C 2025: first impressions?
To all who sat the C-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect 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
in recent previous papers?
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? Or harder/easier? Any pleasant and/or
unpleasant surprises?
What was the effect of doing the
paper online? 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? Did you struggle with the online format in any way? 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?
Did you take the exam from your home
or your office? Or somewhere else? How did that work for you?
Did you experience any technical
difficulties during the exam? How and how fast were they resolved? Did you use
the widget to contact the invigilator?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to Candidates concerning the conduct of the
examination , you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper concerned takes place, by filling in the dedicated form on
the EQE website. The Form for paper C is
(only) available on 20.03.2025, 16:15 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post the core our (provisional) answer shortly after the exam in a
separate blog post, as soon as possible after we have received a copy of the
paper, preferably in all three languages. 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 20-03-2025 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.
Please post your comments as to
first impressions and general remarks to this blog.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog
post with our answer. Thanks!
C-2, especially the inventive step discussion of the fallback position of §24 of A1 regarding a possible claim 7 without intermediate generalization felt brutal timewise.
ReplyDeleteI cannot remember a practice exam where i was that strapped for time in C-2. C-1 felt okay-ish, although i could also only finish the second the time ran out.
Where did you see the intermediate generalisation issue? Just curious as that didn't even cross my mind!
DeleteI double-checked and I just misinterpreted a feature of claim 7 as relating to §24 and not §30. My mistake, please disregard the comment.
DeleteI'm not sure if there was just a tonne of inventive step or I went wrong somewhere, but I had:
ReplyDelete1: A4 (A.54(3)), A5 (A.56)
2: A5+A2 (A.56)
3: A123
3a(restricted to polycarbonate as first polymer): A5+A2+A3 (A.56)
4: A5 + EARIX (A.56)
5: A5 + EARIX (dependency) + A4 (A.56)
6: A5 + EARIX (A.56)
7: A5 (A.54(2). I also said if the sliding switching of A5 could be interpreted as a mechanical push then the undisclosed disclaimer of claim 7 becomes the only novel feature and is thus unallowable so added matter A123 kills claim 7 anyway
I don't really understand how we can make 123(2) attacks in part 1 when parts of the description are missing
DeleteI got a bit confused and did claim 7 with A5+A3. If the sliding switch button is a mechanical push (which I think it is), you could switch it with the pin system of A3, which is not a button, so you kill it that way. I didn't even consider that the disclaimer had become the only distinguishing feature!
DeleteFor me claim 7 ist 123(2)-(3) the mechanical element from the corresponding paragraph is specified as a push button (which is novel subject matter) but cannot be cured without extending the scope of protection.
Delete@DH, it's a manufactured situation for the exam, we just trust the client letter implicitly. They say claim 3 wasn't in the application as filed then it wasn't. Which means only the examples given in the spec are viable basis, not the broader claim 3.
DeleteAlso to add to my earlier comment, this was a bit of a whacky exam for me, seeming to have non-technical presentation of information (although kinda didn't matter since a prior art document had it anyway), technical and non-technical subject-matter considerations, internet disclosure combined with prior use according to the division disclosure, and undisclosed disclaimers.
DeleteSo glad I noted several Guidelines references during my revision from past papers as they seemed important.
EARIX is part of A4.. bec there is a reference in A4
Deletei would not say its part of A4 but it is Art.54(2) because it was also mentioned in the Priority of A4 what means that it was allready on the market since Prio from A4 (consider that the client said that A4 is ident with its priodoc)
DeleteMain problem for me was that there were no clear pointers to inventive step attacks
ReplyDeleteIt did seem like the technical effects and problems in this exam were much less clear than in previous years. Much less able to just copy+paste wording from the patent.
DeleteAgreed, there were few pointers. I even used "mere alternative" for some inventive step attacks because there was no technical effect associate with the distinguishing technical feature
DeleteI had an easier time I think with C2 than with C1. Very keen to find out the correct approach for claims 2-3 on C1. Was out of time so couldn't draft attacks for these I was happy with
ReplyDeleteI made an inventive step attac on Claim 1, but I am not sure still is I got the closet prior art I did A3+A5, but on a second thought I think it may have been A5+A3
ReplyDeleteI would say no, the distinguisging feature would be a removable cap, but A5 teaches away from that because it sees advantageous not to lose the cap. So A3+A5 appears to be the correct way to do it.
DeleteAlso in A5 the IR sensor was on the front so I went for the most features in common....
DeleteI did a novelty attack on claim 1 using A5... and reading these comments is now terrifying!
ReplyDeleteUsing A3, I mean!
Delete@James I did the same (novelty attack based on A3). A5 didn't have a cover that was releasably attached I think. A3 was only possible for novelty if you considered the electrical means for compensating for environmental effects as the watertight/shockprotection feature of the display integrated into the handle piece (or whatever it was called)
DeleteAgreed - glad someone else did the same.
DeleteUpon review, A4 should be also possible for claim 1 as A54(3) EPC attack. I discarded that idea as the display was not on the thermometer ear plug, it was via a smartphone app, but claim 1 did not require that the display had to be on the thermometer main body. Is that a correct assessment?
DeleteI think it did have to be main body, but can't remember now. Will check when they put the paper up.
Deleteblack25
Deletesame here, I attacked claim 1 using A3 (novelty).
DeleteTo everyone who did a novelty attack using A3, where is the electronic means for compensating for the influence of environmental effects in A3? Surely the document is completely silent to this feature... if you relied on the recess 145 in A3[9] then this is not electronic means...
DeleteFor only means suitable for and the control unit of A3 can be adapted for compensation (for example through an algorithm) therefore A3 is novelty destroying
DeleteI completely disagree with anonymous 18:29 : in that case any electronic means cannot be novel whatever it is configured to do. You cannot think like that.
DeleteHere, there was no means for compensating, I agree with anonymous 17:37. And this was quite surely expected by the epo because the compensating means and its technical effects could be found in A5. We were guided to think that way.
There is a difference between configured to and suitable for, in a device claim "for" refers to the latter
DeleteAnyway, even if the processor of A3 is suitable to compensate, a measure for example of the ambiant temperature is needed. Hence, a sensor is needed.
DeleteSo A3 does not disclose the means for compensating.
Did 2 novelty attacks, one with A4 as Art.54(3) and one with A3
ReplyDeleteOn claim 1 I mean
DeleteI did A4 and A3+A5 for Claim 1 (I thought A3 alone was missing the environment compensation).
DeleteI think A4 couldn't destroy novelty of claim 1 because the display is external...
DeleteI didnt see the electrical means for compensating for environmental effects in A3, that is why I made next to the Art.54(3) attack on cl1, an iS attack with A3+A5
DeleteAm I the only one who attacked claims 4-6 for being unpatentable due to being diagnostic methods?
ReplyDeleteFor claim 7, I argued it was an undisclosed disclaimer with the feature disclosed in A1. G2/10 applied. The only passage in A1 describing something the skilled person would use to modify function of the power switch (controlling circuit 11) was disclosed in 30. 30 was added after filing and was no longer 54(3), so no undisclosed disclaimer allowed.
For claim 7, isn't it simply 123(2) and no fallback because of 123(3)? The embodiment of paragraph 31 does not talk about any kind of switch (the two operating modes are not the same as for the eardrum/forehead embodiment).
DeleteI considered the diagnostic method attack, but convinced myself that they must not be somehow, otherwise that's a pretty quick kill for 3/4 claims in C2!
DeleteI did the same.
DeleteBut I also defined a modified version of R4 without the diagnostic parts and attacked this with A5, and A5+A4. Just doing 53c) seemed too easy.
Regarding C7, I said the "non-mechanical switch" was only disclosed with a proximity capteur so putting this characteristic without the proximity capteur is an intermediate generalization
DeleteDid a 53c attack additionally based on g1/04 diag method steps, so you‘re not alone :)
DeleteLooking at GL G-II 4.2.1.3, a diagnosis method must include a finding of a symptom (iii) and a decision (iv) -- a thermometer merely measures temperature of a person, it is not deducing symptoms or making decisions regarding illness. Therefore I disagree that the claims are unpatentable merely due to this feature. Also, you should think of the context of the exam -- why would the examiner ask you to analyse claims that stem from a simple exclusion from patentability, that would be a poor constructed examination. Sometimes you need to remember this is a game that has been constructed and the answer for each claim will be different. If claim 4 is fundamentally flawed like this, the entire C2 falls...
DeleteThe symptom is the comparison with the thresholds. The diagnosis is implicit in the threshold pertaining to „requiring medical attention“, I.e. fever, which is arguably a clinical picture (e.g. for infants). Thus it is executed on the body, data is collected, compared to threshold and a clinical picture derived, this all steps of G1/04, see Visser also reg Art53c
DeleteI do agree with Beary bear, the 4 criteria for a diagnosis method are here. But it would be too short so I suspect both the inventive step attack and the diagnosis one were expected. Sad.
Delete« In T 1255/06 the claim in question only defined the data acquisition steps (the temperature of the body) which could be used in a diagnostic method. Although the acquisition of the temperature data lead to the detection of a deviation from the normal values, it did not allow per se the attribution of the detected deviation to a particular clinical picture. »
DeleteI found this in the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, on the epo website
I think we can assume from this that there was no attack regarding diagnostic method ?
G 2/10 is not about undisclosed disclaimers but about disclaiming positive embodiments. Did you mean refer to G 1/03 and G 1/16?
DeleteI did:
ReplyDelete1. Novelty attack with A4 under 54(3), only the system required a display, not that it should be integrated - did not have time to do an I/S attack...
2. Inventive step attack, partial problems, A3+A5, A3+A2
3a. Added matter
3b. Inventive step, same as claim 2 but A2 further discloses feature of claim 3 in claim 2
4. Inventive step, A5 + A6a (prior use of EARIX)
5. Inventive step, partial problems, A5+A6a and A5+A4
6. Attack of claim 4 + further feature in A6a
7. Novelty attach with A5, the undisclosed disclaimer is not allowable in view of A.54(2) prior art so it is non-limiting
I have exactly the same attacks! Except:
Delete1. IS with A5
5. IS with A4(CPA) + A6.
7. Only added-matter.
Happy to see that you also took A3 as the CPA for claims 2 and 3b!
Isn't A4 54(3) for claim 6?
Delete@Anon A3 is clearly CPA! It is the ONLY document that relates to sterilization. I do not see reasonable arguments for any of the other.
Delete@Sean you can't use 54(3) art for I/S attacks and A4 is missing a huge amount of technical features for claim 6 (which is dependent on claim 4)
A4 is not 54(3) for claim 5? I did not considered it for inventive steps there
DeleteI really don't feel confident on this one, I panicked quite a bit. My attacks were:
ReplyDelete1: A3+A5
2: A3+A5+A2
3b(PC+PE): A3+A5+A2
4: A5+A6(earix)
5: A4+A6(earix) (comvik) - I think the detection of the ear canal environment in A4 may not have been enough to be relevant for compensating for the environment
6: A5+A6(earix) - basically repeating arguments for 4 - I panicked on this one.
7: A5 - I stretched the definitions of the two modes. I don't think the claim restricted it to only sound in one mode, so both claimed modes could have sound. And this is in A5.
Oh, and added matter on 3
DeleteAlso did A5+A6 (earix) for claim 4 and A4+A6(earix) (comvik) for claim 6. The attack on claim 6 was the last thing I did though so didn't write it as rigorously as I would have liked
Delete(comvik) for claim 5 I mean
Deleteclaim 6 was just a repeat of claim 4 with non-volatile storage
well - part 1, for the third time, is just too much for me. I cannot read quick enough. thankfully, part 2 had 4 claims to attack this time which was much more manageable. I went with the following:
ReplyDeleteclaim 1 - novelty A3 but could have gone with A5 with more time. didn't really get rhough A3 novelty either to be honest - wasted so much time on claim 3.
claim 2 - A3+A2
claim 3 - added matter - might be a long shot that, it was largely on the "greater than 0.086" phrase which in light of the two specific examples (while one was greater than 0.086) the open endedness of it seem crazy
claim 3(i) - A3+A2
claim 3(ii) - A3+A2
ran out of time.
claim 4 - A5+A6 (after arguing A6 is reflective of CGK due to A4 referring to it and having a date years before)
claim 5 - added matter
claim 5 (i)&(ii) - not withstanding the above added matter also not inventive over A5+A4, partial problems.
claim 6 -A5+A6
claim 7 - added matter
ran out of time.
The time pressure for this amount of data is simply pointless. The subject-matter is trivial. Hate it all.
ReplyDeleteYes
DeleteI really feel the same thing! My daily work is not under time-pressure, so I do not understand why we are measured ONLY on how quick we can digest the subject-matter! When you look on old papers, you see al pieces falling into place, which would be possible during the exam if we were given only 30 min more. I think this is ridiculously! They do not bother if you are good on arguing (which I presume is what they want to test) only if you can pick the correct CPA. If you don´t => 0 points
DeleteYes and yes
DeleteYour daily work not under time pressure? Also no budget pressure? That is a dream for most of us. Do you have any vacancies, then I want to apply?
DeleteCompletely agree... Whenever I tried doing past C papers at home without time pressure I could get 80-95 % of the points right, but I am a slow reader and bad at cutting corners, so this 42 pages paper C and a rather long claim 1 where it was not as quick to see the main features to search for in the documents was a complete disaster. Apart from some topics that required extra thinking like the undisclosed disclaimer in part 2 and maybe some of the functional language regarding data processing, the actual legal aspects tested seems to be quite straightforward and should not cause any issue with an extra hour or so, but with the time as it is, it becomes a wild ctrl+f guessing and praying game...
DeleteI can kind of see that daily work sometimes includes time pressure, but usually there is time to do work with quality unlike in the EQE exams. I would think that it should be more important to give candidates time and test if they actually understand the relevant aspects rather than do time pressure and see who are either quick readers or good at doing ctrl+f and hitting the right keywords - if you get on the right path from the start - you pass, if not, well there is no time to correct anything even if you know it was not the right attacks...
I see many using A4 to attack C1. But C1 is entitled priority (15.1.20) and A4 was filed only on 7.7.20, so cannot be a 54(3) doc. Nor can be its JP priority doc.
ReplyDeletePriority doc gives it the earlier filing date and was identical so can be 54(3)
DeleteGL G-IV 3, the date of priority counts as the date of filing for both the European application being examined and conflicting European applications under Art. 54(3)
DeleteC'était incroyablement long.
ReplyDeleteAvec en plus des pièges. Je vois pas mal de gens qui utilisent A6, mais A6 est une vidéo du 28 février 2021. A1 est déposé le 15 janvier 2021. Pour moi, A6 ne sert à rien et est juste un piège. Sinon, je ne comprends pas.
Je n'ai pas eu le temps de finir la 1ere partie. J'ai fait :
C1 : A5 + A3
C2 : A5 + A3 +A2
C3 : A5 + A3 + A2 mais ça ne marche pas parce que l'écart de diffraction est bien nouveau ; je ne vois toujours pas comment tuer C3
C4 : méthode de diagnostic non brevetable 53c) ; j'ai beaucoup hésité avant de faire ce choix. Vraiment piégeux si c'est ça.
C4 en retirant les éléments diagnostic : A5
C5 en gardant juste l'affichage à distance : A5 + A4
C6 en gardant juste le stockage mémoire : A5
C7 123(2)
Je ne pense pas que A6 soit un piège. Le périphérique, EARIX 3.2, est mentionné dans A4, qui date de 2019. Par conséquent, l'A6 reflète les CGK.
DeletePardonnez mon français approximatif.
Bon, donc en fait A6 peut être utilisé parce que c'est une vidéo qui décrit Earix 3.2 et Earix 3.2 est connu dans A4. Donc même un mode d'emploi publié après le dépôt de A1 peut être utilisé. Si c'est ça, c'est le piège dans le piège... Comment on peut être sûr que le mode d'emploi de Earix 3.2 publié en février 2021 est bien le même que celui de janvier 2021?
DeleteMais bon, c'est sûrement ça.
Retour à 2026.
@is this the time?
DeleteOui, ça doit être ça. Bon, ben, 2026 c'est juste dans un an.
But in the comments of A6, Harry764 indicated that he bought this device four years ago. So probably A6 is a 54(2) document and it's also indicated that the details were in the user manual when he bought the device..
DeleteI used A6 to demonstrate prior use and indirect evidence of an existing user manual public to everyone before the JP priority of A4, because A4 referenced Earix. Thus, the user manual of Earix teaches everything under A54(2) usable to combine attacks with A5.
DeleteYes, I'm convinced it's me who fell in the trap. Well, 2026 is soon.
Deletecl1 - Art.54(3) with A4 and Art.56 with A3 and A5
ReplyDeletecl2 - Art.56 with A3 + A5 and A3 + A2
cl3 - Art.56 with A3 + A2. I did not see Art.123 problem since disclosed in [0027]
cl4 - Art.53c) and Art.56 with A5 and ERAIX
cl5 - Art.56 with A4 and ERAIX
cl6 - Art.56 with A5 and ERAIX
cl7 - Art.54 with A5
to the best of my knowledge only an EP or WO document can be prior art under Article 54(3). In this case the priority document was a japanese patent application
DeleteDon't you have A5 in Claims 3 and 5 as well? Apart from that I did the same as you.
DeleteI already forgot that I also did Art. 52(2) attack on cl5 too. I was surprised to see that in my answer haha — damn, I’ve got a huge headache...
Delete@DH - yes another miss - you are right, I used A3 + A2 + A5 on cl3. But not on cl5 there i added some COMVIK shit
Delete@T Yes me too for the colours but isn't A5 you CPA for claim 4 and therefore needs to be in Claim 5?
Delete@DH, I used A4 as new CPA for cl5 because A4 disclosed all the features of cl4 too. So I needed only A4 and ERAIX for cl5(cl4).
DeleteR7 was amended by addition of a disclaimer to reestablish the novelty with regards to A4 (A54(3)cbe) However it does not reestablish the novelty because this caracteristic belong to another embodiments of A4 not destroying novelty of R7. Therefore A100c) for R7 because undisclosed disclaimer not admissible
DeleteThe EP is 54(3) with the filing date of the Japanse priority as effective date as far as priority is valid. The JP itself is not 54(3).
DeleteSo, did you have time to actually read all the documents?
ReplyDeleteNope, not at all. I knew I wouldn't before I took the exam (I am a slow reader). I relied heavily on search function of key features to find the relevant documents.
DeleteI only read the relevant parts
DeleteThe selective leaving out of paragraphs due to “technical glitch“ is absolutely retarded. Took 10minutes to merge the documents, wasted reprinting of the 50+ pages because it was impossible to determine which pages should be printed with A6 surfacing too. The exam setup and the time pressure is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThere's no need to label it "retarded", which is actually quite offensive.
DeleteThis is also not real life, and is just a way for the examination to be split. Would you rather sit a solid 6 hour paper? Didn't think so.
The new docs were available 20 mins before C2 started and the new passages were explicitly pointed out in the new client letter. This is an organisation problem on your part, unfortunately.
No, it is a stupid and artificial way of splitting the paper. I run out of time in part 1 but had 1h spare in part 2. Is it because I had to read 5 separate documents for part 1 and only one more for part 2?
DeleteI’m not the original anon, but I would much rather have sat a non-stop 6h exam and allocate time as I wish!
I spent the 45min break re-reading the annexes anyway so I actually sat a 6h45min exam in this current stupid system!!
Artificial yes, stupid no. It's just a conceptual way of dividing the exam.
DeleteWe all read the same number of documents in the same amount of time. You don't need to read every single word, just identify features and proceed efficiently. Practising the past papers teaches us this.
The label was intended offensive, because it is. The split creates a retarded addition of information which arrives late and complicates the matter. Too bad that we cannot add retarded information to the c1 answer due to the same technical glitch.
DeleteI think if anyone here fits the label of retarded, its likely the EQE candidate and potential future qualified patent attorney (although that latter one looks unlikely) who can't cope or comprehend a little bit of fiction to conceptually divide an examination, and who can't cope with printing a few extra sheets of paper
DeleteI love the „offended on someone else‘s behalf“ gen Z style snowflake argumentation, then going to offence regarding passing chances of the EQE. Nonetheless, the pointe got lost on Anonymous. The retarded is to be interpreted as late-filed exam documents. Chill out and take the joke. :)
DeleteYou have reacted poorly to the environment of this exam. Next year you should stay calm, treat this exam like the game it is, and execute your approach that enables you to process enough information to proceed. Read the guidelines, trust your gut, and you won't have the same experience next time
DeleteYes, a one-step six hours session would be better. You can have food, drink, take breaks. I hope the new format M3 modules would be one-session only.
DeleteAnybody else confused by the client's letter wording in first part "claim 3 is the only part of A1 that is not disclosed in its priority document"? Usually past papers specified paragraphs that are in A1 and which of those in priority document and which claims are in which thus allowing to check whether a claim is disclosed in some paragraph that is in the priority document. Was the "not disclosed" here supposed to be taken literally that both the claim as well as §27 where the fallback positions of claim 3 were disclosed were not in the priority document?
ReplyDeleteIs a complaint possible for substantial aspects like this? I ended up writing a comment to the examiner saying that the wording is not quite clear as it comes from the client and one should check what is the actual content of priority document, since it affects whether for some claims A4 is Art 54(3) or 54(2)... but do I need to/is there any point in (or am I completely in the wrong?) filing a complaint regarding the lack of clarity of this aspect and hence losing time and complicating the rest of paper C? Or are complaints only for technical issues?
It's worth complaining if you found it to be an issue. You won't end up worse off and might benefit!
DeleteI took it as an indicator that claim 3 as it stood wasn't entitled to priority and thus had a different effective date
I had the same thoughts - since claim 3 is the ONLY part of A1 that is not disclosed i concluded that [0027] was disclosed and therefore no Art.123 problem.
DeleteI did not do any 123(2) in part 1 either, I also think that a 123(2) attack without the whole description is very controversial because the client cannot be trusted on legal aspects
DeleteI considered that you couldnt get the greater than 0.08 feature from [27] because it wasn't explicitly disclosed, you had to form it from the disclosed RI values, and claim 3 itself wasn't in priority doc so not entitled to priority, so added matter
DeleteYeah i think you are right. Maybe I missed that Cl3 said "equal or greater." The 0.086 (1.586 - 1.5) is disclosed, but not the "greater" part (although 1.586 - 1.49 is 0.096 and therefore greater). But I think you're right—that doesn’t allow you to claim "greater."
DeleteI agree with T. The intermediate generalisation not derivable from 0027 is that it cannot be unambiguously derived that any polymers with said differing refractive index can be used for the claimed purpose
DeleteIPREE Rule 22(3): The facts are to be accepted and are not be be challenged or doubted.
DeleteI am the anonymous that raised the question. I think I have realised my mistake just when trying to formulate the complaint. Claim 3 as referred to by client is the one as granted and it is not comprised in the application as originally filed and as per client not disclosed in the priority document. This does not say anything about the fallback position of claim 3. Looking at it now, the client has explicitly even told us that we should make A100(c) attack against claim 3, but I guess the argumentation still has to be more substantiated providing the closest basis in the application as filed.
DeleteAnyways, since it is only the claim 3 added during examination that is not part of priority document, everything else, including §27 is, and so priority for the fallback is indeed valid and hence A4 is only Art 54(3) prior art for claim 3 fallback and cannot be used for inventive step. Tripped over different wording and wasted lots of time....
So difficult.
ReplyDeleteAs a diligent candidate who has dedicated substantial time and resources to exam preparation, I find myself deeply disappointed with the EQE Paper C 2025. The exam's design and content have fallen short of my expectations and what I believe to be a fair assessment of a European patent attorney's skills.
ReplyDeleteThe chosen subject matter for this year's Paper C is excessively complex and abstruse. Rather than evaluating practical competencies crucial for day-to-day patent work, the exam delves into esoteric areas that seem far removed from real-world practice. This approach fails to accurately gauge the skills most relevant to our profession.
Furthermore, the time constraints imposed are unreasonably tight, considering the volume and intricacy of the materials provided. This artificial pressure creates an environment that poorly reflects the realities of patent attorney work. In practice, we have the opportunity to research thoroughly and contemplate complex issues with due consideration - a stark contrast to the rushed conditions of this exam.
The combination of an overly complicated topic and severe time limitations not only fails to assess candidates fairly but also induces unnecessary stress. This format seems to prioritize speed over depth of understanding, which I believe is counterproductive to identifying truly competent future patent attorneys.
Agree 100% with this. The subject-matter is trivial gruntwork, and once a full feature table is established, procedure is easy. Mistakes can be made by not having time to check all aspects but there is nothing in it that makes it special. I jumped at the opportunity to argue under a53c although it is a stretch, because a „clear clinical picture“ is not really determined (fever is too vague). Did it nonetheless. Mindlessly bored of the rest, not even the A6 trickery impressed me. Partial problems and occasional presentation of information in claim5(?) was also boring and trivial. But maximally stressed? Yes. Many possible mistakes due lack of time? Yes. Did it demonstrate my knowledge and understanding of law & procedure. Definitely not.
DeleteI completely agree with you. I am very disappointed by this paper. And the EQE in general
DeleteFurthermore I find it extremely unfair to non native speakers of EPO languages. Fast reading is a must for able to pass this, which is not demonstrating any knowledge of law&procedure.
DeleteThe structure of the exam appears to unfairly favor candidates already familiar with the specific subject or those with exceptionally fast reading abilities. This could be seen as a form of positive discrimination...
DeleteI can totally relate. In fact, as a Techniker, the technical field of Paper C is not unfamiliar to me. Even so, I still found myself running out of time. Of course, part of the reason is that I'm taking the exam in a non-native language. If someone comes from a chemistry or biology background, I imagine they would struggle with time even more.
DeleteThis is already my second time taking Paper C. The first time, I also ran out of time because I read through all the documents and made a Merkmalanalyse table. After going through this entire process, I was very confident about which document to use for attacking each claim, but I simply didn't have enough time to write everything down.
This time, in order to save time, I had to rely on intuition to guess which document might be relevant. For example, Annex 4 is an Art. 54(3) EPC document, and "based on past experience," it would most likely destroy the novelty of Claim 1—but it seems that this was not the case this time. Relying on intuition to pick important documents and read them carefully runs the risk of overlooking something and making mistakes. But if I take the time to read all the documents carefully, then there's simply no time left to write the notice of opposition.
My feeling is that the examiners expect us to carefully read all the documents within a limited time while also writing a detailed notice of opposition. But as humans, not AI, I think this is an impossible task. Maybe the examiners are so used to using ChatGPT that they've forgotten that we candidates are actually human, hihi! 😆
It's not just paper C, but also papers A and B have become much more complex and long. In my opinion, only paper D has somewhat stayed the same for the past few years. For papers A, B and C, it feels like the EQE Committee is trying its best to make candidates fail and not actually test the skill set which is really needed in our normal work. I'm sure most of us can draft a proper claim set, write a response according to EPC, and provide suitable attacks for opposition but the current papers do not seem to test those things at all. Rather, you have to be a super fast reader, which immediately understands the topic regardless your academic background, and remembers all the nuances what you have just read, and produce a complete and logical answer within the time limit. This is just not possible for average candidates because we are not ChatGPT. And in the end, we continue do our normal daily work regardless whether we have passed EQE or not. It's just a title which must be bestowed to us if we get lucky in the EQE. Because that's how passing papers A, B and C is all about: LUCK!
DeleteHey Candidate C, what was the prompt you used to have that text generated? Hurm, nicely phrased while disappointingly generic, but understandably not even ChatGPT is so quick to already have digested the contents of this year's exams. Anyway, keep that output, so nicely worded, it would fit any other future paper...
DeleteNow tell me why would I get zero points in attacking claim 4 by starting from A6 and then combining with A5 ?
ReplyDeleteI think you'll get some points if your argument is sound. A6 might even be CPA in the examiner's mind. I think you get points even if you pick an incorrect CPA but have sound argumentation
DeleteI am confused with all the comments where people have used A4 as a basis for a novelty attack against A1. A4 was filed after the effective date of claim 1. I thought that in respect of 54(3) prior art it was the filing and publication dates of a European application that were relevant, so the JP application couldn’t give rise to any 54(3) rights.
ReplyDeleteGL G-IV 3, the date of priority counts as the date of filing for both the European application being examined and conflicting European applications under Art. 54(3)
DeleteThe effective date of A4 is the priority date of the JP application. Thus, the effective date of EP application is earlier than the effective date of claim 1, so the EP application is an Art. 54(3) prior right for claim 1.
DeleteThat would be nice but I think not feasible since I guess with six months they cannot right such complex papers
ReplyDeleteWhy do all the comments so far only have a claim 3a and 3b? There were at least 6 variants of claim 3.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the variants?
DeleteI had separate attacks for claims 3a, 3b, and 3c. Claims 3a and 3b corresponding to the "equal to" and "greater than" for the specific materials mentioned in the description, respectfully. Claim 3c concerned everything else (extending beyond subject matter as filed)
DeleteAll variants are covered by A2 claim2: selection from 2 groups.
DeleteClaim 3 had an optional statement in preferably. It also had an option between two second materials. It also had "equal to OR greater than 0.086". So that's 3 sets of alternatives.
Deletecombined, that gave 6 variants.
The one with the specific materials (can't remember their names) having a difference equal to 0.086 in refractive indeed was disclosed in the spec as filed. The rest weren't.
Greater than or equal to 0.086 is the same at 0.086 to infinite, they are not different variants, it's just another way to describe a range with no upper endpoint
DeleteYou may see it as another way to describe having no upper endpoint, but it still allows the claim to be further split it.
DeleteOne with a difference of exactly 0.086. one with a difference greater than 0.086. normally, this doesn't matter. But in this exam, there were disclosures of refractive indexes being 1.5 and 1.586... an exact difference of 0.086. that was a clear hint that you needed to split up the claim.
Even if you disagree with the 0.086 thing (in spite of the clear hint from A1 that an exact difference of 0.086 was disclosed in the claims as filed), that'd still leave 4 variants.
DeleteSo I'm confused as to why everyone only has 2 variants.
My take on this was that not all polymer groups that when their refractive indices are subtracted yielding 0.086 or greater were disclosed set 123(2) fail.
DeleteThe specific examples of polycarbonate + PMMA or PE was disclosed in selection from 2 groups (something + polycarbonate) and (PMMA and PE) in claim 2 of A2, these having the same refractive indices as claimed in the preferable fallback, so not inventive when combined with A2.
Completely agree with Beary bear -- the A.123(2) is valid because that broader claim is not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents, however it is unlikely to be successful because of the disclosure of A1[27]. This is why the client letter (aka the Examiner...) asked you to think of a fallback position which required I/S attack of the polymers using claim 2 of A2
Delete"equal to or greater than" does not warrant splitting up like an "and/or" claim. Stop CTRL+F "or" and use your brain
DeleteIt can warrant splitting up for exactly the reasons I just explained. There have been older past papers where "equal to OR greater than" needed to be split up in this manner too, so it's not like there isn't precedent.
DeleteYou haven't actually refuted anything I said. Not a very brainy reply!
polycarbonate (PC) layers and polyethylene (PE) layer with an refractive index difference of 0.086 is disclosed in paragraph 27 of A1 as filed. I believe this is why splitting claim is important. greater than is not disclosed. equal to, is disclosed.
DeleteI am not sure that even the difference 0.086 is actually disclosed, because the two refractive indexes were given with different numbers of significant digits (one to the second decimal, one to the third). Even if subtracted, the result of the subtraction should have the lowest precision of the two, so the difference should be reported at the lowest precision as 0.09, I believe?
DeleteI can't double check this since they haven't uploaded the documents, and I "realized" (quotation marks since I might very well have made it up with how stressed I was) this only in the last 5 min, but didn't the claim state that the DIFFERENCE between the first and second polymers was equal to or greater than 0.086?
DeleteI argued that this was 123(2) due to the description only disclosing an embodiment where the first polymer, i.e. polycarbonate, had a HIGHER refractive index than the second one by 0.086. By the phrasing they opened up for embodiments where the opposite were true, i.e. second polymer having a higher index than the first, which was not disclosed.
This also seemed to make the inventive step argumentation easy, since A2 disclosed that "either polymer" was higher than the other by 0.03, which would include an embodiment where the first was higher than second by 0.086. Maybe 0.086 was enough of a difference to be inventive (but I don't think that's relevant since it's not a range? I'm very tired right now so might mess things up), but I had like 20 seconds left at that point so I just went with it.
Thought after the exam: Can claim 2 actually be combined with claim 1 without the proximity sensor? It seems to be necessary to be able to switch between operating modes. If so, how can they expect us to attacks such claims?
ReplyDeleteGreat ! I support ths.
ReplyDeleteNo clear prior art for any claim- had to look too much to fugure, at the end ran out of time so couldnt properly attack or finish.
ReplyDeleteI split up the claim 5, because it mixed up 2 embodiments. the fact that there was colour in the display could not be mixed up with par. 30 in my opinion
ReplyDeleteI don't think this matters. Claim 5 was the present in the application as filed, so it's allowed to mix any embodiment it was.
DeleteNo need to split it up.
Minor point - where the figures messed up on anyone else’s printed docs on the EN version and on the viewable reader (the pane where you type).
ReplyDeleteIt was annoying flicking having to flick between different windows to view pics.
Why on earth doesn’t WiseFlow still not let you have a two panes open and viewable at the same time so you can read the description and view figures at the same time?
Yes, I had the same problem on the EN version with figures messed up in vieable reader. Filing complaint as I speak (even though I think I managed a passing grade).
DeleteI also experienced a glitch numerous times. Whenever an invigilator "left" inspection, it would automatically remove my text cursor from the writing area. So, I had to use the mouse, click into the writing area again, only then could I continue writing.
First time experiencing this, and I have taken EQE Paper A-B, D before, never had the same problem. Also filing complaint about this
I hade the same problem. I wrote probably a whole sentence (I look down ;-) before I realized that the cursor was missing, that happened several times. Can you add the link to complaint?
DeleteNot a link, you must e-mail.
DeleteInstructions to candidates: “11. If a candidate wants to file a complaint concerning the conduct of the pre-examination or the main examination, they must do so as soon as possible (at the latest by the end of the day on which the examination was taken) by emailing it together with a written statement of the facts to the Examination Secretariat (helpdesk@eqe.org).”
Complaint form is on EQE Website, tab “EQE Online”.
DeleteIt says:
Complaint concerning the conduct of the examination
Candidates wishing to lodge a complaint pursuant to Rule 19 IPREE (see decision of the Supervisory Board) must do so on the day of the examination paper in question, by filling in the dedicated form:
Form for paper C (available on 20.03.2025, 9:30- 23:59, CET):
https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURNkmJkEpg0dKjz2LkZIu9UhUREdPTjBQS1M2T0ZaTjVXRFdWN1MzQlJSOS4u&route=shorturl
The referred decision is:
https://link.epo.org/elearning/Notice_SB_R19_EN
@Anonymous: you seen to use an old version of the Code of Conduct …
DeleteThe current version is:
https://link.epo.org/elearning/EQE_2025_Instructions_EN
Which in item I.8 provides that you need to use the dedicated form in the EPO website.
You CANNOT file a complaint by e-mail!
I had the same problem with figures in the viewing pane that you have next to the answer sheet. Particularly for the very detailed claim 1, I thought this was problematic
DeleteThe current setup of the EQE is deeply flawed and unfair. The structure seems unnecessarily complicated, with many aspects of the exam not reflecting the actual skills needed in practice. It's hard to ignore the feeling that the people who designed the exam may not have fully considered the real-world challenges faced by patent professionals, or perhaps they're more interested in creating barriers than fostering true competence in the field. Additionally, it seems that the individuals responsible for setting up the exams might be intellectually challenged in understanding what makes a fair and effective evaluation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you wholeheartedly. It makes me want to give up and just change another career path. Our professional skills should not be measured by how fast we can read and process large amount of information, and type an answer within certain time limit.
DeleteIt makes me wonder if the new e-EQE will be more candidate-friendly since M3 should replace all A, B and C papers, and M3's duration is "only" 7,5 hours.
Anyway, did anyone notice that there were not so many definitions in this paper, I tried to use the ctrl:C function to find equivalent terms but I couldn't, it is just me?
ReplyDeletei agree. Wasted quite some time on it. But in the end i didnt even search for it but just argued that it must be the same, because bla bla bla
DeleteSame here!
DeleteThat's also what I did i the end, but I found it quite strange and also made it more difficult to find the right prior art for the attacks
DeleteYes, which was a surprise. Hence another waste of time.
DeleteYes, no definitions and no incentive for combining documents - for me these are 2 major differences compared to previous years
Deletegood idea， I totally agree!
ReplyDeleteWhy does Claim 4 relate to Art. 53(c) EPC (diagnostic methods)? The classification of temperature measurements into three ranges only concerns alarms for medical examination. Whether someone is actually ill can only be determined after a medical examination (i.e., a diagnosis made by a doctor). This means that Claim 4 relates to alarms (which are a patentable subject-matter) and not to diagnoses.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the Guidelines and the four criteria given, you can build an argument that claim 4 comprises those four arguments. I suspect this is not the answer, but it's really not far fetched to build an argumentation linéaire.
DeleteI also argued, based on the guidelines, that cl4 is excluded under Art. 53(c). Additionally, I performed an inventive step attack. But I am not sure if the examiners will simply omit the i.S attack because I presented two different attacks.
DeleteThe step “assigning the measured temperature value to one of three distinct temperature ranges, wherein the first temperature range corresponds to […], the third temperature range corresponds to an alarming body condition requiring medical attention and […] …” seems relevant for an Art.53(c) reasoning.
DeleteAlso see GL (2024) G-II, 4.2.1.3 and its reference to T 125/02 (https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2024/g_ii_4_2_1_3.html):
“ The deductive medical or veterinary decision phase (iv), i.e. the "diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu", is the determination of the nature of a medical or veterinary medicinal condition intended to identify or uncover a pathology; the identification of the underlying disease is not required (see T 125/02).”
While I think it would be nice if there was a retake a few months later to reduce the burden of re-preparing the methodology, I think it would put undue burden on EPO as preparation of these exams is already extremely time consuming and complex (hence also constantly occurring mistakes or some bits with various non intended interpretations). I think the same effect of fairness could be achieved by adjusting the amount of material vs time. I honestly don't care if I need to sit 6, 8 or 10h without an official break, as long as I have the time to properly consider the questions asked, analyse the situation and write down the answer hence showing my understanding rather than stress handling, quick reading and go-lucky searching ability. If anything doing an 8h exam might be more comparable to real work where one can take food and breaks as they wish while trying to do the client task by the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteDeltaPatents’ answer is in dedicated blog post:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-c.blogspot.com/2025/03/our-attempt-paper-c-2025-ir-thermometer.html
Hi everyone, I have started a PETITION to urge the EPO to offer the EQE twice a year, thereby minimizing the negative psychological impact on our mental health when we fail one part of the exam (and thereby the whole exam! hence forced to wait one complete year to retake - as if lifetime is endless).
ReplyDeletePlease I urge you to sign the reasonable (vernünftig, raisonnable) petition and to share it with colleagues, friends, trainees, and whoever you think can accelerate taking a decision by the EPO.
Thank you DeltaPatents for allowing us to share our concerns about the exam. While many companies in this domain are very much profit and business focused, you are humain and quality focused. Thanks from the heart.
Petition:
https://chng.it/V29hwhJQ8n