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
These claims were directed to a cork extraction element (1 independent claim and 2 dependent claims).
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?
it's a good paper for not too much materials to read, and have enough time to plan the attack
ReplyDeleteWhen toggling the side bar, you can easily switch between Title poage, Opppnent's letter, Annex 1, Annex 1 - Claims, Annex 2, ... , Annex 6 within a single Tab.
ReplyDeleteBetter than opening the paper in multiple Tabs: they all have the same name (WISEflow) which I could not change.
Reading time and doing notice of opposition did took a bit longer than usual as you now have to write the whole opposition rather than using the form. Printing was not within 10 minutes - I think they need to adjust a little bit more for Paper C to accommodate printing time. Part 1 overall felt ok.
ReplyDeleteDo we need to state in part 1 that only claim 5-7 are opposed? Or shall we still indicate to oppose the patent as a whole? In real life, it is required to indicate to what extend (which claims) are to be opposed under V Form 2300.
ReplyDeleteFAQ says: 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.
DeleteI did not have sufficient time to print the documents and had to manage with online documents. I prioritized entering the flow on time. I do hope they will handle this better this afternoon and for the real exam. I will refrain from commenting the paper as I did it a few months ago and might be biased. It still seems artificial and odd to analyze the documents and prior arts without seeing the whole claims. I feel like I will have to do analysis of documents in part 2 as well.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice lunch break all!
Having the same feeling. Without knowing the other claims, it was kind of wasting of time reading some of the prior arts. Then in part 2, we have to read prior arts all over again.
DeleteI agree - I ended up having to read all the documents again in the second part as I now know what the claims are but can't remember the subject matter of each paper. This killed off my time and I completely ran out of time in the second part. Not good.
DeleteI ran into the same issue as Anonymous.
DeleteThey seem to have thought that we would read all documents during the first part, would then know them all by heart, and woild then also appreciate the relevance of all information for claims 5-7 of part 1 as well as the (yet unknown) claims 1-4 for part 2, so that no or little time would be needed for reading in the second part.
But reading is done fully in the dark if not knowing the claims, so this assumption is wrong!
With new claims, a full detailed reading is needed again to get the relevance of all information for the new claims. And even more if the new claim set of part 2 is based on an independent claim that non-unitary or at least very very different to claims from part 1, as they were in this mock 2!
I hope that the real committee for the real exam is aware of this and that they provide for a proper effort:time:mark balance!
Marc
I already used the paper in my preparation. I hardly recalled details, so that was fine. It allowed me to focus on the platform and on answering in the editor.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everything can be printed. So much better than B!
Same here.
DeletePretty much everything is the same as in paper version, with the improvement of ctrl+f, up to identifying the attacks.
Then, copying the claims in the editor, then copying the relevant quotes from the documents while drafting the answer was way faster than in the paper version.
B was indeed worse in comparison.
DeleteHaving to use brackets instead of strikethrough make the modifications hardly readable to me. It was fine until I changed my mind mid-exam and decided to further alter the claims.
I used brackets as well as italics and grey font color for the deleted parts. It is then much easier to read!
DeleteYou can also refrain from using any underlining and strikethrough: you can just handin a clean copy of the amended claims, as long as you discuss how you amended the claims.
No material to print for part 2? I do not see any documents in WISEflow.
ReplyDeleteit's just 3 more claims I think
DeleteDid you manage to print your own answer to part 1? I thought we were supposed to have access to it during part 2.
Deleteyeah you can go back onto the flow page now, and download your answer to the first part
DeleteUpdate by Anonymous 5 February 2021 at 12:38:
DeleteMaterial became available for download 5-10 minutes before 13:15 when part 2 started. But the only difference was that it also contained claims 5-7 from part 1. No additional documents, as in Mock 1. No additional parts of the patent, unlike Mock 1. But maybe there will be additional documents in the real exam, so I will certainly check the documents for printing before the start of the second part!
I could download my answer to part 1 from the flow page of part 1. It is not visible on the flow page of part 2. It is not available in External Resources in part 2, so luckily I printed it.
Now back to the paper.
Failed to print the documents as I entered the flow to look for them after waiting for them to appear. However found it OK to work on screen. I also managed to lock myself out by clicking Alt-tab a few times, I had to quit and restart using admin password xyz which wasted some time setting up tabs again, but no work was lost (I think).
ReplyDeletehad the same problems...but my questions in zendesk were not answers for about 10min....afterwards my screen frooze in zendesk....could not go back to the mock ...no one could help me and finally I had to reboot the computer....lost 30min
DeleteThis paper is modified from one EQE paper. I think I did this paper before....
ReplyDeleteI managed to download everything just a few min before the start of the exam. Was surprised that they uploaded something for part II as there was nothing new. Probably to get us into a good habit of printing the material for part II in case something new WILL BE available during the real exam? I did not think my answer to part I would be of any use for me in part II.
ReplyDeleteI think so far this is the best adaptation from all the mock papers (paper B was the worst, both in terms of sufficiency of disclosure and toggling between the different tabs to compare the claims, the spec and read client's letter).
The amount of attacks to deal with in part I is just about right (it looks like it's 20 marks for claims in part I + some marks for notice of opposition) and gives you time to read all the documents properly to be ready for part II.
If the real paper C would be like this in terms of length and level of difficulty (I don't say it's an easy paper, I think the length and the S-M is ok for candidates with any technical background), I'd happy with that.
However, if the paper would be like in the 2018... Let's hope not! :-)
I am not as thrilled as the rest of the bloggers here. It was very unsettling that we were not able to download and, even more important, to print the annexes for Part I the announced 10 min in advance.
ReplyDeleteReading on the screen and jumping between the tabs makes it very difficult to digest the content and arrive at the correct conclusions. Even more if it is mechanical subject matter including figures.
Really hope that printing/downloading will be possible on the exam day!
You probably saw it, but there was a message sent out that they had a problem with the documents. They reassured us that they would give us the full 10 minutes to get the documents printed.
DeleteI need every minute I can get with anything that they will give me.
I had a similar problem with A, so I just waited. I knew that in the end, I would use more time switching tabs than taking 5 minutes to get them printed and into the flow.
Wanted to make a break for urgent situation...reported to zendesk, then I saw...88 people in queue before me....
ReplyDeleteI feel the reading in the first part - partly was a waste as I didn't know the latter claims. I ended up having to read all the prior art documents again in second part and then ran out of time at the end part II.
ReplyDeleteHi, I think you can just leave when you have written "I now go for a short, unscheduled break" or so and then write again "I'm back from break" when you return. No reason to wait for an answer. I did so twice with no problems.
DeleteThis is the paper that I am most anxious about. We haven't received any real information about how this is supposed to look. Neither mock exam has put my mind at ease. We only that we'll "may" get more prior art, another letter from the client, and/or more description from the opposed patent. We know that we’ll always get more claims. They don’t want us to have those for 45 minutes “off the clock”.
ReplyDeleteFor the same reason, I don’t think that they are going to give us the full description of A1. They aren’t going to want us comparing it to the prior art when we’re not on the clock.
I can't be the only one who is viewing C as a nebulous 6hour 45 minute test where I hope for the best.
I spent 30 min of the 45 min break re-analyzing the prior art documents as well as the description of the patent. I also feel like we were actually given 6h45..
DeleteIt appears that the claims in Mock 2's Paper C Part 2 were made available for printing in the FR version, while the corresponding claims were NOT made available for printing in the corresponding EN and DE versions.
ReplyDeleteWas there any particular reason for this discrepancy, or was this just an error in uploading the documents onto Wiseflow?
I could not print my documents from part 1 after I handed in. Had anyone the same problem?
ReplyDeleteMe too. Couldn't print it off for part II. Turns out I didn't need it as much although it would be good for the notice of opposition.
DeleteI tried for 10 minutes to download part I during the break. Finally I got it but just a couple of minutes before 13h15.
DeleteMy camera was blocked and seemed to be on (it has red light) after I handed in my paper. Even after I close chrome tab. I definitly don´t like that EPO takes so control over my computer. But no other option.
ReplyDeletePart 1 seemed to be easier then the part 2. This is, I suppose, the drawback of adapted paper.
A question relationg to claim 5.
ReplyDeleteA cork extraction element comprising a straight portion having an attached disc
and a spiral portion having a friction-reducing coating
Why is A4 novelty destroying for this claim? A4 does not disclose that the polyflourcarbon coating is on the spiral portion. Is it an imlplicit disclosed feature in view of what is stated about the Technical effect in A1?
A4 discloses the coating on the corkscrew to reduce friction, which implicitly but directly and unambiguously discloses that the coating covers the spiral portion. That is my answer...
DeleteA4 isn't citeable. The disclosure at the trade fair described in A4 is. It's a distinction you had to make according to examiner's report.
DeleteTo the specific question, the cork extraction element disclosed publically at the trade fair (sold even) had a polyfluorocarbon coating. The corkscrew was therefore coated, so at a minimum the spiral section was implicitly coated (if you take it literally, the whole thing is coated, so therefore so is the part).
Yes, I made that distinction but was noyt sure if I could presume that the coating had to be on the spriral part and not the disc.
DeleteI understand, but the disclosure was that the device had the coating, and the claim stated that the spiral was coated. If the device is disclosed as coated then the spiral is coated as directed in the claim.
DeleteIf the claim had said 'wherein the spiral is coated but the handle is not coated', then the claim would be novel.
Does that make any sense?
I had the same question. First, wrote down novelty attack, then realized the positional feature of the coating was not explicitly disclosed in A4. So changed attack to inventive step attack. If we break all the features down to the earth, I guess inventive step should be the one. In exam, it would be possible to write a novelty attack with inventive step attack following up.
DeleteI also ran out of time in part II because I ended up having to read all documents again in view of the first 4 claims.
ReplyDeleteYep me too. Ran out of time for part II.
DeleteMe too.
DeleteThey seem to have thought that we would read all documents during the first part and then know them all by heart, so that no time would be needed for reading in the second. But reading is fully in the dark if not knowing the claims, so this assumption is wrong!
With new claims, full detailed reading is needed again. And even ore if the new claim set of part 2 is based on an independent claim that non-unitary or at least very very different to claims from part 1.
I hope that the real committee for the real exam is aware of this!
Marc
a)
ReplyDeleteI went straightforward and said "A4 discloses.. ", "A4 is CPA because".. and didn't say anything about prior use, the cork itself etc. For claims 5-7 were 25P available in the examiner's report. Does anybody know how many of the 25P you loose only by not saying that there was a cork sold at the fair, prior sale, use bla bla ?
b)
I made very nice attacks against claims 5-7 starting from A5 !!
I considered the ridges 4 as being a sort of "plate-like element" which is a disc according to A1, (0016).
I mean, in the figure it looks like a plate, a small one but a plate.
However, the examiner's report doesn't mention anything about these beautiful combinations: A5+A2 against claims 5-7.
Regarding A4 ass CPA, the Examination committee has written this following remark in the EQE compendium:
Delete"The chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person, irrespective of whether or not particular reasons can be identified for analysing the composition (see G1/92 or the Guidelines G-IV, 7.2.1). The sale of the cork-screw as documented in Annex 4 made all its features, including the coating’s composition, available to the public."
I cited some T decisions T444/88, T381/87 on this matter and the relevant section from the Guidelines for Examination. But I think, it is still a novelty attack rather than an inventive step attack. I cited for the argument that the polyfluorocarbon coating being a friction reduction from 0006 of A2.
Regarding claims 5 to 7, the Examiner's report for Paper C, 2017 uploaded at the EPO compendium mentions on page 5, last paragraph the following:
"An additional argumentation as to lack of inventive step of claim 5 was not expected."
By this, I understand that the IS-attack for claims 5 to 7 would not yield mark for the attack, but you would get marks for "argumentation" and "use of information". There have been some changes in the marking and the Tutors may have a better idea on how they mark for such situations, provided the attack makes sense according to the examination committee.
In this new format, are we still expected to do N (number of claims) + 2 attacks. For this paper, I note that the Epi answers only provide one attack per claim. If we have a Main C paper with 7 claims, curious to know if there would be an expectation of 9 attacks to do?
ReplyDeleteAppreciate any input the Delta Patents team have on this enquiry considering the N+2 attacks information is mentioned during your courses.
Apologies if this has already been answered somewhere. (I can't recall if added matter attack is part of the N+2 attack scenario).
This paper and Mock 1 raised a question about which part of the exam should be used for certain attacks. In Mock 1, there was an apparent added matter attack in part 1, though you could not be sure until you read part 2 that it had no basis. In Mock 2, there was a hint of an added matter attack that was unknowable until part 2. However, I still put 100(c) as one of the grounds of opposition in my notice during part 1.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably only one mark, but it causes some confusion and second guessing of the exam to have to decide in part 1 whether to mention an added matter attack when you haven't yet seen part 2 for the complete document.
I also realised something about the 9/10 tab limit, if you open your answer, the letter, A1-A6, Zendesk and the legal documents in tabs, you are already hitting that limit.
You can also easily switch between the documents if you open the navigation sidebar on the left side in a Tab with the paper (Top left symbol "Toggle Sidebar"). You do no need so many Tabs in that case.
DeleteAnd.. you have almost all on paper if you printed before starting. So even 2 or 3 Tabs can be sufficient for paper C! (B is a different situation...)
The English and German version of the paper available for printing for part 2 did not have claims 1-4 in the paper.
ReplyDeleteIn the French version, the complete paper was available for printing prior to the start of part 2, including all the claims. Très pratique!
Marc
This whole week has been shambolic! I have zero confidence after doing mock 2. So many issues.
ReplyDeleteI predict this one to have a lot of appeals. The change in format is clearly detremental to those of us trying to practice it.
DeleteAfter Mock 1 and Mock 2, I have no idea how to study for this thing in a real simulated environment. I know that we'll get extra claims. We may or may not get extra : description, prior art, letter from client. This test is scaring me, not really because of the material, but that I can't practice it before I actually take it.
ReplyDeleteAll I am doing right now is taking old C exams in a 6 hour block + 15 minutes alone with the prior art and no claims. If I get fast enough to do a C paper in that time, I figure it will be enough. Point distribution is going to be interesting.
If someone has any other ideas, I would be interested.
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteSo the number of documents to study in a 3 hours paper (C1) is the same for the 5,5 hours paper (former C). How is that possible. It means that one will have completed the study of the Patent to attack plus 6 documents in less than 2 hours in order to start to organise claims attacks. It was already an exploit to do that in 3,5 hours. Where does it go?
It appears that the method you used is no longer efficient timewise.
DeleteYou simply don't have enough time during C1 to analyse all documents.
Anyway you don't have all the claims of the patent, so you can only anchor your study to the claims you are given in C1.
I only analysed the portions that seemed prima facie relevant and refrained from doing any sidework that doesn't directly attract points.
It has already been stated that C1 is more about reading than writing, and that the attacks are comparatively simpler than those in C2.
My method below for C1:
1) For each claim, determine the effective dates and the available prior art. This can be done straight in the text editor without looking much at the contents of the annexes.
2) Filter the annexes based on 1). Anything that is not a A54(2) (all claims) shall be studied first.
In this case, the corkscrew showed in A4 was part of the prior art only for the claims given in C1, so it had to be used right away.
Other exams could have an A54(3) document. Those are always used in a novelty attack against an independent claim, so that's pretty straightforward too.
3) Try to attack the claims of C1 using that filtered prior art, hopefully through a novelty attack. This can also be done straight in the text editor. In this case, the novelty attack only required fully analysing A4 and studying A1 for definitions.
4) If the novelty attack doesn't work because a feature is missing, follow up with an IS attack. There are keywords that help identifying which documents to combine. Here for example polybacchus was absent from A4, so it had to be found elsewhere. Using ctrl+f, it is found that A2 and A5 both mention polybacchus, then studying the context directed towards A2 as the correct one.
C2 is tougher than C1 actually because it's expected that we will have much more to draft, meaning more complicated IS attacks, like in Mock 2. But at the same time the annexes should seem more familiar, for being already read at least diagonally during C1.
It is weird to have to invent a new way of working.
DeleteVery far from day to day work, and very far from former papers approach.
And it's all about making a very hazardous bet.
Knowing that in past papers, even a prima facie not relevant paper may comprise a useful knowledge (definition, equivalent, ...) for attacks with other documents.
So it is necessary to analyse all the documents before any claim attack.
The same questions arise: Why are there so many documents to read transforming the exam into a race and a betting game.
This mock threw me! I had practiced this paper before, but now with the last claims coming first? and having to type things? I'm praying the real exam will be more geared towards the online changes.
ReplyDeleteI wonder also whether all teething problems will be sorted before March. The zendesk is rubbish and I cannot access EPC legal texts as my company firewall blocks them through wiseflow. I feel like the real exam will be a lottery game. :-(
Can someone from DP tell us if the DP methodology works as well when given the last 3 claims first? Is there anything needing a change in tactics? Thanks
ReplyDeleteSince I have read many critical comments, here is my opinion: I had no problems with the WISEflow program and think that it is an advantage to have the paper in digital format.
ReplyDeleteIn part 1, it was directly clear that A4 would be relevant, since it was the only prior art that was not available for claim 5. Claim 5 and A4 were both very short, so that you could easily see that the cork screwer is novelty destroying. The attacks for claims 6 and 7 were easy as well, because you could just search in the prior art documents for PBc. Only A2 and A5 disclosed PBc, so no need to read the other documents. A5 disclosed PBc in a different context, so we had to combine A4 and A2. A2 also showed the features of claim 7. So, I did the attacks for the claims having only read A2 and A4.
After that, I had plenty of time to read the other documents and make notes. The claims were not available, but you could make notes with regard to the features mentioned in the description. I did not feel that I had to re-read all prior art documents after the claims for part 2 had become available because, together with my notes, I was very familiar with the contents of the documents. Also in part 2, the search function was very helpful and made it easier to prepare the attacks.
I think, the real exam will be closer to Mock 1 than to Mock 2, so the description relating to the claims of part 2 will not be available in part 1. Still, one can read the prior art and make notes as to features and technical effects disclosed which will be helpful in determining the attacks.
Well TF,
DeleteThe issue is not with the digital format itself, but the conditions (one single editor when the main exercise is to compare knowledges).
The content of the paper is also frightening.
There are geniuses but an exam is also and firstly for normal people.
Mock2 was said to be intended to allow candidates to test the system also close to the real examination conditions.
For me there is no other way to know what is in a document than to read it. Normally all the documents given in a paper are to be used in that paper. Historically no document with no utility is given.
So there is a need to have confirmation that only documents to be used is C1 will be proposed in C1.
"For me there is no other way to know what is in a document than to read it" - yes, but sometimes the digital format helps to find relevant documents or passages, e.g. in the above-mentioned case of PBc or when you need to find a certain definition, which is often the case in paper C.
DeleteIt was easy to find A4 as relevant document for claims 5 to 7, because A4 was not available for claims 1 to 4. Therefore, in the logic of paper C, it was highly likely that A4 is relevant for claims 5 to 7, either as novelty-destroying document or at least for inventive step. Therefore, it makes sense to analyse A4 first, before analysing the other documents.
That is crazy, to try to predict what a prior art document will be relevant for before you have read it! The EQE tests if you are fit to practise as a patent attorney, not a fortune teller.
DeleteNo it's not crazy, it is an intelligent way of efficiently doing the exam. If A4 is not relevant for claims 1 to 4, it is probably relevant for claims 4 to 7. So why not start analysis with A4? What would be the reason to read A2 to A6 in ascending order?
DeleteSo, start with A4. If it turns out that A4 is not novelty-destroying, continue with analysing the other documents.
Having an extensive overview of the contents of all prior art documents, without even having all claims of the patent to oppose, before starting writing anything is very time-consuming.
DeleteIn real life, to draft an opposition brief, you start from the claim you want to attack, then you search for a novelty-destroying prior art, and if you fail and some features are missing from the CPA you found, then you search multiple documents showing that those features are both well known and already used for the same purpose.
The same approach can be followed in paper C. In addition, since paper C is not real life, it is very codified. Every document is to be used at least once, and the exact claim language is always present in the documents, so that no personal interpretation is to be done.
So, relevant pieces of info such as dates and claim language allow doing selective reading, in order, to do early deductions and identify which documents can or cannot be relevant to a given claim.
If a document is never useable as A54(2) but only as A54(3), then it has to be novelty-destroying.
If a document is only available for a group of claims then it is relevant to at least one claim of that group. That was the case in Mock2, A4 had to be relevant for claims 5-7 whereas the other documents could also be relevant for claims 1-4. It was straightforward to read A4 first.
If the concepts disclosed in a document have nothing to do with the independent claim of a group of claims, then the document is neither a novelty-destroying prior art nor a CPA. In Mock2, A3 did not mention anything even remotely related to claim 5. No disc, no reducing friction, no rotation... So it was also straightforward to skip the review of this document for later.
Dear TF, Dear Blink,
DeleteIn the exam report for C2017, to novelty attack claim 5 with A4, they use the knowledge of A2
[
Claim 5 (6 marks)
The corkscrew sold at the wine fair comprises a cork-engaging element having a
straight portion, an attached disk and a spiral portion (Annex 4, photo). According to
Annex 4, lines 43-44, these cork-screws comprise a polyfluorocarbon coating. This
coating is known to have friction-reducing properties (Annex 2, [0006]).
]
This shows that useful knowledges can be hidden in any document available.
That is why your method is to be seen as speculation.
An exam should not rely on speculations.
Regards,
I only partly agree. Of course you can't be sure that A4 contains all necessary information or that A4 is indeed novelty-destroying before having analysed A4.
DeleteBut when you analyse A4 you will note that a coating is disclosed. The claimed properties of the coating are not disclosed in A4. So, you can just quickly search if you find an information that tells you that the coating disclosed in A4 is a coating according to claim 5. The digital paper is very helpful in this regard because it makes it easier to find the necessary information/definition.
The fact that the properties of the coating are disclosed in A2 does not change the fact that the cork screwer described in A4 is novelty-destroying.
I cannot see any speculation here. I never said that you can tell that A4 is novelty-destroying without any analysis or that you can completely ignore the other documents. My point was that it is a good strategy to start with A4 and that the digital format is very useful for quickly finding missing pieces, such as definitions or other documents needed for an inventive step attack. There is no speculation, but you can make your analysis more efficient using the logics of paper C and the digital format. When you're lucky, you do not need to analyse all documents before attacking a certain claim. Otherwise, you would still not lose any time compared to an approach where start reading A2 to A6 in ascending order and only start to write down your attacks before having analysed all prior art.
This is particularly true for the new 2-part format of the C exam, because at least some of the prior art that is available in part 1 will not be relevant for at least some of the claims to be attacked in part 1 and/or will be needed to attack claims in part 2. So, in my opinion, it makes very much sense to make educated guesses about the relevant prior art for certain claims in part 1, so that you hopefully do not need to completely read all documents in part 1 before writing down the attacks.
To Anonymous 9 Feb, various popular methods, including the ones taught by Ceipi and Delta, focus on extracting and sorting every piece of info from every document, then cross-checking the sorted info to set up the attacks and finally drafting the opposition brief.
DeleteThe strengths of these methods are that they are robust, do not need any speculation, and allow getting a perfect score on any paper C, as long as the method ic completed in time. For this reason, many candidates feel fully in control and are satisfied with such methods.
Therefore, as you mention, the exam does not rely on speculations.
The downside is that like with any brute-force approach, the early steps of the method, which do not attract points by themselves, are very time-consuming, and as paper C is time-pressured, running out of time means either botching or downright skipping key attacks.
The different approach I follow, which seems to me very similar to the one described by TF, is focused on early deductions and purposive reading in order to navigate as fast as possible towards determining a coherent skeletal plan of attacks to draft.
Then while effectively drafting, it is of course necessary to go back-and-forth between the patent, the documents and the editor to pick up any missing piece (definition, feature and technical effect) and piece it together with the general plan of attacks.
But this additional reading time is also very purposive, since it's focused on looking for a specific piece of info. This purpose, and the search function in the pdf editor, allow for a much shorter reading time than if classifying the massive amount of info in the documents before knowing how these info will be used.
The blame is for the epo to propose an exam out of all reality.
DeleteJust because a realistic exam would lead to a very big pass rate and they don't like it. We are already professionals, We don't need EQE for that.
The EQE is just an additional title. And in our profession, which is a legal profession, it would be against deontology to submit to a client a study made from speculations.
So the epo should just organise a NORMAL exam, where time management is normal. No artificial difficulties please.
Regards,
Don't know what you are going on about!
DeleteTF- your comments do not make any sense. You cannot assume A4 is novelty destroying without reading all the documents and claims. Therefore you need to read the new claims and prior art again once part II is available. This is the issue here in that you have to read the documents again in Part II and hence time is very limited.
DeleteBlink, in their latest C Book, Delta also teaches "goal-oriented searching", i.e. starting with the claims and looking for the right documents. They write they made the switch because they realized that in practice it led to higher marks. This years it was even easier to do because you could use Ctrl+F to scan for terminology in all the Annexes. Of course you never now whether some Annex just uses a different word for the same thing, so you still need your brain to complete the task ;). But I think that classical "put everything into a matrix then write your answer from the matrix" methods do not work any more.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me whether we need to provide the Notice 'formalities' info (i.e. requirements of R76, like opponent details and fee is paid etc.) in the C Part1 answer ? Or whether it is sufficient to only provide this in C part 2 answer? It is stated that the paper is corrected as a whole, but it is also stated that answers that would be available in the first part need to be provided already in the first part.... Just to save some time in C1, I would prefer to write the notice info in part 2 of my answer, but I am still not sure whether this will not lead to reduction of marks..???
ReplyDeleteFAQ item "Updated 12/2020 - How will paper C be structured and what do I have to take into account when answering it?" says:
Delete"You will be required to draft a second part of the notice of opposition, which will form, together with the first part you already provided, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked. "