only a 54(3) novelty?). After that, continue with first added claim of second part, using the old and new documents that seem fit for that. The second added claim, etc.
So luckily no strange side-effects of the two-part form!
M.
It says "discussed only during the second part". So that means that any additions to an attack in the first part will be marked. It is only completely new attacks. Why else would they use "only"
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation is that, during part 2, you can add additional attacks to a claim of part 1 based on part 2 documents, but cannot expand on an attack which you started during part 1. For instance, if in part 1 you perform a novelty attack on claim 1 based on document D1, then in part 2 you can perform an additional attack on claim 1 based on new document D4, but cannot expand on your novelty attack of claim 1 + D1.
DeleteOf course, this is just my understanding of the information given by the EPO, and I could very well be wrong...
My issue is that you are NOT allowed to see your script and what you've done on part 1. So if you carrying out a novelty attack on claim 1 based on D1 and then you have an inventive step based on part 2 - you will effectively have to write out claim 1 again because you cannot refer back to claim 1 in part 1.
DeleteSo just to be clear, the prior art documents allowed in the first part is only for the first part and you won't be able to use the prior art documents from the first part for the second part. Is that right
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation is that prior art documents available for part 2 is only for part 2. So you cannot use part 2 prior art documents to attack claims in the first part.
ReplyDeleteWould this mean that all claims are made available for the 2 parts. It said in the EPO that the first part shall NOT be available when the time is up. It also said it for Paper D - you cannot access the materials and questions once it has been submitted.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone advise if we have to draft a notice of opposition i.e. representative details, proprietor details. With only some of the prior art documents made available - how will this be done at the start. It seems that you have to do things as you go along but the issue is that you cannot see what you've submitted in part I when you start Part II.
ReplyDeleteThey need to give an example of how Part I and Part II are linked. I can see several interpretations already
ReplyDelete- claims, prior art are only relevant in Part I
- additional claims, prior art in Part II can be used for additional attacks on claims in Part I.
- additional claims, prior art in Part II can only be used for part II claims.
- claims, prior art in part I can be used against additional claims for part II.
Which of these combinations is the right one?
I'm still confused as to how Paper C will work in practice. It seems Part I claims and prior art can be used for part I which I understand.
ReplyDeleteThe issue for me here is whether additional prior art documents made available can also be used to attack claims in part I. In which case, they need to let candidates see what they have written in part I?
Another question that I'm not sure about.
ReplyDeleteCan prior art in part II be combined with prior art in part I. As some have suggested here, if you can use additional prior art documents made available in part II to attack claims in part I, then should we consider the possibility of combining part II prior art with part I prior art for attacking claims.
Its not clear to me from the latest announcement.
Hi Roel, does Delta patent have an interpretation of how the new paper C format will work. Reading the blog here, it seems that there are a few different interpretations for the new format.
ReplyDeleteI added a figure to the blog post to show the information given in the FAQ about the 2-part form of paper C in a schematic illustration.
Delete>>> Info from the FAQs and general comments
The FAQ indicates that you get all info in two steps. In the first part, you need to do all the attacks that you can do with the info available then - during the second part, you cannot add attacks that you could already have done during part 1 nor change the ones you did in part 1.
In the second part, you will have all information and claims from the first part as well as additional information and additional claims, and you need to use all that to complement your opposition; attack the new claims using all information available (prior art from both parts; client letters from both parts) as well as, possibly, add any attacks on the claims given on the first part as far as the additional information allows new attacks.
Apart from the attacks, you also need to give the information needed to make it an admissible opposition - GL D-III, 6; R.76&77 EPC.
Your answer provided during the second part of the paper will form, together with the answer provided during the first part, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked.
The FAQ item does not say that you cannot see your answer to the first part when you work on the second part. It just says that you cannot add attacks that you could already have done.
>>> First part
The FAQ item indicates that the first part has all information needed to answer that. So you can use your standard methodology for that, including 123(2), priority, 54(3) novelty, 54(2) novelty, inventive step and the (first part of the) “administrative” info of the Notice to get it admissible (patent nr, date, proprietor, opponent; extent = all, first grounds, first indication of facts and evidence, etc - see GL D-III, 6: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/d_iii_6.htm)
>>> Second part
When you then get additional claims, associated additional parts on the description, associated additional parts of the client’s letter (e.g., indicating that one of the additional claims or paragraphs was not in the priority document) and additional prior Art, you can expand your tools and continue with substantially the same methodology. Some adjustments be needed, but not major; e.g., you may need to check again whether newly available prior Art is 54(3) for claims from the first (does not seem very likely) and from the second part (more likely).
You may then -presumably- need to check whether the additional info allows new attacks (e.g., an inventive step attack on a claim from the first part using a prior Art doc gt the first part together with one from the second part, or using two new prior arts). This possibility is suggested by the phrase “ The second part which will form, together with the first part you already provided, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked. ”
The additional claims can be attacked using the prior art from the first and the second parts - implied by the word “further “, ie “in addition to”. As the additional information may let you conclude that some additional claims do not have priority, a document that was too late for the first part may be prior Art to one or more of the additional claims.
The FAQ item does NOT indicate that you cannot add items to your notice of Oppo in the second part, e.g. additional grounds and indication of additional facts and evidence. So you will need to complete the Notice with that.
The problem I can see here is that it will be hard to view your part I along with new tabs for part II prior art or claims in the text editor.
DeleteTo complete the notice of opposition for example, you need to know what you've filled in already so they need to make Part I visible to candidates although I'm not sure how this will be easily done using text editor when you also got alot of other tabs open.
If for example claim 1 is Art 54(3) and then you realised that it is also an Art 54(2) based on further art, can you refer back to the features in claim 1 for Art 54(3) or do you need to write all the features out again for Art 54(2) attack. Alot of the time, people refer back to previous parts of the opposition to save time and I fear this is being lost by the new system.
I hope your interpretation is right, Roel. I know that the EPO isn't out to mess anyone over, but it is hard to have confidence going into the examination with this extensive change. I have to remain optimistic that the new prior art will be used primarily against the new claims. I assume that the EPO’s desire of using our best attack is still going to apply.
DeleteIf Part 2 gives me new novelty attacks against old claims, I am going to perform them. One problem is going to be if the new prior art can be part of a better inventive step attack than the original prior art. The last thing I want to be trying to figure out is if my new attack inventive step attack is better than my previous one. Maybe if the previous attack was only a A54(3) and the new prior art gives me a good A56 attack to support it. Inventive step attacks take so long to compose that I hope that I don’t have to perform any more of them than needed.
The nightmare to me is if the client’s letter somehow means that a piece of old prior art can’t be used against the same claim as it could before. E.g. the EFD of Claim 1 has changed such that A1 is no longer prior art against it. But I am going to hope that the EPO sees that this is a nightmare for them to grade and will make sure that it doesn’t happen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIs there a possibility that one of the prior art in the first part I is redundant until you see part II and can then combine a further art with the first part I. I don't know if this is a possibility and it would seem to be a waste of time to read the art in the first 3 hours but you cannot use it until you have seen other prior art documents in the second part - I'm thinking more for inventive step.
ReplyDeleteHi Roel
ReplyDeleteIts not entirely clear to me whether you can see the claims for Part I again during Part II as we are NOT allowed to print the claims out.
Candidates will be allowed to print everything except the claims of the patent in
suit/opposed. The documents allowed for printing will be made available
approximately ten minutes before the start of each part
It does seems harsh that if you spotted an attack in the second part for the first part, no marks are awarded. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that they are worried that we'll keep working on the claim attacks during the break with the prior art from Part I.
DeleteThat is also why I wouldn't be surprised if the new claims are mainly directed to a new paragraphs in the description. Otherwise, we could use the break to find feature/effect pairs that were not part of the first claim set, but might be part of the second claim set.
They have just released part I and part II on wiseflow. I am utterly confused as they have made all 6 prior art documents available in the first part. This means that we will have to read through all the prior art documents but will not be able to use some of the prior art documents for claims 1-3. I don't think we will have sufficient time in the first part to attack claims 1-3 if we have to read all prior art documents(A2-A6). There won't be time to read all prior art documents and attack claims 1-3 in 3 hours.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it seems that they have made all prior art documents available in Part I and I think you are right. Reading through all prior art documents and attacking claims 1-3, plus starting notice of opposition seems very short for time in just only 3 hours.
DeleteYou will be reading alot of materials that cannot be used straight away.
This may be an effect of the use of an existing paper for this Mock, where it may be difficult to present the prior art in two stages. The information on paper C in the FAQ indiated that prior art may be introduced in two stages in the real e-EQE (which seems quite likely). The main purpose of this Mock 1 is to allow you to get familiar with the system, and there are no time constraints - there is also no time indications given for the different parts. Maybe you will need somewhat more time than scheduled for part 1, but quite a bit less for part 2 with this Mock 1?
DeleteYou may also have noted that the marks for Part 1 are about 60 and that for part 2 are about 40. Which confirms the main purpose of Mock 1: to get familiar with the system, but not to be a simulation of a real exam where you can expect the marks to be spread more symmetrical as the time for both parts is the same.
DeleteTo make it more balanced, and as mentioned in the FAQ, you can expect that in the real exam some prior art will be given only in part 2.
I still don't understand how you can update your notice of opposition with new documents used or on new grounds in the second part if you've already submitted it in the first part.
ReplyDeleteDo we have to write out the notice of opposition twice (one for each parts).
Hi Steve,
DeleteI wonder how to submit the statement of the extent to which the European patent is opposed (This corresponds to item V on the form for filing the the notice of opposition).
I see that in Part I of Paper C, only a subset of all claims are available. In Part II, all claims are available.
How am I supposed to submit the extent of the opposed patent without knowing which claims will be attacked.
They have given us all 6 pieces of prior art in part I. As optimistic as I am, it is not realistic to read all of these prior art documents and attack claims 1-3 properly in just 3 hours.
ReplyDeleteI agree. They need to take away at least 2 prior art documents from the first part. Reading and analysing all 6 documents will easily take around 2 to 2.5 hours. There won't be enough time to then attack claims 1-3 with only 3 hours given for the first part.
DeleteLike everyone else, I am concerned about the amount of time given for the part I. All 6 documents provided - you will have to read all of them to know which ones are relevant for part I. Reading the 6 documents and the opposed document will take an awful amount of time. I don't think 3 hours is enough. They need to reduce the reading load in the first part
ReplyDeleteI should add that reading all 6 prior art documents + opposed patent AND attacking claims 1-3 in only 3 hours is not enough time.
DeleteI agree - I don't think 3 hours in part I is sufficient given that all prior art documents are made available at the start + we are required to attack claims 1-3 only in the first part.
ReplyDeleteThe EPO will need to adjust for "reading time" and reduce contents or make sure that there is less reading to do in part I.
It looks like you have to download the papers first before printing. Is there an option to print straight away from wiseflow.
ReplyDeleteSorry to sound so negative but I agree with the others on here as 3 hours is not enough time to read all 6 prior art, parts of A1, start notice of opposition and attack claims 1-3. They will need to reduce the reading content in A1. Has anyone planning on emailing the exam sect about this.
ReplyDeleteReduce the reading content in Part one I meant.
DeleteSee my comment above. I think you can surely expect so, as this Mock was (presumably) not designed to be a simulation of the exam in terms of TIME, but to a reasonable extent in terms of style. The main purpose is however to familiarize yourself with the system. See also the Figure in the blog post.
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/e-eqe.html:
"Mock 1 is intended for candidates to test their equipment and get acquainted with the examination environment. "
I prefer that they make all prior art documents available from the start as they have done here in mock 1. But yes, I do agree that they will need to reduce reading time in part I. Either shorten the length of prior art documents or shorten A1. But making all prior art documents available at the start - I am on favour of this.
ReplyDeleteSee e http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2020/12/e-eqe-platform-will-go-online-on-21.html for exam platform and Mock 1.
ReplyDeleteSee http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2020/12/e-eqe-mock-2-1-5-february-2020.html for announcement of Mock 2: Paper C on Friday 5 February 2021.
I have been through the new format of C-I + C-II with LockDown Browser.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of printable material is fine to me. I am happy to work with the page claim always open as a side-window.
I personally found it highly unbalanced in terms of available time. For the first part, one needs to read all the documents (all the prior art must be read to avoid missing an attack), make the analysis of prior art, set the effective dates of each claim (or alternative subject matter in a claim) + attack 3 claims (yet attack of claim 2 is short because it is A. 100(c)).
For C-II, the feeling is I had much more time and was more relaxed.
Is it possible to draft the "administrative section" of the notice of opposition (equivalent to form) in the second part? This would make more time available for the first part.
We will see in Mock 2 if the format is a bit different and this lack of time balance is resolved, e.g. by making available only the prior arts documents that serve the purpose of attacking the claims shown in the first part.
Seconding that the actual work in the Lockdown browser seemed fine for C. I prepared for last year's (cancelled) EQE using the CEIPI methodology, i.e., preparing an analysis sheet for every prior art document. This translated surpringly well to using it inside the browser - I just made corresponding analysis sections in the editor. The ability to copy/paste the actual claim wording made this fairly easy.
DeleteRegarding the timing, I generally agree, but I think we need to keep in mind that Mock 1 uses a prior paper that was designed to be done in one single session. They actually had to give you all the prior art in part 1, since it is needed to attack claims 1 to 3.
I'm cautiously optimistic that, when they design the paper for Mock 2 and the actual exam, they're doing it so that not all the prior art has to be frontloaded. I think it's fairly realistic to say that you will get some prior art in part 1, to attack the first part of the claims (e.g., device claims) and some in part 2 to attack the second part (e.g., method claims).
We need some thought on whether to make 100(c) attacks in part 1, as the subject matter might possibly have been disclosed in the missing pages available in part 2. Hopefully the actual paper will make it clear if that is the case, e.g. second part of clients letter only mentions added claims.
DeleteHi Nat. Why do you invent problems that will not occur? The exam papers have all the facts that you need to answer. That is in the exam regulations. As always, the client's letter and the documents will give you all the information needed to conclude on a 100(c) attack, whether it is in the first or the second part. C.
DeleteProbably, one has to attack claims as granted in the first part of the exam.
ReplyDeleteIn the second part, the proprietor has filed an auxiliary request with amended claims, which need to be attacked using additional prior art.
This would be close to a real life opposition.
Oral proceedings also have breaks.
Guess by an EPA
Auxiliary requests are not part of paper C (unless the exam regulations would change). Paper C is about drafting a notice of opposition. Against the granted patent. Auxiliary requests from the proprietor can only come thereafter, during the opposition proceedings. C.
DeleteHow can one cheat if he or she gets the entire exam documents to download from the very beginning ? I was used to annotating the exam documents with colours etc and now I only gaze at the screen ?
ReplyDeletewhy is that ??
How and why: Unscheduled breaks. You leave your room. Give complete paper to somebody else. Collect her or her answer next unscheduled break.
DeleteBut: someone that really want to cheat will find a way. Can copy parts of the paper by handwriting on paper. Then leave room. Give complete paper to somebody else. Collect her or her answer next unscheduled break. But who passed that way should get a 0 or 1, and should not be allowed to resit in the next 5 years, do you agree John? C.
No I don't agree. If one wishes to cheat then he should be banned from sitting EQE his entire life.
DeleteI really see no point in complicating thinks so much. The camera should be on when you start your examination, get the documents to download, print them out, start the flow .. am I missing anything ?
ReplyDeleteHi John, I agree that it should be possible to rely on candidates' honesty, in combination with proctoring, and that not being able to print the complete papers is over-complicating things for candidates.
DeleteBut where it relates to the camera: FAQ says " More information on the technical configuration will follow later as well as dedicated FAQ on the camera." If a dedicated FAQ on the camera is needed, there must be complications, isn't it? C.
But in paper C, the most important elements of the paper can be printed in advance! The bigger problem there is that the answer cannot be printed, so that we cannot keep another part of our answer side-by-side when attacking a next claim. And we are not yet informed whether we can have our answer to the first part available in the editor, as pdf, or on printed, when we answer the second part. Is needed in my view, as the combined answer to part 1 and 2 will be marked as a single notice of opposition. C.
DeleteI managed to write the entire C-Mock yesterday in exam conditions . After handing in C-part 1 the lockdown browser somehow exited unexpectedly (= window closed in a strange way). I could reopen it again and then print out my answer on paper.
DeleteOn part 2 of C-paper Mock I didn't find my Part-1 Mock in the editor.
I also did not really need it because I used different documents for other attacks.
I had the following PROBLEM: the computer switched to POWER SAVE MODUS while I was reading the documents. After I logged in again the lockdown browser interpreted the switching to power save modus as cheating and sent a message to me saying that next time I do this it will kick me out. And so was it: next time the computer switched to power save modus (the monitor gets dark) and I logged in the second time, I was kicked out: the session was closed !
Then I could only escape the window by physically unfolding the laptop which I use as a computer and which normally stays folded.
Then I logged in again to Wiseflow and re-started the C-Paper part 2 Flow, but in exam conditions I suppose you are kicked out for ever.
Did anybody experience something like that ?
I do not have the option to print out in Paper C. How do you print your typed answer? From the manual, it seems there is button "download paper" next to the "go to hand" but the "download paper" button is not showing my case, in both Part 1 and Part 2. Does anyone else have the same issue?
DeleteWC
Does any one how to force the lockdown browser to exit?
ReplyDeleteI have lost access to the main tab. I was opening alot of tabs and suddenly the tab structure changed. The ”main tab” is gone and if I click on the other tabs it does not change tab, only changes the color of the name of the tab. If I click in the right upper corner I get the message that i must complete the activity before I close the browser. Ctrl-alt-del is disabled. Can I turn the power off to force an exit or will that mess up my computer?
The program exited when I opened the laptop screen.
DeleteIt was explained yesterday in the 1h virtual video that they noticed if we opened too many taps, the browser will crash. They are working on it. It is advisable not to open too many tabs.
DeleteWC
You need these tabs open for paper C. Its not on that the system can't cope with some additional tabs opened up.
DeleteHi guys,
ReplyDeletemaybe it's time for a "technical" issue now regarding the exam substance of C-Paper.
I am now studying past exams and came along Paper C, 2000, "The climbing shoe".
Apparently the official answer interprets "shoe" and "climbing shoe" as two different things. However, claim 1 in fact doesn't mention any special technical feature which could allow one to make a difference among "shoe" and "climbing shoe". To me any shoe is a climbing shoe and I would then interpret A4 as novelty destroying for claim 1. In the end A4 discloses a shoe and who can say I can not climb on my table with this shoe??
Am I missing something ?
Thanks you for your advices/opinions.
A shoe is different than a climbing shoe; you need to find a feature allowing you to use this shoe for climbing without structural modifications. You have no such feature so they are different. You would find this in the description that the climbing shoe is used for alpine/mountain walks for example.
DeleteA sandal is a type of shoe which is not suitable for alpine walk.
A shoe could be also a high-heeled shoe but this does not mean that can be used/is suitable for climbing with the heeles. High-heeled shoes is a type of shoe used for going out for a dinner or opera not for climbing. Can you see my point?
You need to show in the novelty attack why shoe is equal to climbing shoe. If you cannot find the equality, they are different, so you cannot perform novelty attack, you would search for inventive step attack. This is my reasoning.
Why you do such old papers? Did you do all recent 2015-2019 ones?
John,
DeleteThe examiner report to Paper C 2000 says that "some candidates wasted time by atacking Claim 1, referring to "a shoe in general" and then repeating the attack referring to a "climbing shoe in particular". This was not necessary, it was sufficient to explain that the expression "in particular" does not limit the shoe to a climbing shoe (see Guidelines ...)."
...
Many candidates failed to attack the novelty of Claim 1 using Annex 4.
Moreover, in view of claim 3 which is directed to a Climbing shoe:
"Since claim 3 refers explicitly to a climbing shoes, arguing that a climbing shoe is to be considered as a shoe which is "suitable for climbing" gives the possibility to start an inventive step attack defining Annex 2 as the closest prior art document"
Hi Mariya,
ReplyDeleteI am doing old papers because, in fact, the "training" for this exam is, in my view, to get a sort of discipline in sorting out things and not getting the so similar terms of all annexes mixed. It's easy to mess up luminESCENT, phosporESCENT AND fluorESCENT, for instance. I also train figuring out all a) priority issues which may arrise and b) different kinds of "special" disclosure like prior use, prior sale, secrecy and so on..
Going back to the shoe, I read it completely the other way around, like: what makes a "climbing shoe" suitable for climbing ?
If I put high-heel shoes on and climb on a table what is the problem ?
"Climbing" points to a use of said shoe and not necessarily to a special technical feature.
Could anybody from Delta Patents maybe help us out of this dilemma ? (pleeease)
Thanks Mariya again for your input.
Good luck !
PS: I will do 2010-2018 the days before the exam.. 2019 I failed ... 😢)
I think you are going too far in reasoning, John.
DeleteThe structure makes the climbing shoe suitable for alpine/mountain climbing - type of leather, height, sole etc.
A high-heeled shoe cannot be used by an alpinist for climbing but a climbing shoe can be used. So both types of shoes are not equal when used for same purpose.
However, if the Annexe says that shoe has same structure/technical characteristics as climbing shoe, then you can say shoe and climbing shoe are same/equal/corresponding.
I do not know this paper but I think the meaning of climbing is going to the mountain and not on the table - in every paper there are definitions to be used. So stick to the vocabulary of Annexes and do not invent
What does the examiner's repot say on this?
Do you study also for D?
For me very useful is to read examiner's reports after doing the paper.
DeleteJohn, you can freely skip 2018 as everyone says it is bad example for exam paper.
Prior art does not need to be the same to be novelty destroying.
DeleteFor example: known point in range destroys novelty of range, but know point is not the same as a range.
Prior art must just be suitable for climbing.
Can be different.
Does not even need to be equally well suited.
2018 Paper C is a really bad paper and it completely not in line with other previous papers. Better not to do it for your preparations.
DeleteThis is meant by "climbing" according to a dictionary in the internet :
ReplyDeleteto use your legs, or your legs and hands, to go up or onto the top of something:
to climb the stairs/mountain
I hate climbing ladders.
We're going climbing (= climbing mountains as a sport) in Scotland next weekend.
Thus: one can climb stairs at the opera with high-heeled shoes.
Those shoes are climbing shoes in this case.
Does a skilled person consider a high-heeled shoe suitable for climbing?
DeleteI doubt that.
Interpretation should be done by a skilled person with a mind willing to understand.
DeleteSkilled person should rule out interpretations which are illogical, which do not make technical sense, or which lead to an absurd result (T190/90, GL F-IV 4.2)
I always try to teach too creative patent attorneys to look at things as their grandmother/mother would do.
If your mother asks you, having discussed walking though a hilly nature area: John, do you have a pair of climbing shoes for me. How would she react if you brought her the red high heeled shoes of your partner?
Thanks Jelle, I will try to set up my brain for the exam according to your advice :)
ReplyDeleteIn this particular paper C 2000 the issue of "climbing" is very broad.
A4 discloses sport shoes, so if I would bring those to my mom and ask here to climb a small hill she will probably not be very surprised.
I choose to attack claim 3 with A4 because of that..
I mean: the skilled man would for sure make a difference among "Moon vehicle" and "agricultural vehicle" but not among "shoe" and "climbing shoe".
Let's face it: one needs also a bit of luck in order to "guess" what the authors were thinking when drafting the paper.
Thanks again and good luck !
I understand, but...
DeleteThe committee tries to have some relatively straightforward inventive step attacks starting from a certain closest prior art D1. I see regularly that candidates try to find a reasoning why that D1 could be seen as novelty destroying. That is normally totally not the intention. Only if the document is an Art.54(3) doc have I seen that you sometimes have to stretch the interpretation of the prior art a bit (otherwise you miss an attack).
One more hint: Annex 5 in German uses the wording "Kletterschuhe" and in German this indeed sounds like shoes for climbing rocks. With the German version I would have had no doubt . But the English "climbing" is broader-
ReplyDelete