C 2024: 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, 2022 and 2023?
Was all prior art given with the first part needed in the first part? Was 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
We aim to post our (provisional) answer shortly after the exam in a separate blog post and as soon as we have received a copy of the papers. Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
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 15-03-2024 15:03"), 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.
It is somehow smooth.. Now I am doubting whether I did smth wrong..
ReplyDeleteI have the same feeling.
DeleteThe same feeling here ...
DeleteThis is what B did to us. Everyone expected complete madness again, including me. During the break I got a very weird feeling like must have missed something. Turns out I did, but nothing too bad.
DeleteWell this feels weird because I didn't use A3 and A6 at all and I mostly did novelty attacks.
ReplyDeleteMy solution was:
Claims 1 and 2: Novelty A2 (the NO priority applications weren't first filing, A2 was thus 54(2) state of the art), also Art. 123.
Claim 3: Inventive step A2 + A4
Claim 4: Novelty A5
Claim 5: Novelty A7 (A6 was somewhat similar but wasn't prior art) to claim 5.
Claim 6: Inventive step A5+A7? (A7 was Art. 54(3) EPC prior art but the standard was from 2017)
Claim 7: ??? (didn't have enough time and also the only document mentioning prices was A7 which in my opinion shouldn't be used in an inventive step attack)
A6, evidence of prior use?
DeleteI agree with Anonymous 14/3/24 16:23 : A6 was disclosing prior use (Model Q).
DeleteYeah you're probably right though If I remember correctly, model Q did not disclose claim 5, only model P did.
DeleteSame for me:
DeleteFor me, it was not very easy. I did not manage to attack some claims:
Claim 1, Novelty, Art. 123(2), I split the claim into a) Fecusib 30-40%, Cofeni 10-20% and b) both 20-30%. This confused me, as this was already the claim 2...
Claim 2: --
Claim 3: Inventive step A2 + A4
Claim 4: Novelty A5
Claim 5 inventive step A6
--
Publication date of A2 is 29/7/2020, after the effective date of A1 25/7/2020, A2 is therefore A. 54(3) ???
DeleteClaim 3 had a valid priority claim, which is why A2 wasn't eligible for an inventive step attack on that claim.
DeleteA6 was to be divided into the Q-Model and P-Model parts, where Q was a public prior use in the year 2018 and P had an effective date 30 May 2020. You could use them for attacks against different claims.
Priority of claim 3 is not valid, because the feature "the second layer being made of an electrically conductive material" was not disclosed in the priority documents (according to the Opponent's letter, the priority documents did not contain claim 3 as filed, nor paragraphs [19] and [20] of Annex 1).
DeleteAs also mentioned elsewhere on this blog (and as overlooked by me during the exam), the Opponent's letter stated that the priority document for Annex 2 was identical to Annex 2, and was somehow published 6 days earlier, on 23.07.2020, so before the effective date (filing date) of claim 3.
@Gerben: I did not overlook the issue with A2, but you had no evidence of that, just what your client said. I have therefore chosen not to use the publication of the priority as suggested, but A2 as provided.
Delete@ADC: In the context of the exam, you have to assume that factual information provided by the client is correct (but please don't do that in real life)
Delete@Gerben I agree on that. However, I thought it was a trick.
Deletethere is no point for an applicant to file two patent applications on the same matter unless
1) the second one is a divisional, and as far as I remember it was not
2) you want to file something different before the publication of the first application, and in that case you most likely add some matter
lacking any evidence, I preferred to believe the information provided was not reliable. what do you think?
As required by the applicant,
ReplyDeleteI did added subject-matter, novelty and inventive step to all claim 1 combinations..
I am not sure whether it is expected..
my solution:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 Art 123(2)
Claim 2 lack of novelty based on A2
Claim 3 lack of inventive step based on A2+A4
Claim 4 lack of novelty based on A5
Claim 5 lack of novelty based on A6 and A7
Claim 6 lack of novelty based on A5
claim 7 lack of inventive step based on A7+A5
A6 published after effective date of R5. Cannot be used again R5.
DeleteNice, your solution is similar to mine.
DeleteI think though that A6 can't be used against claim 5 - effective date of claim 5 is 25 May 2020 and the broadcast took place on 30 May 2020.
A6 can be used against R6 and R7 thus..
DeleteLong paper again. Go for 123(2) against R1 and novelty // A2' (54(2)) against modified R1 and R2 the morning.
ReplyDeleteInvalid priority NO1 and NO2 (A2 first application covering these objects). Inventive step A2+A4 against R3.
The afternoon go for novelty / A5 (54(2)) against R4,
and novelty / A7 (54(3) against R5.
and Inventive step (method of automatization of intellectuel method) over R5 again.
My arguments regarding the inventive step of R6 and R7 relates that they apply a known method (known by A6 54(2)) to a known system (known by A4 54(2)). The additional step of R7 is non technical (providing non technical information).
I was thinking about the non-technical aspect of claim 7, as I spent quite some time on it in the exam.
DeleteI agree that para. 9 of A7 hints at business interest. However, looking at the actual feature, I was of the opinion that this was a trap: The feature itself doesn't have to be technical but it has to contribute to a technical effect. The obvious technical effect is that the whole process is more cost-efficient (pointed at in para. 5). This effect is in principle independent of user preferences - only the extent of improvement is dependent on the values set by the user. If the values are set so high that the charging always occurs, this just means that the method provides the cost-saving effect but leaves an opportunity to switch this feature off (which is a question of "technical effect being achieved over the whole scope claimed" rather than "no technical effect").
I struggled with the inventive step attack due to the A. 54(3) status of A7, but thought that the reference to the 2017 standard made the document usable for the IS - but then I also didn`t trust the accuracy of A7 since the annex was obviously flawed as evident by the wrong figure. I admit this is not ideal (well in the heat of the exam, such thoughts play a role). In retrospect I think the IS attack should have been: the technical effect is not achieved over the whole scope claimed.
edit: what I meant by "such thoughts play a role" is, that I wanted to get the points for the technical effect analysis, which is per se not dependent on the available prior art (so I thought these points would still be lost if it later on turns out that there were further mistakes in A7).
DeleteDo you remember the C paper in which the odds were adjusted depending on how many goals were scored? For me it was actually the same thing.
DeleteThere was also a reference in an attachment where someone said "of course, they're only thinking about the money."
I sat the paper as a benchmarker, so that may give a different experience. Anyway, I thought the workload of parts 1 and 2 was more balanced than last year.
ReplyDeleteRemarkable:
unless I missed something, there was an unusually large amount of 54(3) prior rights (Annex 2, Annex 4 for claims enjoying priority, Annex 7).
Especially with respect to Annex 2, I had the impression something had gone wrong, as I needed the document for an IS attack on claim 3, which I couldn't really make. However, I noted that it mentioned it was published in the bulletin 2020/26, which has a publication date of 24.06.2020, which would make it 54(2) prior art for claim 3, so I wrote out the attack anyway and mentioned that I assumed their might be an error in the publication date (although 24.06.2020 would be within the 18-months period).
Annex 6 also had this strange detail that the link in the opponent's letter included "20200430" (and not 20200530, which would better fit the assumed publication date of 30.05.2020).
(Sorry, the Anonymous of 16:27 was me, Gerben.)
DeleteA2 (more precisely A2' which is the priority application of A2) and A4 are 54(2) priority since both Norwegian priority are invalid the morning (not first applications for claim 1 and 2)
DeleteOh, and my solutions:
DeleteClaim 1: art. 123(2)
Claim 1 (fall-back): IS A3 + A5
Claim 2: novelty A2 - 54(3)
Claim 3: no attack, A2 + A4 not possible because A2 only published on 29.07.2020, i.e. after filing date of Patent
Claim 4: novelty A5
Claim 5: novelty A7 - 54(3)
Claim 6: IS A6 (model P) + A5
Claim 7: IS A6 (moedl Q) + A5 (1st partial problem) + no technical effect price information
Claim 2: no prio, because not first application (is A2)
Claim 3: no prio, not diclosed in prio docs
Claim 4: prio date 25.05.2020, only diclosed in NO2
Claim 5: prio date 25.05.2020, only diclosed in NO2 (at least sort of)
Claim 6: no prio, not diclosed in prio docs
Claim 7: no prio, not diclosed in prio docs
Gerben.
A2' (same content as A2) published before effective date of R1-R3. A2+A4 possible against R3. That was the main IA attack expected today I think.
DeleteAh yes, I overlooked in the opponent's letter that A2's prio doc was somehow published 6 days earlier than A2 itself. So that solves that issue.
DeleteAnd I agree with the other commenters above that I should have argued lack of novelty of claim 5 over model Q, as Annex 6 is evidence of public prior use (I now did do the analysis as part of the attack on claim 7)
For claim 3 it was only A2 (Art. 54(3) EPC), you have in A1 that "magnetisable concrete is magnetic material comprising cement and having a density of at least 2000 kg/m³." and A2 §6 says that "the magnetic material has a density of at least 2000 kg/m³ and comprises cement and magnetic particles.". No need for inventive step.
DeleteHi Gerben, thanks for sharing your solution. I doubt about the effective date of claim 6.
DeleteIn my opinion, it should be NO2, because par.[23] and Fig.6 disclose the subject-matter of claim 6 and are included in NO2, while par.[27], not part of NO2, is a mere explanation of Fig.6, hence it does not add subject-matter thereto.
@Giuseppe, you're welcome!
DeleteI think par. [23] and Fig. 6 of Annex 1 do not disclose the feature: "deciding, based on the received signal, whether the battery should be charged or not, wherein the received signal is the signal provided to the processing unit by the detection circuit". Fig. 6 and claim 4 disclose a connection between the sensing system and the processing unit, but not the specific use of the signal to selectively charge the battery.
@Gerben, Thank you once again. It makes sense. To me, during the exam, it did sound somehow implicit that the decision is made based on the signal received from the detection circuit, taking into account that par.[22] discloses that "previoulsy the user monitored the area, requiring attention and visual access". This implies that now no visual access is required and I assumed that, in view of claim 4 and par.[23], "the signal is provided to the processing unit by the detection circuit for resonant sensing". Now, it is hard to state that whole subject-matter of claim 6 is unambigously disclosed by NO2 as I thought during the exam.
Deleteclaim 1: Art. 123(2), not novel (A2), not inventive (A3 + A5)
ReplyDeleteclaim 2: not novel (A2)
claim 3: not inventive step (A2 as evidence of EP351 + CGK of A4)
claim 4, not novel (A5)
claim 5, not novel (A6a (model Q, 2018))
claim 6, not inventive (A6b (model P, 2020) + A5)
claim 7, not inventive (A6b + A5 and price as signal is not technical features)
A6 is a written evidence of oral podcast posted on 30.05.2020.
DeleteIt discussed two prior uses, model Q sold client and updated in 2018, which makes all features publicly available.
Model P presented on 29.05.2020, but the content of the oral disclosure is available on 30.05.2020, can be used for claim 6 and 7
Exactly like my answer
Delete@ chemistry related. Now I feel a little safe...
DeleteMy solution is the same except for claim 5, where I argued lack of novelty over A7. I have my doubts about my choice in this regard though.
DeleteA6 was Model Q was 54(2) prior art but not model P. But I did not know how else to get the effect of " preventing inadverdent field exposure" so I used A6(model P) anyway.
DeleteI agree with this. Also claim 5 not novel over A7.
DeleteExactly like my answer EXCEPT for Claim 1 i didn;t see any 123(2) issues.
DeleteAmendments were supported by paragraphs 1 to 20 present in application as filed. There is no intermediate generalization because no feature was isolated from a group of related features.
Would you care to elaborate on this 123(2)? I checked it again and again, it drives me crazy I cannot figure out how a lot of people are mentioning it :D
@Gabriel: the ranges in claim 1 were combined from two different composites which were clearly alternatives and thus not disclosed together. Also, the ranges were partially not compatible since for the higher amount of Fe... You could not go over 20% with the other one.
Delete@Gabriel
DeleteMy thought is:
[12][13] of A1discloses a combination of 30-40 Fe + 10-20 Cu which the 10-20 Cu is necessary, otherwise the mechanical stability is not sufficient => this specific percentags are then technically/inextricably linked
claim 2 discloses an alternative embodiment of 20-30 Cu for (some other technical effect), in this case, it's necessary to reduce Fe to 20-30 %. otherwise, not working => they are also technically linked
Thus, the amendments contains embodiment of 10-20 Cu and 20-30 Fe/20-30 Cu and 30-40Fe can not be directly and unambiguously derived (Art.123(3))
I think there was a mistake in the English version in that the Figure of A7 wasn't in English and appeared to be copy paste from A4 - the description of A7 relating to the solenoid cited reference numerals which weren't in the figure!
ReplyDeleteSame in French version. Figure 1 of A7 with reference 411 does not correspond to what is written in the description (paragraph 3)
DeleteYes there is a mistake and it was quite confusing.
DeleteI filed a complaint about it
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 is added subject matter but the letter says that we need to attack the fallback range disclosed in part 12 and 13 which is then attacked in view of A3 and A5
ReplyDeleteDidn't do very well on this one I think. My solution
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 Art 123(2), novelty based on A2, not susceptible to industrial application A57, didn't have time to do the embodiment where you needed to kill it using inventive step
Claim 2 lack of novelty based on priority document for A2
Claim 3 lack of inventive step based on priority document of A2+A4
Claim 4 lack of novelty based on A5
Claim 5 lack of inventive step based on A3 and A5 (this one I was very unsure of)
Claim 6 didn't have time but seemd you need to use prior use Model Q or Model P evidenced by A6
Claim 7 didn't have time, A7 was A54(3) EPC prior art but did disclose control based on pricing, maybe lacking novelty in view of A7?
I agree this was a long paper.
ReplyDeleteI did: Claim 1: art 123(2) and inventive step over A3+A5.
Claim 2: Novelty over A2
Claim 3: A2+A4
Claim 4: novelty over A5
Claim 5: Novelty over A7
Claim 6: Inventive step over a5+A6 (model P)
Claim 7: Inventive step A5 +A6 and easy automation as evidenced by A7
YS
DeleteI got something similar, but I first put down Claim 6 was A5+A6Q+A6P then realised I could replace A6Q with an obvious automation modification. I left both attacks in...Are incorrect attacks marked?
DeleteWasn't their partial priority regarding claim 1? And so A2 was 54(3) for claim 1 and could be used to attack part of the claimed range, and other claimed range required an inventive step attack with different prior art A3 + A5.
ReplyDeleteAt least this is what I did - because the client said something about fall back positions in the letter and how they want to cover the higher ranges, but these higher ranges were not disclosed in A2 and as far as I could tell, regardless of the priority claim being valid, A2 was Art. 54(3) EPC for A1 because A1 was filed 25.07.2020 and A2 was published 29.07.2020.
A2 is 54(2), the priority application of A2 (same content, name it A2') is published before effective date of R1 and R2.
DeleteClaim 1: A123(2) as it stands
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 as likely to be amended during opposition: IS, A3 + A5
Claim 2: lack of novelty over A2, A54(2)
Claim 3: lack of IS over A2 priority doc + A4
Claim 4: lack of novelty over A5 (A54(2))
Claim 5: lack of novelty over A7 (54(3)) and Model Q as evidenced by A6 (54(2))
Claim 6: lack of IS over Model P evidenced by A6 + A5
Claim 7: ran out of time
Is not A2 novelty destroying of a amended R1 during oppositionc(which would necessarily be based on paragraphs 12 and 13 of A1)?
DeleteNo - A1[13] only discloses "below 20%" of CoFeNi, and is only entitled to partial priority for below 20%, not including 20%. A2 only discloses 20-30%, not below 20%. Therefore A2 is not novelty destroying and cannot be used for IS because it is A54(3) art for the likely amended range of claim 1
DeleteWent crazy this afternoon, I had a blank screen and I had to restart my computer, enter again wiseflow and in one minute it happened again, restarted and reentered again and again same problem.
ReplyDeleteWho else experienced this?
I lost almost 20mins I think and went crazy. I am considering reporting it, although I believe I will pass this paper C.
DeleteYou should absolutely report technical issues. They can compensate you with up to 10 points. Make sure to do so before midnight, otherwise it is too late. Use the official form on the EPO website.
DeleteComplaints can filed filed via the dedicated form on the EQE webpage, in the "EQE Online" foldout section:
DeleteComplaint concerning the conduct of the examination
Candidates wishing to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the examination must do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the last examination paper takes place (15 March 2024, 23:59 CET), by filling in the dedicated form:
Form for paper C (available from 14.03.2024, 9:30, CET)
--> https://forms.office.com/e/fBXJgtRZPN
https://www.epo.org/en/learning/professional-hub/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
(Chances of success may be low if you did not participate in any of the technical tests, and such participation may have shown the problem)
In my opinion, The technical issue I have experienced yesterday was not detectable during their small technical test in my opinion. Also, I take the other papers with the same computer/configuration/internet network and all went well, no technical problem. Also for C1 the morning everything was fine.
DeleteI did the IS attack on claim 3 with EP351 (instead of A2) in combination with A4. I think EP351 (the priority doc for A2) had the same content but was published earlier and before the filing date of A1), which makes it Art. 54(2) prior art
ReplyDeleteNo need for IS, claim 3 it was only A2 (Art. 54(3) EPC), you have in A1 that "magnetisable concrete is magnetic material comprising cement and having a density of at least 2000 kg/m³." and A2 §6 says that "the magnetic material has a density of at least 2000 kg/m³ and comprises cement and magnetic particles.".
DeleteI think the range 30-40% and 10-20% of claim 1 was implicitly disclosed in R5 (48% of both compunds in a 2:1 ratio) and an inventive step attack could be attempted starting from the original features of R1 (no valid priority as priority document of R2 already disclosed those feautures, therefore R2-prio-doc as Art. 54 (2) PA) and combining these with R5.
ReplyDeleteNot an easy one.
ReplyDeleteMy solution -
Claim 1 - Objection on ground of Article 123(2) EPC to claim 1 as granted
Claim 1a (FeCuSib is 30-40 and CoFeNi at least 10ppct and blow 20pct) - effective date is priority of NO20200113 - 14.03.2020) - not inventive based on AN3 as CPA combined with AN5
Claim 1b - (FeCuSib is 20-30 pct, CoFeNi is more than 20 and less than 30%) - effective date is filing date of AN1 - 25.07.2020). Not novel in the light of AN2's disclosure of its priority document EP197320000 which was published as as AP3383351 on 23.07.2020 is identical to AN2)
Claim 3 - lacking inventive step in the light of AN2's priority document (identical to AN2) combined with AN4
Claim 4 - lacking novelty in the light of AN5
Claim 5 - not novel (Article 54(1) and (2) in the light of AN6's attestation of the prior use of Model Q; not novel (Article 54(3) vis-a-vis AN7
Claim 6 - Not inventive in the light of Model P as attested by AN6, combined with Model Q per AN6 and with AN4 (partial problem approach).
Claim 7 - did not manage :-( ran out time). Only formulated the non-technical aspect as a contraint per COMVIK - the time ran out.
Not an easy one. I don't know if I passed
Can A6 (model P) be used for an inventive step attack for claim 6. I doubted it but I used it anyway
DeleteI think it can. Any thing in the podcast attested by AN6 (excluding some of the comments) can be used as CPA. The podcast disclosing Model P was on 30.05.2020
Delete@Ales: Since claim 2 was already included in the prio-application and in AN1 as originally filed, claim 1b would - in my op - rather be (FeCuSib is 20-30 pct, CoFeNi is "20-30"%). Doesnt make any big difference though. (Since u did the novelty attack of claim 2 with AN2's priodoc..)
DeleteNot easy. But I think I did score over 50. I expected partial priority or first application problems, did not expect it to be combined, but Guidelines helped out on the combination. The 123(2) was the easy bit of this paper. Ranges are struggle always, was OK here.
DeleteHow can we be expected to do valid Art.123(2) attack in part 1: the missing parts of A1 may have the basis and the gold standard required the whole document to be used.
DeleteGold
Missed the very obvious attack to claim 1: 123(2), due to the formulation "the priority applications contain the following parts of Annex 1: ..., claims 1 and 2 ..."
ReplyDeleteAnnex 1 is what was given to us, and so literally this is the claim as presented!
It did not appear that this claim 1 was not identical to the granted claim 1, although obvious. They should have said "claim 1 as originally filed".
Too bad to lose important points because of this ambiguous wording.
I love how everyone’s giving their answers and no one’s mentioning just how absolutely mental that exam was compared to every other previous year
ReplyDeleteI think everyone would agree with it. It was a nasty exam.
DeleteAnyone else feeling like Frodo having dropped the ring into Mount Doom?
ReplyDeleteThanks, made my day after this EQE time. That's exactly how I feel!
DeleteYes, I am Frodo. Will probably be years before the feeling of doom disappears.
Delete@Mr Baggins, I'm not sure what you reference to, but I think I'm feeling the same way :)
DeleteHere are my solutions -
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 - as granted - Article 123(2) EPC
Claim 1a (FeCuSib is 30%-40% and CoFeNi at least 10% and below 20%) - effective date is priority of NO20200113 - 14.03.2020) - not inventive based on AN3 combined with AN5 (metal sheet as second layer)
Claim 2 - not novel (Article 54(1) and (2) ) with regards to AN2's priority document, identical to AN2 and published on 23.97.2020)
Claim 3 - not inventive: AN2's priority document + AN4
Claim 4 - not novel w.r.t AN5
Claim 5 - not novel with regard of Model Q as used (attested by AN6) in its updated version s since 2018; not novel (Article 54(3) w.r.t AN7)
Claim 6 - Not inventive based on Model P as attested by AN6 combined with Model Q and with AN4 (partial problem - G-VII 5.2 and 6)
Claim 7 - didn't make it.
Claim 1b - (FeCuSib is 20-30 pct, CoFeNi is more than 20 and less than 30%) - effective date is filing date of AN1 - 25.07.2020). Not novel in the light of AN2's disclosure of its priority document EP197320000 which was published as as AP3383351 on 23.07.2020 is identical to AN2)
Claim 3 - lacking inventive step in the light of AN2's priority document (identical to AN2) combined with AN4
Claim 4 - lacking novelty in the light of AN5
Claim 5 - not novel (Article 54(1) and (2) in the light of AN6's attestation of the prior use of Model Q; not novel (Article 54(3) vis-a-vis AN7
Claim 6 - Not inventive in the light of Model P as attested by AN6, combined with Model Q per AN6 and with AN4 (partial problem approach).
Claim 7 - did not manage :-( ran out time). Only formulated the non-technical aspect as a contraint per COMVIK - the time ran out.
YS
DeleteSorry, a typo: claim 6 is not inventive in the light of Model P, combined with Model Q and further with AN5
Delete@YS: Since claim 2 was already included in the prio-application and AN1 as originally filed, claim 1b would - in my op - rather be (FeCuSib is 20-30 pct, CoFeNi is "20-30"%). Doesnt make any big difference though. (Since u did the novelty attack of claim 2 with AN2's priodoc..)
DeleteWe need to find the examiner and give them the hug they clearly didn’t get as a child
ReplyDeletePlease feel invited to post your comments. Active discussion is appreciated; inappropriate content (non-respectful, offensive, impolite) may be removed by the system or by the blog team. Preferably you use your name, your initials or a nickname to allow a convenient and pleasant communication.
DeleteLoool I totally agree with the hug
DeleteI don't understand why did they want to check Paper D questions in Paper C by tricking on the first application or not for A2 and priority being invalid because of A2. My exam got completely screwed because I didn't notice this detail.
ReplyDeleteThis did happen various times in the past and also it was A2, so if you missed it you realized it very quickly and could go back. I think thats fair.
DeleteI used Guidelines Part F-VI, 1.5
DeleteI sat D and C. They had the same difficult legal matter in both D and C with partial priority first application situation. I may have failed D and C for the same difficult legal matter. Does not seem fair.
Deletewas A2 by the same applicant?
ReplyDeleteYes, It didn't even occur to me at once because the client letter didn't indicate anything to the best of my knowledge.I have so much respect for people who identified this - truly genius it was.
DeletePlease do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 14-03-2024 17:26"), whereas using your real name, your initials or a nickname is more personal, more ;polite, 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 name at the end of your comment, or use "Name/URL" in the pulldown menu behind "Comment as". Thanks!
Deletecomment by DA: I forgot to run the check of the applicant identity for the documents..
DeleteStill, based on the effective dates I would say that A2 is anyway a 54(3) document for claim 2. A2 was published on 29.7.2020 If claim 2 is not entitled the priority from the NO docs, the filing date is 25.7.2020 meaning that it precedes pubblication of A2.
A2 was at the first thought art 54(3) documents, but when the priority for art54(3) document is valid, i.e., A2, the effective date of A2 will shift to the priority date of A2. I checked it now , not at the time of writing the exam. So it is a blunder.
DeleteQuestion for people saying A5 (robot mower) was novelty destroying for claim 4.. how exactly? If i remember right the RSS system of the robot was okay for a detection system. But the charging pad discussed separately didn't have this feature.
ReplyDeleteIt had a pressure switch. Or was the pressure switch somehow also a detection system? As I thought the detection system needed to have the coils etc
Same for me but now I realize that maybe it has to be interpreted as a system into a whole.. (robot and station)?
DeleteI don’t think there was a 123(2) attack in claim 1.
ReplyDeleteThe ranges of A2 are not present in the PR documents anyways, so their effective date is the filing date of A1.
Did I miss something?
claim 1 has been amended during examination in a way that extends beyong the initial content of the application. The fact that the subject-matter of issued claim 1 is found in priority document does change that.
DeleteDA: the ranges added in claim 1 during examination do not find any support in the application as filed. Thus claim 1 as granted violates 123(2).
DeleteIf I am not mistaken:
DeleteParagraphs [1] to [20] were part of the application as filed.
Amendments to claim 1 find basis in paragraphs 11-16.
@Gabriel
DeleteBut it is intermediate generalisation of two specific range combinations
The assignment said that P1 contained claim 1 of Annex 1, which was the claims as granted, so you could read as if basis in P1. But surely they hinted at Art123(2) attack.
DeleteNo, there was no intermediate generalization because there was no isolation of a feature from a group of inter-related and inextricably linked features.
DeleteThe assignment clearly stated that paragraphs 1 to 20 were part of the application as filed.
Again, basis for amendments are in paragraphs 11 to 16 in the application as filed.
Where is the 123(2) issue??
Pars. [12] and [13] of Annex 1 disclose the combination 10-20% CoFeNi + 30-40% FeCuSiB.
DeletePar. [14] of Annex 1 discloses the combination 20-30% CoFeNi + 20-30% FeCuSiB.
Claim 1 as granted claims 10-30% CoFeNi + 20-40% FeCuSiB. This includes combinations such as 10-20% CoFeNi + 20-30% FeCuSiB and 20-30% CoFeNi + 30-40% FeCuSiB, which are not disclosed in the application as filed; in fact the second combination is implied to be not usable in par. [14], and arguably the wording "has to be" in par. [13] serves the same function. So these undisclosed (or at most disclosed as unworkable) combinations extend beyond the content of the application as filed, in violation of art. 123(2) EPC.
I think it is not clear from the wording in the Opponent's letter whether claim 1 of the priority document was equal to claim 1 of Annex 1 as filed or to claim 1 of Annex 1 as granted, but in either case, the priority document cannot serve as basis for amendments. (I think there is a fairly new Rule that allows to use the priority document to serve as a basis for amending missing parts, similar to the PCT Rule, but that is not the case here.)
Page 4 of A7 in the English version of the Exam was in German; in addition, A7 refers to solenoid 711 and windings 712 of fig.1 not shown in the figure. It puzzles..
ReplyDeleteI filed a complaint. Not sure to what extent it affected us. But better to be on a safe side.
DeleteI noticed this error during the exam and it confused me a lot so that I spent time to figure out what's going on here. Therefore, this error definitly affected me and my result regarding 1) missing information 2) losing time for nothing.
DeleteSame in french version regarding the figure.
ReplyDeleteOmg, totally missed the A123 attack, because I thought it had basis in claim 2 and par 13 and 14. But therefore discussed the attacks wrt the parts of par 13 and 14.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else missed this also?
I missed that priority was not valid, because I did assume that claimed priority is ok. The range I noticed for 123(2) but not sure what should have been said to score actual marks, which guidelines? I said the amended range was new as compared to 12-13 so contravenes 123(2)...
DeleteI did not realise you had to do a fall back IS attack... :/
Paragraphs 13 and 14 were part of the application as filed. Why can't they serve as basis for amendments of claim 1 ?
DeleteOvercooked this one
ReplyDeleteFeeling a bit better now I’ve seen what others have said.
ReplyDeleteCompletely missed the A2 priorty document publication date tho. Mental.
The effective filing dates were a mess and spent far more time working them out than on previous years
Claim 3: Inventive step using A3a+A2b+A4. A3 was the only document for ground charging pads
ReplyDeleteA2' + A4 was enough. Why combining 3 références?
DeleteC and D based on the same legal principle, G 1/15 and T 282/12 in Guidelines F-VI, 1.5. Is that fair? The risk to miss a significant numbers of marks in two different papers in the same EQE sitting due to exactly the same legal principle and the same situation: partial first application issue?’
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. I did not understand partial first application in D and brushed it off after D, but here it comes again… I totally missed A2 first application issue and just cracked on. The fact of having one mistake should not be penalised twice.
DeleteAnnex 7 had the wrong figure in all three versions (EN, FR, DE). It actually included Fig. 1 of annex 4. The figure for Annex 7 was never included this was missing. If you complain today might get compensated. As it alters the analysis because of A7 due to the fact that it was referring to reference signs that didn’t exist.
ReplyDeleteNot an easy paper. What was the CPA for C6? Because it included all of the features of claim 4, which had a novelty attack based on A5, I went with A5. I also argued it selectively charged the battery based on that last paragraph saying something like "when the battery is low the micrprocessor sends the robot to charge". But everyone seems to have used A6 for CPA, so im guessing im wrong!
ReplyDeleteCan anyone shed some light on this part?
For me A6 since the method of model Q is part of model P, "the decision making for different purpose"
DeleteThen model has the wireless charging with infrared sensor. Infrared sensor is not good enough.Thus RSS of A5 will be considered. There us no technical difficulties in replacing infrared with RSS. no hardware change need
I had the same line of thought as you, Liza. I think one can argue that both A5 and model P work as CPA. So, I was going back and fourth. In the end I flipped a coin and it came out as A5 is CPA.
DeleteMy reasoning was also: system already there (clsim 4 not novel over A5), most steps of method disclosed, and requires less effort to add just one final step to a method. The technical effect of the distinguishing festure was then also well-described in both model P/A6 and in A1.
Claim 6 was essentially a method claim but had all the features of the charging system of claim 4. which made me think that A6 should be the CPA. In the end I chose A5 as CPA because of more structural similarity and least modification.
DeleteCPA for claim 6 was Annex 6 (model P), in my view. Claim 6 defines a method for charging an *electric vehicle*. Annex 5 relates to a robot mower, which is not an electric vehicle according to the definition in Annex 2, par. [1]. So reasoning from model P, you only need to change the detection system, which is easy to do according to Annex 5 (which describes the upgrade from USS to RSS).
DeleteBy the way, I think I couldn't find a definition that a battery-powered vehicle was an electric vehicle, so I just used my own technical knowledge for that.
Thanks Gerben - I couldn't find a definition for "electric vehicle", probably due to exam stress at the time. If I had seen it, I would have discounted A5 as a candidate for CPA because it is not the correct technical field. Oh well :(
DeleteDouble trouble 2
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. Part 2 was more difficult and not easy how to find (combination of )relevant documents. Very scattered subject matter. I just wrote what I had a gut feeling for, hopefully can score 50 marks! 🤞
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate you guys discussing technical details after the exam, myself I am so tired, exhausted (physically and mentally) and... I am JUST HAPPY IT'S OVER! Whatever the result... this is a July problem :) I wish you all to get your life back and be proud of your accomplishments!
ReplyDeleteThank you Delta Patents for supporting us!
Right approach. And thank you to all members of Delta Patents for their support. Let's hope we have passed. And if not - it is not the end of the world. There is a chance again next year. But let's hope for the best. We need only 50/100. For some of us, me included - only 45/100. Low bar.
DeleteYou are correct. Have a good time! :-)
DeleteI was quite lost with A7. The figure does not match with the content, very upset because spend time on trying to understand A7 before deciding to give up the novelty attack with this A54(3) document... what a pity!
ReplyDeleteThank you Delta without this blog and your approach to explain the papers I would just be living in an echo chamber.
ReplyDeleteI made a very stupid mistake. I saw the IS attack for claim 3 with priority document A2 ... but at the end I wrote that claim 3 is not inventive because of A2 and A4... now I have an inventive step attack with a 54(3) document ... is it possible that they will realize it is a typo and still award some marks or is it an instant fail? I still wrote in C2 that of course I know that one can't make an inventive step attack with a 54(3) document.
Thank you Delta Patents for this blog. As a lonely trainee it was my almost only venting solution, second next to my poor wife :D
ReplyDeleteDobby is free!
ReplyDeleteI find it quite long. I did only novelty and A123(2) attack and half of IS attack. No time enough. Hope to reach the 50 mark ...
ReplyDeleteYou are not the only one who things so. It was, to say the least, not an easy exam. It had in total AN2-AN7 annexes, whereby AN2 referred to a priority document which was citeablem and AN6 disclosed two systems's prior use; Model Q + charging terminal) and Model P + charging terminal. This brings it up to 8 prior art items.
DeleteThere were seven claims to be attacked, of which three possible attacks could be mounted against claim 1.
There were issues with ranges (my "beloved subject"), "first application" priority problems, disclosure through use....
All in all - it was a very demanding exam.
I hope I scrapped my 45 points (this is all I need; Papers A, B and D are behind me). But as someone said - this is a July problem. Worst case - I will resit the exam on 20.03.2025.
Many thanks to DeltaPatent for their support.
Hi! I was wondering when the model solution will be out for this exam, and where exactly can we find it? Thanks!
ReplyDeletenow
DeleteWasted 20 minutes because of a clear mistake from examining division in A7 (what was wrong with the figure and description not been related at all?). Paper too long, 7 documents with two prior uses been derived from A6 plus the publishing of a priority document for annex 2. 7 claims with partial prio because of a first application issue (they usually give general section only 10/15 marks, they should give 25 at least for C1 part alone this time but if this is the case now but what's happening with the marking of the rest?) and to be fair C2 also had some legal issues (7 documents a few been A54(3) for some claims and effective dates of claims not the same). I did paper C from 2013 yesterday and it was a piece of cake compare to this. I think whoever is drafting this exams is going crazy.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this is the Paper C blog and my comment relates to all four papers, but does anyone else feel that all four papers this year were more difficult than previous years? I’m sure candidates say this every year, however, it feels true for this year because every paper seemed to have multiple complex points to consider. In comparison, in previous years the papers had one complex point per paper, with maybe a single paper each year with two complex points. The complex points were not minor issues either and instead were regarding issues that would have a knock on effect for the rest of the paper. This year it felt like the papers had been written to ‘trick’ candidates more so than in previous years. For example, by not drawing attention to the fact that M&M were proprietors of A2 in the client letter, it seemed like they were trying to test whether candidates read bibliographic details rather than test understanding of the implication of this fact. Of course, as qualified patent attorneys in real life with plenty of time available to draft a notice of opposition, we should read the bibliographic details of every prior art document. However in a three hour exam flow based on a made up situation, it seems like checking whether candidates read the bibliographic details (beyond the dates) is an extra burden when the main issue of this point is what effect this has on the effective dates of the claims. Although I spotted the same applicant of A2, it seemed like flagging who the applicant of A2 was in the client letter would not have made the paper that much easier, but would have reduced the amount of complex points to deal with in Paper C. The paper was already complex enough; with A2 and it’s priority document needing to be considered as two separate annexes and two prior uses in A6, I make that 8 separate pieces of prior art! There also seemed to be much more content in other papers this year (especially in Paper B) that left me pushed for time more than in the past papers I had completed to time during revision. Anyway, I hope everyone has a restful weekend and wishing you the best for results when they eventually come.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. In general, at most one of the exam is really tough, the three other being reasonably feasible.
DeleteIn this case, I have the feeling that at least D2, B and C were built rather to make the candidates fail than to appreciate if they are able to make their everyday tasks. Introducing a huge difficulty from the beginning of the exam increases the level of stress, reduces the time that can be allocated to the rest of the exam, such that the whole exam is imparted. There is no notion of proportionality here !
This is EXACTLY what I was telling a fellow colleague today. Something has certainly changed this year. The only paper which remained normal was DI. Paper A was borderline. All of C, DII, and of course B on top of all, were CLEARLY very different from previous years. It is not only the content became more complex, it is also that they did not think of the time allocated to each exam. This became an exam of speed rather than of logic and reason. For some people who are fast, this could be doable, but for slower people (who are usually the smarter ones, actually) this is completely insane.
DeleteI am glad I posted now because B, C and D2 were the papers I had mainly in mind too. Thank you for your reassurance that I am not alone in my thoughts!
Delete@disappointed I am sorry you could not make it. But, to be fair, you did not have to look at bibliographic details to spot that A2 has the same Applicant becuase A2 has the same wordings and numberings, even the same figure as A1. This should have been the hint to check the bibliographic details. Anyway better luck next time
DeleteCandidate C:
DeleteWhile I partially agree with you, I can imagine under time stress, many people wouldn't see that. I don't think seeing it or not determines how good of a candidate you are. The actions that follow, are the ones that determine that.
It has happened in other papers that the wording of prior art and of the application was the same, without it being disclosed by the same applicant (I think in an old paper B).
Also, with so much text, many candidates (including me) aren't anymore reading every single word of the prior art, and instead are skimming or using CTRL+F methods. For example, if you read all the text in B of this year, then you are most likely going to fail, even if you spot every relevant information and know exactly what attack to need to make.
DeleteI totally agree 200%. Very tough and more difficult as compared to last years.
Delete@candidate c As mentioned in my first comment, I did spot that A2 was the same applicant and prepared my answer accordingly. Hopefully there will be no next time. My point was that Paper C felt like it was not as straightforward as previous years. In Paper C 2018, A6 and A1 were by the same applicant and it was clearly stated in the client letter.
DeleteI totally agree. This year is my first time sitting all the four papers. Although I have done at least five-past-years papers of each A, B, C and D, I feel this year's four papers are the most difficult of previous years of all. I am really unlucky to sit in this year's four paper for the first time. My paper B is the worst....very very disappointed.... EQE this year is really unpredictable.
DeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI have a little question. If you make the attack of novelty with Q from A6 but don’t make the second one with A7, do you loose some marks ?
Because to my mine, Q being 54(2), is a strong attack, which do not need any subsidiary attack.
For claim 5, you mean? Yes, I expect you will lose some points, as you are typically expected to do all available novelty attacks (but I think not that many - my guess would be less than 10, but that is just a gut feeling).
DeleteAccording to DP tutors, all possible novelty attacks on a given claim are expected and grant marks. Therefore missing one is losing marks... I also suppose that novelty attacks will be granted around 6-10 marks depending of the length of the claim.
DeleteI have another question regarding lack of novelty of Claim 5 in view of A6.
I did not realize A6 was state of the art also for Claims 4 and 5 (only considered the date of May, 30 and not the release of the Q model in 2018). I suppose I will lose the mark allocated to the definition of the prior art document for claim 4 and 5.
But then while attacking the IS of claims 6 and 7, I started to demostrate that A6/model Q was anticipating all of the steps of claim 5. Was that be considered a novelty attack over Claim 5 in view of A6 and make me grab at least some of the allocated marks for this attack?
Where can I find the provisional answer deltapatents?
ReplyDeleteHi Roel, thanks for your efforts with the blog.
ReplyDeleteI made a mistake on the first part of the paper, where I didn't see (or take-in is a better way of putting it) that on of the Annexe's priority documents was published (stated on the opponents letter). This oversight affects 3 attacks on first 1-3, specifically, it looks like an A54(2) EPC attack was expected on claims 1-2 based on A2's priority, instead of (or perhaps additionally) of an A54(3) EPC based on A2 itself. But it has particular significance of claim 3, because it means the A2 couldn't be used for inventive step if you didn't see the publication of the priority.
I appreciate you you probably haven't sat the paper, but do you have an idea how the committee are likely to penalise this? Is it still possible to pass if the other substantive issue as addressed?
Sorry I am not Roel but I will give you my thoughts:
DeleteThat was one of the big trick of the paper: if you did not realize A2' (or A2b) was a 54(2) for claim 3, you could not make the IS attack on claim 3 since the only (and strongest) attack was departing from this A2' as closest prior art and combining it with A4.
I think candidates who did not even start this attack will lose 15-20 pts, since it took a long time to write down this attack (at least it was the case for me).
Also, I suppose you did lose some time trying to figure out another good IS attack on claim 3...
Another trick of this paper was that, if you did not analyze well the content of A2, you can ended considering Norwegian priorities were invalid for both potentially modified claim 1 and issued claim 2, but it was only the case for claim 2: leading to A2' being 54(2) document over claim 2 and novelty destroying.
In that case, you could only consider that A2 was 54(2) document (even it was not) for claim 1 and thus miss to write down the expected A3+A5 attack over IS of claim 1 (although I think less than 15pts will be allocated to this attack, since claim 1 was already attacked for non-conformity to 123(2)).
And another trick was that candidates were this year supposed to imagine what would be the back-up amendments of the patentee during opposition.
I thought we were suppose to write down an opposition, not to imagine what could be the strategy of the patentee during the procedure and elaborate possible future attack(s) against subject-matter that was not in the originally issued set of claims !!!
Thanks Anonymous, I realised the NO priorities weren't valid in light of the A2 being the first application to the disclosed subject matter, and did write back-up argument as you mentioned (because the opponent letter kind of indicated the examiner was expecting something more than compared to previous years). But I agree, its unfair to expect pre-emptive attacks to not-yet made amendments.
DeleteI made an IS attack on claim 3 based on A3 + A5 (I think) because I couldn't use A2 for reasons mentioned. As you say, it did take a long time to formulate this attack, nevertheless, I believe your correct in that 15-20 lost points is likely as I believe the committee gives 0 marks if the incorrect closest prior art document is chosen.
If I took-in from the opponent's letter that the priority doc was published, or even better, if the committee listed the priority document as an Annex document, I would have given the expected answer. Hence if I fail (seemly likely) its not because lack of understanding of the opposition, priority and novelty; but rather on oversight of 1 sentence of the paper.
Anyway, done now xD
Anonymous
Delete15 March 2024 at 11:04
What are you saying? A2 is A. 54(3) for both claims 2 and 3. It published after the filing date.
Mahmoud - It seems you may have made the same oversight as me. Check the opponents letter. It states that A2's priority document was published on date that precedes the effective filing date of claims 1-3.
DeleteAccording to DP tutor, if you does not choose the right/expected IS attack for a given claim, you get no point. As a summary:
DeleteCandidates are supposed to write down all possible 54(2) 54(3) novelty attacks and 123(2) attacks on each claim.
If at least 54(2) attack is written down against a given claim, no IS attack is expected over that claim.
If a strong 123(2) attack over a written claim is provided, no IS attack is expected.
If a claim is attacked based on only 54(3) novelty attack(s) and/or weak 123(2), or if a claim is not attacked at all, then the strongest IS attack is expected for that claim.
@Mahmoud: reread the client letter of C1, and previously published comments on the present page above.
Hahahahaha. Indeed, I missed it. But come on, that shouldn't be worth 15 marks. This one was really nasty.
DeleteMahmoud - Im afraid so and Im in the same boat. I believe little or no marks are given for an IS argument when the incorrect CPA is chosen, which seems ridiculous quite frankly, but even more so when CPA itself its presented as an Annexed document.
Delete*isnt
DeleteThe last page of the C2 part 2 was not in English. Header says "Anlage 7 / Seite 4 von 4". Footer says "2024/C2/EN/38".
ReplyDeleteAlso, Annex 7's only figure on page 38 seems to be wrong. Annex 7's figure is the same as Fig. 1 of Annex 4 and uses the same reference sign 411 as in Annex 4 on page 27. The text of Annex 7 does not mention 411, but 711. The text of Annex 7 does also mention 712 which is not shown in the figures.
As others have mentioned, please file a complaint. I believe the deadline for doing so is today so hurry. The link is somewhere above
DeleteDeadline for complaints for C: 15 March 2024, 23:59 CET
Deletehttps://forms.office.com/e/fBXJgtRZPN :
EQE 2024 - Complaint form concerning the conduct of the examination (Paper C)
Candidates wishing to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the examination must do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the last examination paper takes place (15 March 2024, 23:59 CET), by filling in this form.
This year's Paper C was really written to mislead the candidates. It should have tested whether a candidate is "fit for practice" and instead tested whether a candidate is fast enough to read/think and write. The effective dates and prior art section (for parts 1 and 2) took approximately triple the time compared to previous years, with various tricks which, under pressure, I didn't notice (Example: first filing of A2). In my opinion, claim 1 required at least 2 attacks: added matter for the claim as amended during examination and inventive step (A3+A5) for the first embodiment described in A1, which I was unable to do due to lack of time (it was necessary to substantiate the implicit description in A5 of the values that fall within the claimed ranges, substantiate the possibility of using the composition on A3 even if A5 used reverse windings: A LONG TIME!). The other embodiment of A1 (+20-30 CoFeNi and 20-30 FeCuSib) was potentially attackable for novelty but the customer wants to produce with 15 CofeNi and 35 FecuSib so perhaps useless. Claim 2 novelty with respect to A2 and A2a. Claim 3 was clearly inventive step A2a+A4 but under pressure I didn't check the status of A4 for claim 3 and thinking it was a 54(3), I did inventive step A2+CGK derived from A4 (which, honestly, would be in practice correct since A4 read: "It is well-known ... to use metal sheet ..." and the OTP was to select a material for the second layer that reduces leakage of unwanted radiation). Clearly, once the heartbreak of the first part was over, the second part didn't go any better. Reanalyzes all the effective dates and the prior art, supports the double prior use, analyzes a technically complicated A5, fits together the pieces for the novelty attack with A5 on claim 4, starts thinking about claim 5 and 6 and only 40 minutes remain . Begins the novelty attack on claim 5 with A6a (in the end, in my opinion, it was inventive step A6a+CGK derived from A7). Notice the mistake in A7, waste 5-10 minutes to understand if it could be a scam. Write only the statement of attack of A6b+A5 on claim 6. Write something on claim 7 regarding COMVIK and the business aspect of the feature...and then the time is up. And I don't think it's going to go well.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is my feeling that with all the tricks in the priority / prior art document, one had to struggle to find the appropriate IS attacks, and to have time to write them down !
DeleteIt's true that under pressure we ALL miss things. Hopefully, that would still allow us to pass based on 50/100 points. Even the benchmarkers miss things.
DeleteRemember - this is a guild entrance exam. It is there to limit the number of new admissions to the guild.
DeleteHope they will provide equal marks between novelty and IS. I see that previous year they provided over 60 marks for all IS.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering when DeltaPatents would make their model answers available.... Any idea?
ReplyDeleteI just called them: they are still struggling over IS attacks on claims 6 and 7, spent the night on this paper C lol..
DeleteAs they need to deal with more than 7 prior arts, establish effective dates, discover prior uses, maybe in 2 weeks ;)
DeleteTo be honest, I don't know what's taking us so long :)
DeletePersonally, I thought the legal situation in Part 1 (especially claim 1) was a bit overly complex, but I was never in doubt about what to answer. Part 2 was more classic Paper C. If there is any internal discussion, it will likely be about how to formulate the arguments and explanation in a clear and (at least mostly) correct blog post. For, e.g., claims 1 and 7, it will be easy to over-analyse and say too much, or to over-simplify and say too little.
I'm sure our answers will appear as soon as they're ready. In the meantime, enjoy the free time you will have now the exams are over.
now I wonder what the examining committee actually wanted to test in claims 6-7
ReplyDeleteInventive step attack on a method for a product type claim? With at least one of the steps of the method non technical/information display and/or being automatization of mental acts like were at least steps 1 and 2 of claim 5?
DeleteI have another question regarding lack of novelty of Claim 5 in view of A6.
ReplyDeleteI did not realize A6 was state of the art also for Claims 4 and 5 (only considered the date of May, 30 and not the release of the Q model in 2018). I suppose I will lose the mark allocated to the definition of the prior art document for claim 4 and 5.
But then while attacking the IS of claims 6 and 7, I started to demostrate that A6/model Q was anticipating all of the steps of claim 5. Was that be considered a novelty attack over Claim 5 in view of A6 and make me grab at least some of the allocated marks for this attack?
The DeltaPatents answer is now available as a separate blog post:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-c.blogspot.com/2024/03/our-solution-for-paper-c-2024-wireless.html
It gives first a summary of all attacks, followed by some considerations esp. as to why some "candidate attacks" were not considered possible, and then a detailed notice of opposition with full argumentation. Please feel free to debate and provide your supportive comments as well as topics for discussion!