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:
The papers this year (A,B,C) are absolutely horrific.
ReplyDeletethere have been instances where there was a possibility of two different novelty attacks. could be the case here dont worry about it
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answer @Roel!
ReplyDeleteI spent a long time thinking about this reasoning, but in the end it sounded safer not to follow this reasoning. It seems that most people did the same.
I hope we are correct!
@Ioannis
ReplyDeleteIn my view, the only requirement that the bicycle computer needed to be suitable, is to be able to be in communication with a sensor (and thus does not need to actually be actively/always communicating with one; could be decoupled, detachable, or the like). Since all the bicycle computers in the prior art and in the patent use the well-known 'industry standard' BOT protocol, they are all suitable to be used for this purpose.
I don't see what else would be there that would need to be adapted in any bicycle computer so that it works in claim 4.
Shouldn't claim 6 be attacked for lack of inventive step too? After all, the patentee could repair claim 6 by adding the rest of te context, thus overcoming the 123(2) objections, and then keep their patent. Unless, of course, we show that even that would fail.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think the fact that the claim 7 computer is “for” the system of claim 4 means that A7 is the CPA.
ReplyDeleteThe a3 computer is suitable sure, due to the BOT protocol, but choosing the CPA is all about purpose. The purpose of the A7 computer is to be used with a bicycle system in accordance with claim 4. The A3 computer is for any bike.
Much of a muchness though. Seems that a decent COMVIK attack could be made with either A7+A3 or just A3.
I agree. At best A4 discloses a cavity for a sensor in my view. In other words the sensor is missing, thus there is a difference between the SM of claim 1 and A4 and hence it needs to be attacked with IS, not novelty.
ReplyDeleteI agree. At best A4 only discloses a pedal with a cavity for a sensor, i.e. not a pedal with a sensor. Thus there is a distinguishing feature between the SM of claim 1 and A4 and thus can only be attacked with an IS argument, not novelty.
ReplyDelete