C 2023: first impressions?
To all who sat the C-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's C-paper? Any general or specific comments?
How did you handle the situation with the paper being split into two parts?
Was the split different than in 2021 and 2022, e.g., was also new prior art introduced in the second part?
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 the last few years?
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?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a part could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
Any pleasant and/or unpleasant surprises?
The paper and our answers
Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, preferably in all three languages (English, French and German). Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
(We expect that the C paper will be made available soon in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, PaperC )
(We expect that the C paper will be made available soon in all three languages from the EQE website, Compendium, PaperC )
The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.
Please be reminded that you can view and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you copied it in full into your exam answer).
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 16-03-2023 16:23"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
SHARE:
Claim 1 - Novelty Annex 5
ReplyDeleteClaim 2 - IS - Annex 4 + Annex 2
Claim 3 - IS - Annex 4 + Annex 2 + Annex 3
Claim 4 - Novelty Annex 7
Claim 6 - added matter
Claim 7 - IS Annex 7 +Annex 3
agree?
Yep + Claim 5 - A7 + A6
DeleteAnd Claim 7 - A3 + no technical effect with the user interface?
Deleteyes sorry, your are right
DeleteSame here. But claim 7: I did use A3 as the starting point.
DeleteAnonymous16 March 2023 at 16:18: yes, the same from my side. A3 seems as the right candidate.
DeleteI have the same attacks. Part 1 was so rushed, I thought I had it wrong, I was so stressed. But we all seem to have the same attacks.
DeleteClaim 7: not Annex 7 but Annex 3
Delete[i am anonymous 17:10] yes indeed i did obvious from A3
Delete1 : Novelty A4 (but I think I forgot A5 for novelty as well)
ReplyDelete2 : A4+A2
3 : A4+A2+A3
4 : A7
5 : A7+A6
6 : added matter
7 : novelty A7 (non technical features and "adapted for without modification"
sorry : 7 : novelty with A3
DeleteSame, but used IS over A7 for claim 7 as a mixed invetion.
DeleteI was not able to find the sensor in annex 4 for claim 1 novelty attack
DeleteDid A4 include the sensor?
DeleteI also don't see where A4 included a sensor, it only talks about possibly fitting the pedal with sensor. So for claim 1 I have only A5 novelty attack.
DeleteTTT
To TTT: so "a garage that can fit a camper van" does in your view not disclose "a garage with a camper van"?
DeleteA3, right now going camping sounds really good - spring is on its way and no further studies for now!
DeleteTTT
A3, a better analogy would be "a garage that can fit a van. Oh by the way, there are are current developments for converting vans into camper vans." Does that disclose a garage with a camper van?
DeleteI wrote that both An4 and An5 are novelty-destroying for claim 1
DeleteFor claim 7 I considered An3 as the closest prior art document, because also describes a bike-Computer . Since the distininguishing features do not make any technical contribution, claim 7 does not involves an inventive step
DeleteFirst half was awful, second half was very chilled.
ReplyDeletei agree
DeleteMy answers,
ReplyDelete1: Novelty A4
2: IS A4+A2
3: IS A4+A2+A3 partial problems
4: A7
5: A7+A6
6: Added matter
7: Obvious over A3, COMVIK approach
the same that eqe enjoyer
DeleteAdditional attach on claim 1 based on A5 looks necessary. Otherwise all your attacks sound good to me.
DeleteI wasn't sure how to attack claim 1 using A5, as that document had very strange wording. I don't think I had enough time anyway
DeleteTrue it is a tricky attack without URL. So you had to promise to provide more in the future. And discuss the balance of probabilities taking the comment section into account. I didn’t have time either. But just wrote a rough line of argument. A4 is certainly stronger.
DeleteI'm confident that other attacks are correct, but A4 didn't explicitly disclose a sensor for detecting dead spots in the pedal stroke so that one might be wrong. I decided to use F-IV, 4.13.1 to build my attack and argued that it's simply a sensor suitable for the said process, but no other feature pertaining to the sensor was given in the claim so any sensor would suffice.
Deletetotally the same except that I said its obvious over A7 for claim 7 not A3.
Deletei agree with Yoshi
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to all (re-)sitters for surviving this year's EQE.
ReplyDeleteI found the split between C1 and C2 highly unbalanced. At least to my evaluation, C1 had two inventive step attacks, while C2 only had one (albeit a lengthy one). This was paired with long definitions and unnecessary details provided in A1, increasing reading time, and flanked by necessary (and very important) discussions of priority and the disclosures of A2 and A5. When all was said and done, the introductory part of C1 had consumed roughly two of the alotted three hours.
C2 was rather straight-forward, provided the invalid priority claim in C1 had been recognized. Properly attacking claim 5 took me longer than expected - were there two or three partial problems??; the combination was the same regardless. The remaining attacks were rather easy to identify and carry out. I even had time left for an inventive step attack on claim 6 (which had added subject-matter anyway).
Same! I couldn't finish my attack on claim 3..just wrote partial problems, A3 is showing solution of the partial problem...and the timer blocked me! I really needed like only 5 min more. Then on part 2 i finished all attacks and had 25 min left...so checked everything, added guidelines references. For claim 7 browsed through Case Law and added T-decisions...and still had like 6-7 min left. Such bad separation of the claims into C1 and C2 😞
DeleteI fully agree with Vladimir, not enough time for C1-1, ready after half time for C1-2.
DeleteHoly... I need 4 weeks vacations.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree. C1 was very full on.
DeleteI agree about C1- rushing through it all. I still happened to have picked the attacks that most people picked here. Not sure how.
DeleteStef I agree!
DeleteMy thoughts were:
ReplyDeletePriority invalid due to not all applicants being named in later application and no transfer. All claims only have a right to the filing date. The written part of A2 has a date after the filing date but is evidence of the disclosure of a poster before the filing date and has the drawings from the poster in there.
I did:
Claim 1: Novelty over A4 (I thought the rotor stator could be a sensor, I'm backtracking now) and IS over A4+A2
Claim 2: IS A4+A2
Claim 3: IS A4+A2+A3
Claim 4: Novelty A7
Claim 5: IS A7 + A6
Claim 6: added matter
Claim 7: Novelty over A3. A3 discloses a computer which is suitable for a bike having a pedal sensor. I thought it was thus suitable for use with the bicycle of A4. A3 discloses the display of an efficiency parameter by an arrow in [0007]. Based on GL G-II, 3.7 the manner in which the information is displayed (icon instead of arrow) is not technical. Therefore I did not think it could confer novelty.
By the COMVIK approach, it's only novel if there are no distinguishing features at all, even non-technical ones. It's not inventive if there are only non-technical distinguishing features (which do not contribute to inventive step)
DeleteIt's only not* novel if...
DeleteG 2/88, reason 7: l. A claimed invention lacks novelty unless it includes at least one essential technical feature which distinguishes it from the state of the art.
DeleteSo, one could validly argue that a purely-non-technical feature cannot give novelty. COMVIK can be seen as the safe route in case there may be some technical aspect to a non- technical feature, and/or to move that discussion from novelty to inventive step where it is easier.
See Case Law Book I.C.5.2.8
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2022/e/clr_i_c_5_2_8.htm
I got a little confused on the "for" statement in a4... And ending up doing an inventive attack only based on a4. It was the discussion in one of the annexes about the cavity being big enough to take the motor arrangement. So then I thought suitability might be based on that. So then I reasoned not all sensors are suitable for motor arrangement sensing? 'm pretty sure I'm wrong tho... Whoops -
ReplyDeleteThe time balance was not good. Part 1 was much more stressfull than part 2.
ReplyDeleteI agree. There were a lot of pages of detailed information to work through and understand, that added a lot of time-pressure to C1.
Delete1: Novelty A5
ReplyDelete2: IS A2 w A4 (I used A2 as cpa becasue it has dame purpose of improving efficiency in relation to deadspots... I wanted to use A4 as cpa but couldn't justify it)
3: IS A2 w A4 + A5 (partial problems)
4: Novelty A7
5: IS A7 w A6
6: Added matter
7: IS over A7 - treated as a mixed invention and only differences over A7 were non-technical
A2 was about stationary pedals, so I don't think we were supposed to use it as CPA against claims 2 and 3
DeleteThe arguments would have fit together more easily with A4 as cpa I think, but I couldn't find a nice argument to say why A4 was the cpa
DeleteHow did you attack claim 7 with A7? Wasn't A3 the only document where 80% efficiency was disclosed
DeleteClaim 7 was dependent on claim 4, and A7 disclosed all the features of claim 4. I said the features added in claim 7 (in addition to those in claim 4) were purely non-technical...
Delete@AD claim 7 was not dependent on claim 4. It was an entirely different product (the bicycle computer), which only needs to be *suitable for* the bicycle of claim 4. Which the one of A3 was, by virtue of the BOT protocol.
Deleteahhh... I misread the claim then
DeleteI was very confused with the wording of claim 7. It looked like an independent claim, but it had to be dependent on the computer of claim 4, because claim 7's embodiment doesn't even work when the computer is not in communication with a sensor.
DeleteFor claims 2 and 3 I also used A2 as cpa for the same reason as yours. In A2, i can not find any hint for the arrangement of magnets in the cavity, whereas in A4 there is hint in paragraph [0009] that the cavity can take up magnets and sensors
Delete@ eqe enjoyer: why/how would it be relevant whether claim 7 is an independent or a dependent claim? Please explain.
Delete@Roel if claim 7 was dependent then it would include the features of claim 4, meaning A7 is needed
DeleteAttacks:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: Novelty A5
Claim 2: I.S. A4 + A2
Claim 3: I.S. A4 + A2, A4 + A3 (partial problems)
Claim 4: Novelty A7
Claim 5: I.S. A7 + A6
Claim 6: added-matter (specific ceramic bearing composition imparted the technical effect needed)
Claim 7: I.S. A3 - distinguishing features had no technical effect
C1: very rushed for time at the end, so not expecting many marks for the claim 3 attack. C2: finished with about 10 minutes to spare, without rushing at all.
I completely agree with all your attacks.
Deletecompletely agree as well
Deletesame here
DeleteI did the same!
ReplyDelete1: Novelty A5
ReplyDelete2: IS A4+A2
3: IS A4+A2, COMVIK
4: Novelty A7
5: IS A7+A6
6: Added matter
7: IS A3, COMVIK
With the time pressure and subject matter (as a biotechie), c1 was unnecessarily challenging. If I had more time, I would've picked up on the pp for claim 3. In contrast, I finished c2 with time to spare.
As someone with an electrical background, it was not trivial for me either to identify the partial problem to claim 3. But I missed the part of the description that stated it's independent from the resistance control. I did partial problems anyway, luckily.
Delete@Armin
DeleteI yoloed a partial problems attack also because A2's computer was not a bicycle computer in my view (and the whole proprietary algorithm was tripping me up), but I do not think I formulated the problems correctly. I could actually not really justify why the features were not synergistic. I just added that one improves efficiency by resistance control and the other identifies the spots. I was also running out of time at that point, as it took me forever to decide whether to use A4 for a novelty attack on claim 1 or not (in the end I did not and only did one using A5)
Hopefully I get some marks.
I was a bit concerned with claim 6. Obviously, an added subject-matter attack was expected. It seems like there were several intermediate generalizations you could formulate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if those would be repaired by adding all those features to claim 6, you would end up with a claim that does not seem to be anticipated by the prior art. At least the ceramic races were not shown anywhere, and its technical effect neither.
I know you're not supposed to account for any amendments by the proprietor except when it comes to claimed alternatives, but I was wondering if you were supposed to do another attack somehow (since the 123(2) attack was so easy).
One of the documents (I think it was A4) showed ceramic races made of zirconia (which is the same as zirconium dioxide - however, I only knew this being a chemist myself but couldn't find that definition in any of the documents). The figure of that document also shows that it was the same type of roller bearings. IS attack A7+A4 therefore seemed like an option to account for possible limitation by the propriertor.
DeleteAs far as I know, they don't expect an attack based on 100(a) if there is a valid 100(c) attack
DeleteClaim 6 was a ceramic ballbearing, anticipated by a zirconium ballbearing of Annex 4. A1 explains that zirconium is a species of the genus ceramic. Thus A4 anticipates that feature.
DeleteLove your name derailleur !!!
Delete@Anonymous16 March 2023 at 17:08: A1 disclosed Zirconia as an example of ceramic bearings.
DeleteThanks, anonymous, the name just appeared in my mind. I am still hopped up by vast amounts of tea and sugar and shot through with adrenaline. my mind is still racing.
DeleteOh, and anyone else had 5 straight nights with nightmares?
I think claim 7 was novel over A3, because A3 didn't disclose an additional indicator for efficiencies above 80%. It looked like they expect obviousness arguments in view of A3 for claim 7
ReplyDeleteClaim 7 was novel over A3 anyway, because the heart icon and angry emoticon were not disclosed. However, being non-technical features, they do not contribute to inventive step.
DeleteMoreover, A3 did disclose that it can display in real time the efficiency parameter as a percentage. That could be interpreted as always showing the efficiency parameter, meaning it does show something above 80% and below 80%. It's a bit loose though, and it doesn't matter anyway, because of COMVIK.
I've disregarded non-technical features of claim 7 using COMVIK approach, and formulated a technical problem for the technical distinguishing feature of claim 7 over A3, which was based on the second indicator that was used when the efficiency is above 80%. Then argued that it is obvious and not inventive in view of A3
DeleteEnjoyer- claim 7 is novel because of not only an additional indicator. An arrow mark of A3 isn’t the same as a heart icon and an emoticon of claim 7. so two differentiating features.
DeleteYeah, that's what I did, forgot to mention it above.
DeleteI went to say that displaying a first state (heart, arrow,...) for +80% and an other state (nothing/ angry face,...) when -80% were the only technical features of claim 7, and anticipated by A3, so I went for a novelty attack for claim 7
DeleteI really struggled with part 1 in terms of time. It was so rushed! I did not even get to write down proper argumentation for claim 3. Part 2 was relatively relaxed.
ReplyDeletewas would be the penalty for novelty attack on claim 7 based on A3 (and not inventive step over A3) ?
ReplyDeleteI attacked novelty of claim 5 on the basis of A6. I couldn’t see any missing features, but now seeing all these posts I’m starting to realise that must be wrong…
ReplyDeleteA6 does not disclose a bicycle with a pedalling improvement system, as is required per its dependency on claim 4.
DeleteAnyone have an idea of what the distribution of marks may be like for each claim?
ReplyDeletemy attacks
ReplyDeleteclaim 1 - A5 novelty
claim 1 - A4 + A2
claim 2 - A4 + A2
claim 3 - A4 + A2 (used A3 for definitions only)
claim 4 - A7 novelty
claim 5 - A7 + A6
claim 6 - added sm
claim 7 - A7 + A3
leila
I think IS attack is not expected when there is a novelty attack, so I don't think IS A4+A2 on claim 1 was expected (but I made a novelty attack on claim 1 with A4).
Deleteclaim 7 : I think there was no need of A7 for this IS attack (this claim was not dependent of claim 4)
If I am not mistaken in the 2016 paper there were 2 attacks for claim 1. One of them novelty and the other IS.
DeleteI think only if you had a Art54(3) EPC attack and probably that was the case in 2016
DeleteI see many attacked claim 3 by partial problem, so I am glad to see someone else using prior art for definitions instead. We do seem to be a minority, which is disconcerting.
Delete@Anonymous 16 March 2023 at 17:31
DeleteIt's not *usually* expected, but since claim 2 is not inventive over A4 + A2 (which is different from A5 for claim 1), you might as well write a short sentence that claim 1 isn't either over the same combination.
Nope. That doesn’t work. The examining committee has changed how the marks are awarded for this. If you don’t get the right attach for a claim, you get no points. I lost last year C with 2 points. I can attest that I drafted a valid attack for last year C for claim 3, which wasn’t novel in view of a public prior use. But the Committee expected an Art. 123(2) attack and gave 0 points for it. Same goes for choosing wrong combination or starting from a different CPA. No marks given for such attacks, no matter how probable that attack is.
Delete@ Helloman: you usually do get marks for valid alternative attacks. But as a claim violating 123(2) has no effective date, you can not do a valid novelty or inventive step attack against that.
DeleteThe Disciplinary Board has also ruled multiple times that any answer shall be marked according to its merits, and that an inventive step attack starting from the wrong CPA cannot just for that reason get a categorical 0 for the compete PSA attack - the papers are however designed such that it is difficult to write a valid attack/ valid next steps if you start from the wrong CPA.
did you consider claim 7 as independent or dependent claim?
ReplyDeleteIndependent. The computer of claim 7 only needs to be "suitable for use with a bicycle of claim 4", which it is by having the BOT protocol
DeleteI took claim 7 as dependent on the computer of claim 4 (no bicycle features though, as claim 7 had nothing to do with the bicycle) and left a note to the examiner for my reasoning. If claim 7 is independent, it only covers non-working embodiments and its technical effect can not be assessed, because the computer of claim 7 can only have a technical effect if the computer is in communication with a sensor of the system.
DeleteAnyway, the wording of claim 7 was very unclear.
I consider it dependent on claim 4, a computer adapted to, including thus features of claim 4. Not merely suitable for. But I could be mistaken.
DeleteIn my opinion the only feature it is adapted to is to be connected with a sensor.. no more.
DeleteFirst thoughts
ReplyDelete1. Extremely complicated and long for life science attorneys
2. Part 1 almost impossible to finish on time. It was badly separated and part 1 should have only cl1 and 2.
3. Part 2 much easier and shorter. I could finish 1h before the end! That never happened in any previous paper C. The attack on ranged is easier for us from LS as well
I agree! Because I had to rush for claim 3. I ended up just writing some rubbish I did not believe in.
ReplyDeleteHahaha same here
DeleteWish I had the exact wording of claim 7 now, can’t remember how the dependency was worded
ReplyDelete"for the pedalling efficiency improving system of claim 4" not an "according to" or "for use with"
DeleteTerrible separation of parts. Couldn’t finish part 1, and finished part 2 with a good 45 mins to spare! /aw
ReplyDeleteI have a doubt regarding the poster of A2. I understand that the poster is the prior art not A2 as such. But usually a poster is explained by the presenter in the exhibition. Therefore the content of part 002 of A2 is verbally disclosed.
ReplyDeleteI had some doubts about it as well, but seeing it was the only document disclosing now much needed features, I used it and added some arguments about what a skilled person would be able to understand from both the poster and indeed, as you say, verbal explanation.
DeleteTrue. It could also be public prior use. This reminded me of the wine cork exam from C 2017 - A4. It was also a publication from the magazine used as a proof for what was disclosed during the wine fair. So similar approach was expected perhaps.
DeleteHi, for me part 1 was challenging from time managment perspective. I do not understand how good attacks can be made within such little time. For part 2 - the wording of „for” was misleading for me. I decided to the „safer” attack and include feature of claims in it. Still i did not have enough time to make alternative attack for „suitable for” interpretation. For claim 5 it is a misterny for me whether partial problem approach was expected or just a one „huge feature”. I took the second approach as far it is still in practice „the one material” only deacribed in details. Time was kilking on part 1, it is demotivating such fight with time more than with exam difficulty…
ReplyDeleteSame re: C5. I couldn't make up my mind if the differences and technical effects were synergistic or not. I had a lot of time left, so I ended up doing both ways (one big problem, and one partial problem) just in case the imaginary "opposition" division disagreed.
DeleteI don't know how the mark scheme works if someone tries both approaches. Hoping I get some marks for claim 5 either way.
is it necessary to also do an IS attack for claim 6 given that it can be easily amended by the proprietor to say ceramic ball bearings made of zirconia? this will not result in the inescapable trap as art 123(3) does not apply (i.e. not broadening protection)
ReplyDeleteno
DeleteI have no idea how anyone could read through the amount of information available in C1 and still manage to find attacks for 3 lengthy claims. The split was - once again - terribly made. A5 had very confusing wording so I couldn't figure how to use it. Then A7 was just to consume reading time in C1.
ReplyDeleteBased on all the comments here I think I managed at least one correct attack in C1. C2 was easier because all the information had already been read and worked on in C1 so it was easier to find attacks in the 3 hours. However, I'm still confused with Cl7, if it should have been a N or IS attack.
It was a very hard paper with lots of mechanical features for a chemist like me. I used all the time in both parts to the very end just to make sure I understood all the information, and for C1 3 hours were not enough at all.
i understand if there are any distinguishing features at all (even non technical ones) it has to be an IS attack. Check comvik for some examples but IS regardless of whether you cite legal basis or not.
DeleteClaudia C, I totally agree. The terminology was just horrible for a chemist and non-native speaker. I just realized that A4 does not have a sensor it only discloses a cavity for a sensor. In the hurry I read that in claim 4 the feature "at least one sensor fitting cavity" means "at least one sensor that fits the cavity". Now it seems clear that there is no sensor in the cavity in A4, but A5 has that.
DeleteCorrection to the above comment: The feature "at least one sensor fitting cavity" is in Claim 1 of Annex 4
DeleteSo little time for do much information leads to misreading like that. A4 indeed mentioned "any type of sensor" could fit in the "at least one cavity" but didn't specify it was like the one of claim 1. That's why I made an IS for Cl1 with A4 as CPA + A2. Not sure if this is what the committee had in mind.
DeleteCouldn't even understand the confusing terminology of A5 to make a N attack on Cl1.
I'm curious to see deltapatents model solution.
A4 does not disclose the sensor so I believe it can be novelty destroying for C1.
DeleteI mistakenly completely occulted document A7 during C2 and noticed too late, attacking Cl4 with A3+A4, and Cl5 with A3+A4+A6 using partial problems. The explanation for lack of IS seemed to have some logic behind it when written down.
ReplyDeleteDoes someone know if there are still marks for alternative solutions which are not the "model solution"?
Alternative solutions - sometimes marks are given, but less. Some examples are in examiner’s reports
DeleteThe Examiner's Report usually indicate something like the following (taken from the Examiner's Report of C 2022):
Delete"Alternatively, to the attacks set out in the “possible solution”, marks were awarded
depending on the argumentation provided, in particular for motivating how and why
certain modifications would be made. Also, if an attack for an antecedent claim was
based on the wrong documents, the continuation of that attack in a dependent claim
was considered dependent upon the merits"
Did anyone notice that during part C2 in text of electronic Assignment "Annex 5 / Page 2 of 2" was missed? Instead "Annex 6 / Page 1 of 2" was doubled in the headline (1st erroneously as "Annex 5 / Page 2 of 2" and 2nd as true Annex 6 / Page 1 of 2. It was confusing.
ReplyDeleteAdam
hi adam, it was wrong in C2.. the figures relate to A5
DeleteYes, I saw it too, made a note of it.
DeleteThank you all for convincing me that I wasn't blind. Me friend report that in printable materials it was OK.
DeleteAdam
anyone use A5?;/
ReplyDeleteYes, I used A5 for novelty attack against claim 1.
DeleteI attacked novelty of claim 1 with An4 and An5, wherein I was not sure if it could be interpreted that An4 in fact discloses a sensor.
ReplyDeleteFor claim 7 I considered An3 as the closest prior art document, because also describes a bike-Computer . Since the distininguishing features do not make any technical contribution, claim 7 does not involves an inventive step. Accordingly claim 7 does not involve an inventive step in view of An3
imo, not all distinguishing features of claim 7 were non-technical
Delete@ eqe enjoyer: please explain which are the technical distinguishing features, so that er can understand your point
DeleteAnyone selected A6 as a CPA +A7 for claim 5
ReplyDeleteBut why did you do that? A6 deals with materials science and A7 deals with bicycle.
DeleteHow should we interpret the disclosure of A2? Since the A2 publication was after the filing date of A1, we can only rely on the poster (mentioned disclosed in 2017) which mentioned only the figures. If only based on the figures, can we still complete the IS attack of claim 2 by using A4 and A2(poster) if without relying on the text of A2?
ReplyDeleteI forget if I actually remembered to argue this, but as A2 was also public use (Eurobike is a trade show open to the public), a skilled person could ascertain certain features by trying it; the written article merely documented that public use.
DeleteThe paper was alright. As usual, the time management in part I is an issue. There are two novelty attacks (A4 and A5 for claim 1) and two major inventive step attacks for claims 2 and 3. How does the Examining Committee expect us to provide appropriate attention and attacks for all these claims?
ReplyDeleteMy attacks were:
Claim 1 - A5 novelty; A2 novelty; A4 - didn't have time to formulate attack;
Claim 2 - A4 CPA + A2;
Claim 3 - A4 CPA + A2 + A3;
Claim 4 - A7 novelty;
Claim 5 - A7 CPA with A6; (I had some confusion with A5 as it disclosed stiffness and strength together for the clipless pedal, but went with A7 as CPA in the end);
Claim 6 - intermediate generalization; and
Claim 3 - A3 (not inventive; COMVIK, G1/19 and presentation of information GL - G - II - 3.7 along with T1567/05.
The mark division for two novelty attacks in part I could make or brake this exam for me. There really was no need to stuff too much in part I.
How do you see the novelty attack of claim 1 with A4, as no sensor was disclosed
DeleteNo novelty attack on claim 1 with respect to A2 and A4:
Delete- A2 merely expresses the desire to integrate the sensor in a clipless pedal. However, this is not an enabling disclosure
- A4 merely expresses the desire to provide a pedal position sensor in A4, which is also not an enabling disclosure
A2 and A4 inherently disclose the cavity. At least that is what my understanding was during the exam. I need to double check.
DeleteA4 is an enabling disclosure with respect to the sensor. stator and rotor in combination creates a sensor (it says so in A1 but also physics graduates will know - hall sensor)
Delete@Anonymous 16 March 2023 at 20:15
DeleteOnly when arranged in the particular way. Just the fact that it fits in the cavity does not mean it can function as an angle sensor. The particular arrangement was relevant (otherwise it would not be in the claims like that either)
how u think u can fail if only you miss an attack on claim 1 ? Are u aiming to get 90 ?
DeleteI used A2 for novelty, too. Made a lot of arguments and found it convincing during the (stressful) tome, but I‘d rather have go for A5 (I made an additional IS attack). Well, too late. Hope I still get some points.
DeleteAgain a difficult paper with terrible division of the parts. The only “okay“ paper was D2. Rest of EQE was hard.
Did anyone else have trouble switching between tabs? I have a Mac, and every once in a while, when I tried to change between tabs it would freeze for 15 seconds or so. Not enough of a problem for me to complain to EPO, but enough to be a nuisance.
ReplyDeleteYes I also have a mac and have the same problem! Also about 50% of the time when I open a new tab (I like a few on different pages ) it just opens blank and I have had to start again.
DeleteYes, I had similar technical glitches. It took some tabs to load time as I opened many tabs for each of the prior art references. Also when I searched on some of the tabs, it just froze. I did not want to hit refresh button. So I simply closed the tab and opened a new one.
DeleteI didn't have problems switching tabs, but what was super weird is that my windows file explorer suddenly appeared on screen, and I got a warning. I wasn't even pressing anything at this time, and obviously everything was closed before I started the flow.
DeleteDefinitely gave me a scare for the rest of C1 and C2.
I think we must file complaints for the technical problems with the conduct of paper C (deadline is tonight) using the form provided by the EPO so that they might consider the technical problems in the final mark of the paper...
ReplyDeletewhat technical problems?
DeleteRather unbalanced C1/C2 time-wise. I worked until the very last minute in C1, but got all my attacks fully written out. Still doable to do C1 in time with an E/M background, but I totally understand people outside of E/M struggling even more. I had more than 30 minutes left over in C2 after writing out all my attacks though, which was strange. Made me think I missed something.
ReplyDeleteIn short, had the following attacks:
Claim 1: lack of novelty based on A5
Claim 2: lack of inventive step over A4 + A2
Claim 3: lack of inventive step over A4 + A2 + A3 (partial problem approach)
Claim 4: lack of novelty over A7
Claim 5: lack of inventive step over A7 + A6
Claim 6: added subject-matter (intermediate generalization)
Claim 7: lack of inventive step over A3 (COMVIK approach)
As an auxiliary attack, I added lack of inventive step of claim 1 over A4 + A2 (since claim 2 isn't inventive, its parent claim isn't either). However, this was probably not needed.
hi armin, the added subject matter is not really intermediate generalisation. if is to do with a not disclosed broader genus. hope it helps
Deletethe proprietor may be able to simply overcome added matter attack to A6 but amending to "bearings made of zirconia". perhaps another attack here
Delete@Anonymous 16 March 2023 at 20:22
DeleteI do believe it is intermediate generalization. It's the extraction from an isolated feature in an embodiment where it is inextricably linked with other features. GL H-V 3.2.1
it's not an isolated feature though. it is a genus species scenario
DeleteT194/84 is the exact case law stating this
Delete@
DeleteA1[24]: "The sealing pedal bearings 104 of the present invention are ceramic bearings. They comprise ceramic ball bearings made of zirconia combined with ceramic races and provide reduced friction and an increased life span as compared with standard steel bearings. Zirconia ball bearings and ceramic races need to be combined to achieve the above-mentioned improvements. These bearings 104 hermetically seal the internal cavity 102."
The proprietor (or rather, applicant at the time) added only ceramic ball bearings to the claim. However:
- it is only disclosed as being made of Zirconia
- it is only disclosed as in combination with ceramic races
- both these features are inextricably linked because they "need to be combined to achieve the above-mentioned improvements"
- arguably, the bearings should also be sealing bearings, A1[10], [12] and [24].
This is exactly an intermediate generalization.
Moreover, you are not expected to take into account amendments of the proprietor. Otherwise, you'd have to consider everything else in the patent. too.
Hi Armin,
DeleteSame attacks here, except claim 1, which I went for A4+A2 (technically it is not wrong, but I guess most marks would go to the novelty attack).
I completely missed A5 as I simply did not have time to do C1.
As you said, Life Science people like me struggled a lot on C1!
Hi,
DeleteI did not go for intermediate generalization as my understanding is that this test is applicable if the claim was already there on filing and was amended later on. The claim was not there at all to begin with, the whole claim was added in examination.
I just went with lacking essential feature (because the word ''essential'' was also prominent in the paper) + golden standard G2/10 to justify why it adds matter under Art 123(2) EPC
C1 part was difficult with finishing on time though I had the correct attacks. It took 2+ hours for reading alone. I was unable to finish the argumentation for claim 3 on time. Part C2 was easy to finish on time.
ReplyDeleteHi Armin, I think the point Anon is making and which I argued is that A1 only discloses zirconia ball bearings. There is no support for generic ceramic ball bearings, only a “ceramic bearing” i.e. the whole package.
ReplyDeleteI wrote Paper C today as benchmarker after having passed the EQE 2022 and having done the 2021 Paper C as preparation for the 2022 EQE. Based on the comparison of these three:
ReplyDelete- No lesson has been learned concerning the splitting into C1 and C2. 3h for reading A1 to A5 and A7 during C1 was far too much for a reasonable split, with only A6 newly introduced in C2 along with three paragraphs of A1.
- Mac had, according to the previous announcement, again less functionalities than Windows computers.
- Copy-paste from a 2nd tab into the exam text window was again only possible with some tricks, not directly from the displayed pdf.
- Loading the 2nd tab in C2 took some time. After copy-pasting the claims into the exam text window, I did not use any further tabs to avoid loading delays or similar technical problems.
- Copy-paste within the exam text window again did not preserve formating such as underscoring.
Overall, I think that the Paper C for the 2024 EQE needs significant redesign in terms of splitting and prior art provided in C1. 2021, 2022 and 2023 don't provide any realistic test on the real-life capability of a patent attorney trainee to file an opposition with this artificial split.
Maybe they should just go with a single exam (again) and give slightly more time accounting for additional bathroom breaks or eating (or just resting or collecting yourself for a few minutes in front of the camera).
DeleteI took the Dutch C-exam (validity and infringement) during the height of the pandemic, which was therefore also online. It was an almost 8 hour long exam with a 15 minute official break. Though quite tiring, at least you can portion your workload better that way, and you don't get this hassle with awkward splits.
That is true
DeleteGabriele Honecker. Thank you for sharing your analysis. Seems that they make it on purpose.
And I still don’t understand why they stick to provide 3 long claims in C1 with 6 documents to analyze within 3 hours. That is unbelievable. Or they did it on purpose or I really don’t see the need?
DeleteAlso puzzled about the split. Lot of work in part 1, lots of prior art, subtle technical differences, long attacks. Part 2 hardly any nee information, easier attacks (almost trivial 123(2)), only the last claim may have taken a lot of time (suitable for, not novel or not inventive, or novel and inventive - there are also reasonable arguments for that). Answer of part 2 not even half the number of words as of part 1, while being equally detailed. Still checking whether I overlooked something in part 2 which would explain the vast amount of time fit that part, and whether they maybe expected easier attacks in part 1…
DeleteThey need to give candidates in 2021, 2022, 2023 compensation. The new Paper C format is not fit for purpose at all.
DeleteGenuinely puzzled about how they are going to split the marks. In theory, both sections should be more or less equal as they have equal time. If I did horribly in the first part but did everything right in the second, does that mean I could still pass?
DeleteHi Roel, regarding claim 7, I took a long time to decide whether that claim could have a technical feature due to the fact that it could be read as "assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (T 336/14 and T 1802/13 and GL G II 3.7)." Is that what you thought when you say there could be an argument for technical feature/effect in claim 7?
DeleteIn the end I decided it was not the case as the claim was not dependent on previous claims that could justify this interpretation.
@puzzled.
DeleteNo, the marks are 50 (45 for compensatory fail) so you need to hit that. If you get 15 in CI and got all the marks in CII (lets say 25 marks in CII), its still won't be enough.
Eh? Even if I don't get all 50 marks for CII and got "only" 40, I only need to get 10 for CI. Unless there is an uneven distribution of allocated marks between the two sections.
DeleteThere will be an uneven distribution. In 2021, more marks were allocated in CI and in 2022 more marks were allocated in 2022. I strongly disagree with the split. It is better to shorten the paper and reduce the time rather than splitting it into 2 parts which makes absolutely no sense to anyone but only the C committee.
Delete2022 - more marks were allocated for CII.
DeleteHow is an uneven allocation of marks be justified in the absence of a correspondingly uneven allocation of time? I can understand may approx. 5 marks or so, but cannot and should not be more than that.
DeleteI agree with the others, that the work load was very skewed; in part 1, I had to reallly rush, in part 2, I had plenty of time. I can sort of understand why they split the information the way they do, but then the parts should not have equal length; 30 minutes more for part 1 and 30 minutes less for part 2 would have been a lot more reasonable, in my view.
DeleteOf course, it didn't help that I spotted I made a very serious mistake in part 1 only a few minutes before the end, which didn't leave me enough time to fix everything (somehow, the priority situation got turned around in my mind, with an additional applicant for the Patent in suit, rather than an applicant less, changing the validity of the priority and hence the status of Annex 5 as prior art).
Attacks:
Claim 1: Novelty A5
Claim 2: I.S. A4 + A2
Claim 3: I.S. A3 + A4 + A2 (partial problems)
Claim 4: Novelty A7
Claim 5: I.S. A7 + A6
Claim 6: added-matter (zirconia, ceramic races)
Claim 7: I.S. A3 - distinguishing features had no technical effect
@Trainee 17 March 2023 at 09:23:
DeleteYes, one could consider whether this applies:
GL G-II, 3.7: “A feature defining a presentation of information produces a technical effect if it credibly assists the user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process (T 336/14 and T 1802/13). Such a technical effect is considered credibly achieved if the assistance to the user in performing the technical task is objectively, reliably and causally linked to the feature.”
and/or
G-II, 3.7: “If the cognitive content of the information presented to the user relates to an internal state prevailing in a technical system and enables the user to properly operate this technical system, it has a technical effect”.
According to "The choice of the one or other manner of displaying the data is thus not considered to have a technical effect (T 1567/05).”, an angry looking icon will not be considered technical versus a percentage or an upward looking arrow.
But, the claim distinguishes in that it specifically mentions "surpasses" whether A3 mentions percentage without a reference to a level, and "pedaling efficiency is _below_ a certain level". One could consider (and conclude yes or no) whether that is a technically relevant as “the cognitive content of the information presented to the user relates to an internal state prevailing in a technical system [surpassing a level] and enables the user to properly operate this technical system [maintain pedal efficiency], it has a technical effect”.
@ Gerben:
DeleteLuckily the priority only had an effect on A5 being prior art or not, and that was only relevant for a second novelty attack on claim 1 (next to an attack based on A4).
@Roel. Thanks for you effort in answering all the questions. Can you please help me to see how A4 could be used for novelty of claim 1. I cannot se the sensor being disclosed in that document.
Delete@ Roel, what do you think on claim 7 not being merely suitable for but specially adapted to (thus limiting)?
DeleteIt was my understanding from the guidelines that computers that are ''for'' working with particular processes / systems are to be considered specially adapted to them, otherwise any computer would anticipate the claims.
That having been said, I think the attack was the same regardless of the above, i may have just missed marks from pointing that out
@Roel, what do you mean with this? "the claim distinguishes in that it specifically mentions "surpasses" whether A3 mentions percentage without a reference to a level, and "pedaling efficiency is _below_ a certain level".
DeleteA3 also mentioned the 80% level...
Don't be sad guys, we were screwed intentionally. The examining committee made it harder for us to pass cause we live in a recession.... It's about the market need not what we objectively achieved
ReplyDeleteI think this paper was the easiest paper this year... A and B were very messy and badly drafted with unconventional topics like medical/cosmetic use, selection inventions, 54(3) prior art and implicit disclosures, and epo.org's search function got bugged for a while during D, where one would need it the most. This format for C is indeed poorly designed though, we need more time to analyse the prior art documents. It took more than an hour for me to extract the features of all documents in C1, but took like 10 minutes in C2, as I already had everything in hand and it was very obvious that A6 is for the possible attacks on claim 5. They need to balance the parts accordingly or never give more than 2 claims in C1
DeleteDon’t be so over confident. Just because you could produce the arguments doesn’t mean the paper was easy. The marking decides everything. How are the marks going to be divided - that’s the key point. If you have made emphasis on a wrong claim missing key arguments, you can still fail.
DeleteI agree that paper A was a bad paper this year. Hope they take it into account.
Deleteyeah, paper A was super difficult and somewhat confusing this year with such a heavy emphasis on mechanics and then method of treatment claims too.
DeleteAny idea of marks scheme for each claim?
ReplyDeleteNot happy with this year Paper A, B and C once again. Its far to complicated for either mechanical candidates or Life science candidates. It needs to be accessible for both sets of candidates.
ReplyDeleteI used A5 as cpa for claims 2 and 3, because it said it could also fit the bearing in the pedal and that the sensor could be exchanged. For me the size of the Electromotor in A2 was only scematicly shown, thus i figured why not put it in the pedal of A5. Thus, for me A5 was very similar to A4, but A5 already had a sensor and thus one feature more than A4. Then, i didn't really know what to do with A4 and i made an additional IS attack against claim 1 combining it with A2. I know its probably not the expected solution and thus "wrong" but I had to decide very quickly, where to start and then you cannot change anything. Nick:WR
ReplyDeleteThe same for me. As I have done a novelty attack of R1 with A5 and even if I have found very interesting subject for a IS attack in A4, it makes me trouble to start an IS attack of R2 with A4 which has more difference with R2 than A5 and which does not have a sensor. I think it would cost a lost of marks....
DeleteFrom memory, the last sentence of A5 said that everything was integrated or something so that it would be difficult to swap parts out
DeleteMy reason for going with A5 for novelty in C1 and then going for A4 in Inventive step in Claim 2 was the limitation in claim 21 saying that the roation has to be placed in the pedal body (formulated differently). This was not the case for A5 but only A4
DeleteThe limitation of claim 2 was "the spindle is placed
Deletewithin the pedal cavity", which was not the case for A5
In A5 Figur 1, the axis 503 extends into the cavity 502, otherwise the dotted lines in Figur 1 would not be present in the area of 503. I mean it makes no sense that the cavity extends into the axis 503, that would be an obvious weak spot. A5 discloses that there is a way to access the cavity in [0003] and that the integrated version is merely an option, but not the only way. Also, it is disclosed in A5 that the bearings of former arrow models had the bearing in the pedalbody, such that it should be easy to integrate other sensors in the cavity of a5. i kind of start to rebelieve this is the real cpa. nick: WR
DeleteYes but even with the dottet line, there is no rotation in the pedal body of A5 meaning the magnets cannot be placed as described in the claim. if placed in the cavety, they will just stay still and no signal will be provided.
Deletecompletely agree, i know the sensor/motor in a2 works like that, but a2 does not disclose this principle and i cannot find it anywhere else. where do you find it? i mean besides the undefined names rotor and stator.
DeleteI fear when assuming the rotor must be able to rotate freely around the stator to result in a working sensor as in A2, I would violate rule 22(3)ipree. Please tell me there is a clear disclosure of cgk that rotors always rotate with respect to the stator. I mean candidates might not know this anyway
DeleteKJ
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: N. A4
Claim 2: I.S. A4 + A3
Claim 3: I.S. A4 + A3 (partial problems)
Claim 4: N. A7
Claim 5: I.S. A6 + A7
Claim 6: added-matter
Claim 7: I.S. A2
They should do what they do for paper D and let us know how many marks are in CI and CII.
ReplyDeleteWhen are the results for papers A-D out?! :D Are they out separately or together?! :D
ReplyDeleteThe results and the Examiner's Reports for all main exam papers usually become available in summer (2022: 6 July; 2021: 19 June).
DeleteThe results will be in MyEQE. The Examiner's Reports will be on the EQE website on the Compendium pages. Our blog will still be open for your comments.
when will you publish your solution for this paper C?
DeleteA4 does not explicitly disclose a sensor for C1. How did you guys do the novelty attack on C1 based on A4??
ReplyDeleteAlso interested in the reasoning on this. A4 felt more suitable as a starting point for an IS attack on claim 1, and because A5 was available for a novelty attack (in my view), I did not use A4 for an attack at all (on claim 1)
DeleteA4 described in a lot of places that is suitable for all kinds of sensor. However, I found no disclosure explicit or implicit that it actually comprises a sensor.
I wish the committee stopped with the implicit disclosure thing in these exams, or at least make it more obvious by adding appropriate statements
Even still I'm not sure the sensor is an implicit feature. I don't think it discloses it at all (implicitly or explicitly) and agree with you
DeleteA4 describing that it is suitable for sensor does not in my mind imply that it implicitly discloses a sensor. The bike can be suitable for holding baskets but it does not mean the bike discloses a basket.
DeleteI think you needed to use A5 somewhere in the attacks otherwise it will be a waste. A5 is novelty destroying for C1. I can't see how A4 is novelty destroying against C1 without the sensor.
ReplyDelete