C 2026: first impressions?
To all who sat the C-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to the very final C-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
For example, was the workload
balanced between part 1 and part 2? Was the paper easier than in recent years,
or harder, or at a comparable level? Did you experience a lot of time pressure?
Did any unexpected topics come up?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of
the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper C is only
available on 12.03.2026, 16:15 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post our provisional answer in a separate blog post as soon as
possible after we have a copy of the paper, preferably in all three languages.
Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, 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 view/download
button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer
shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the
official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear.
Apart from any pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded.
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English.
In order to make responding to your
comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use
either your real name or a nickname. 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, and post responses to our
answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
We look forward to hearing from you!
part 1 was okay, a lot to think about in part 2... was not expecting 5 claims to analyse in part 2 plus the preferably
ReplyDeleteI feel that. Everything seemed to fall into place with part 1 fairly alright, but part 2 was much more of a scramble to write at least something for each potential attack!
DeleteMy solution:
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: A2+A4
Claim 2: A3
Claim 3: A3+A4+A5 (partial problems)
Claim 4: A6+A5
Claim 5: A4 (only non-technical differences: presentation of information)
Claim 6: A4 (same as claim 5)
Claim 7: A7, +A3 for 20%
Claim 8: 123(2)
No priority: claims 2, 3, 6, 7
A2 was evidence of public prior use before priority date
A7 was also evidence of disclosure before priority date
Part 1 was very doable, part 2 much more challenging, I thought.
I found the definition of "application program" and "smart device" lacking.
I got the exam same attacks! Hopefully that's a good sign!
Deleteexact*
DeleteSame as me - fantastic
DeleteSame but split claim 8 into claim 8a (same as claim 7) and 8b added matter
DeleteI first had lack of novelty over A3 for claim 7, but that left a lot to be implied, and meant I would not use A7 at all. So then I rather last-minute figured that the robot vacuum cleaner was probably not to be considered a 'smart' device with an implied smart controller, and that while the vacuum cleaner is a device for purifying air, it might not be considered an air purifier.
DeleteI was also tempted to include A6 in the analysis of claims 5 and 6, but did not have enough time to work that out, and the mapping seemed less clean than that for A4 (there was no step of actually purifying the air anywhere in claims 5 or 6)
Almost the same :-)
DeleteSame attacks!
DeleteI did the exactly the same plus I adeded an inventive step attack only for the preferable embodiment o A7 based on A7 and the 18% of A3
DeleteI had exactly the same but also a novelty attach on claim 1. Isn't A3 A. 54(3) prior art?
DeleteExamples of "smart device" were outline in A1 [22] including a smartphone.
DeleteFor claim 6 i shed to A6 as the A4 didn't have a mobile purifier
DeleteAn 16:24 why 8b addes subject matter? there was disclosure for additional second threshold in description
DeleteA3 was a US application so cannot be 54(3)
DeleteAnon 16:37
DeleteNo, A3 was a US publication, and only EP-publications can be 54(3). It claimed priority from an IT application, which could give rise to a national prior right, but there was no evidence of the IT priority document ever being published.
Anon 16:40[1]
Ah, thanks. I must have overlooked that.
Anon 16:40[2]
Claim 6 does not define a mobile air purifier, though? Only a 'device', which could be read on the robot pet from A4
I am confused now, was A2 a prior art for Claim 1? I thought not.
DeleteI did the same, except that I said that R4 was not inventive over A6. Putting the sensors of the detection units that are in the different rooms into the mobile unit of A6 would obtain the method of R4. Well, a minor difference.
DeleteMy solution is -
ReplyDeleteClaim 1: IS - A2 (SPC device) + A4
Claim 2: Novelty - A3, and I also did an IS (A2 + A4 + A5)
Claim 3: IS - A3 + A4 + A5
Claim 4: IS - A6 + A5
Claim 5: IS - A4 + COMVIK
Claim 6: IS - A4 + COMVIK
Claim 7: Novelty - A7. (And a quick IS - A3 + A2)
Claim 8: Added matter
All claims lacked novelty over A2 right?
ReplyDeleteHa
Delete1) A2+A4 IS
ReplyDelete2) A3 Nov
3) A3+A4+A5 partial problems
4) A6+A5 IS
5)A4 IS COMVIK
6)A4 IS COMVIK
7) A7 Nov
7pref) A7+A3 IS
8) 123(2)
I also made an attack for Claim 8 on 123 but the i found the sbj matter evidence in Annex 1
Deletethe claim had an "or" in it, whereas the second threshold and dust concentration were only ever defined as being linked to the battery level threshold.
DeleteBut EPO's EQE compendium page 2026 was already available before exam? Possible that papers were accidentally made available before exam?
ReplyDeleteyou couldn't actually download the papers, there was no link attached. They just put it up without a link
DeleteI checked - they werent
DeleteMy assessment was that C1 and C2 were entitled priority. They were part of the priority document. none of A2-A5 was by the same applicant and A2 was published after the priority date. Where is my mistake? thanks
ReplyDeleteClaim 2 was not part of the priority document. The driver unit claimed in claim 2 was also not disclosed in the priority document, so no valid priority
Deletealso, why not a lack of novelty for C1 based on A3?
ReplyDeleteUS application published after cannot be 54(3)
Deleteouch, I knew that very well. I think that after establishing that A2 and A3 were not prior art for C1 and C2 (and I also explained why), I lost attention and used A3 for novelty attacks..
DeleteWhy people say that C2 was not entitled the priority?
I found all the characteristics in the priority doc and C1 C2 were part of the priority application. In this case also C2 shall not be opposed on the base of A3..?
C2 not in priority doc directly. Priority doc only has rotating means for displacement. Fig 1 doesn't clearly an unambiguously disclose wheels. In any case driving unit certainly not in priority doc (it's in [12] and priority doc only had [1]-[11])
DeleteF.... it I missed A123(2) for 8b
ReplyDeleteDates :
ReplyDeleteClaim 1 : priority
Claims 2-3 : filing
Claim 4-5 : priority
Claim 6-8 : filing
Documents:
A2 : A54(2) prior use for claims 1-8
A3 : A54(2) for claims 2-3 and 6-8
A4-A6 : A54(2) for claims 1-8
A7 : internet disclosure A54(2) for claims 1-8
Attacks:
Claim 1 : IS / A2+A4
Claim 2 : N / A3
Claim 3 : IS / A3+A4+A5 (partial problems)
Claim 4 : IS / A3+A5 (+A4 for common knowledge)
Claims 5-6 : IS / A4 (Comvik)
Claim 7 : N / A7, and IS / A7+A3 for 20%
Claim 8 : N / A7 for 1st alternative, and A123(2) for 2nd alternative.
Was A3 prior art for Claim 4? I thought it wasn't
Delete*Claim 4 : IS / A6+A5
DeleteWhy is Claim 1 being attacked under Inventive step in most of the attacks above, when claim 2 which depends on claim 1 (i.e. includes all the features of claim 1) is being attacked under Novelty?
ReplyDeleteA3 is not A54(2) for claim 1, but is for claim 2.
DeleteClaim 1 is entitled to priority, claim 2 isn't. This means A3 is prior art for claim 2 but not for 1.
Deletedid anyone have problems with printing part 2?
ReplyDeleteI did. It stopped at annex 6, and then I nedded to print everything again with my backup printer
DeleteI did two attacks for claim 1. One wrong attack based on A3 (missed that it is a US application and one on A2 + A4). Do you know how this is typically corrected? Do they consider only the worse attack? Or can I get points from the other?
ReplyDeleteYou just have lost time writing the useless 54(3) attack, but they don't substract points to your correct attack.
DeleteFor claims 2 and 3 - Why consider A3 as CPA if the field of it is different ? A vacuum cleaner may ‘clean’ air (I.e. remove dust particles) but doesn’t ‘filter’ the air (I.e. remove bacteria/virus).
ReplyDeleteA2 was in the same field and there was no strong teaching against adding the features from A4 or A5 to it.
I spent a while thinking about this and my take was that whilst A2 was moveable, this was done manually and it still needed to be plugged in. I did think the vacuum of A3 was only loosely the same field though.
DeleteIn A1 any device that removes dust from air is an air purifier. A3 removes particles from air drawn in from inlet
DeleteThe level of difficulty is insane, just like the last 2-3 years. All this paper is testing is your ability to read really fast and, to a certain extent, your luck in which attacks you try
ReplyDeleteHi, I overlooked that A2 indicates the product had already been marketed in the previous spring. Therefore, I proceeded on the basis of A4 + A5. In my view, that approach is not incorrect, but it is probably not the best solution. How would this be assessed?
ReplyDeleteSame here!
DeleteIsn’t claim 1 not novel against A4? 🤔
ReplyDeleteI mean because the robot and fixed air purifiers are one embodiment and work interdependently, see A4[2].
DeleteHum... I did A6+A4 for C4.. anyone else?
ReplyDeletei did A4 and A6 since A6 disclosed the step of generating the map, but i think i was wrong
DeleteAnonymous
ReplyDelete12 March 2026 at 18:34
in claim 5, why the feature"causing a screen of a user interface to display the generated virtual map" could not be considered as a technical features since the effect is "for user convenience" (A1, §21)?