Friday, February 05, 2021 Mock 2's Paper C (2 Feb 2021)

"To allow candidates to test the system also close to the real examination conditions, a second mock (Mock 2) is planned for the week of 1 to 5 February 2021. The examination papers will take place during that week at the same week days and times as the real examination, see here." (see e-EQE webpage)

Today, 5 February 2021, Paper C of Mock 2 was organized, using the Wiseflow platform which will be used for the e-EQE 2021 in the week of 1-5 March 2021.

Paper C was split into two parts. The first part was to be completed before the break, the second part only became available after the break. It was not possible to go back to the first part after the break. (see also our previous post).

According to the FAQ:

• The first part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the first part of the exam.
• The second part of the notice of opposition must be handed in at the end of the second part of the exam.
• The second part of the notice of opposition will form, together with the first part you already provided, the complete notice of opposition which will be marked. 
• If an attack which is available in the first part of the paper is discussed only during the second part of the exam, no marks will be awarded to that attack.
  
  
• You will be able to print your answer to the first part of paper C during the break between the two parts. To do this, you will have to go to the "information on flows" page (see point 6.5 in the user guide) and download your answer before printing it.

Paper

Mock 2's C paper was based on C 2017 (original paper here; original examiner's report here), adapted to the 2-part form of the C in e-EQE by providing only part of the claims of Annex 1 in part 1 (claims 5-7) and the rest in part 2 (claims 1-4), and by indicating that today is 8 March 2017.

This printable parts of the Mock 2 C paper comprises:

• Letter from opponent - mock/C/EN/1-2:
• We would like you to file an opposition on behalf of Tirez Cie against European Patent EP 2 394 232 B1 (Annex 1) granted to Zieher GmbH
• Annex 1 claims priority from two EP applications, namely EP 10223223 and EP 11117055.
• EP 10223223 consisted of claims 1-4, paragraphs [0001] to [0014] and the figures of Annex 1 as originally filed. The subject-matter of claims 5-7 of Annex 1 is identical to claims 12-14 of EP 11117055 and the content of paragraphs [0015] to [0018] of Annex 1 can be found in EP 11117055. However, no fees were paid and these previous applications are deemed withdrawn.
• Claim 3 in Annex 1 as originally filed only depended on claim 1. During examination, the dependency was changed. No other amendments were carried out.

• Annex 1 (without claims) - mock/C/EN/3-7
• EP 2 394 232 B1 – Device for removing corks
• Date of publication and mention of the grant of the patent: 15 June 2016 (Bulletin 2016/24)
• The present invention relates to devices for removing corks and cork extraction elements.
• Claims only available online
• Annex 2 - mock/C/EN/10-13
• IT TO20021082 A1 – Pneumatic bottle opener
• Annex 3 - mock/C/EN/14-17
• FR 2 625 455 – Champagne bottle opener
• Annex 4 - mock/C/EN/18
• Wine Review, May 2011 – Wine Fair in Oporto
• “A particularly popular section of the fair was the corkscrew section.”
• Annex 5 - mock/C/EN/19-22
• EP 0 503 334 A1 – Bottle opener
• Annex 6 - mock/C/EN/23-26
• EP 2 088 778 A1 – Corkscrew

In the first part of Mock 2's paper C, only claims 5, 6 and 7 of Annex 1 were given.
These claims were directed to a cork extraction element (1 independent claim and 2 dependent claims).

I could download my answer to part 1 immediately after I handed it in.

In the second part, also claims 1 - 4 of Annex 1 were given. 

These claims were directed to a device for removing corks (1 independent claim and 3 dependent claims; compared to the claims as originally filed, claim 3 was amended during examination by including "or 2" in its dependency).

Please share your experiences with the platform, as well as any comments to the paper. Particularly, 

• What was your experience doing the paper online in general, e.g. typing your answer rather than writing it by hand?
• How did you manage keeping a clear overview of the various pieces of information (client's letter, A1, the other Annexes A2-A6)?
• 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?
• Could you download/print your answer to the first part during the lunch break? Did you use it during the second part? How?
• Would your complete notice (answer to apart 1 and 2 together) gave been different if you would have done the paper in one session, without a break? E.g., because you could amend your answer to the first part (amend your attacks, add additional attacks) while working on the second part?

We allow you to post your comments anonymously, but it is recommended and appreciated if you identify yourself using your true name or a nick name - that makes communication much more pleasant and efficient than talking to "Anonymous 19 January 2021 22:23" and alike. 

Please refer to the "Problems with commenting" link on the top right of this blog page if you have problems with commenting (which may occur due to security settings, cookies, etc, esp when using Captcha with anonymous posts).

Thursday, March 09, 2017 Paper C 2017 Corkscrew

Here our fast attempt to C 2017 (paper here in EN and FR):

Claim 3(2): Added Subject-matter, Art.100(c), Art.123(2), metal necessary [0014]

Effective dates:
Cl. 1, 2, 3(1),4: P1 = 08.04.2010
Cl. 5-7: P2 = 28.03.2011

List of Evidence:
A2, A3, A5, A6: Art.54(2) all claims
A4 (the fair, not the document): Art.54(2) for claims 5-7

Other attacks
Claim 1: inv. step A6+A2, cork more stable, alternative solution (no spring)
(NA5 doesn't work. ridges not helical, not cork engaging, pitch undefined)

Claim 2: I've changed this based on the discussion below.
First option: inv. step A5 + A6 + A2
Alternative: inv. step A6+A2+A5, less force/effort for cork removal
(A3 misses the effect)
Probably only one option required. Probably 1st option is preferred.

Claim 3(1): inv. step A6+A2, A6 is already PET

Claim 4: inv. step A6+A2+A3, clover shape or 3/4 lobs from A3, better grip
(T641/00 doesn't work, technical effect present)

Claim 5: Nov A4 (A2 as evidence for reduced friction)
(NA2 doesn't work, no disc, no straight portion or no spiral portion)
(NA5 doesn't work, no coating on the spiral portion)

Claim 6: inv. step A4+A2, particularly good material for reducing friction, alternative for PFC
(A5+A2 may be possible, easier insertion, weaker, A5 not CPA)
(A4+A5 does not work, A5 misses the effect)

Claim 7: inv. step A4+A2, 'lower half', 'smoother insertion' (A2 [0005]), 'expensive' (A2 [0006]), compromise between low cost and low friction
(A5+A2 may be possible, easier insertion, weaker, A5 not CPA)

Looking forward to your comments, 

Joeri Beetz, Jelle Hoekstra

(c) DeltaPatents 2017

Thursday, March 09, 2017 C 2017: 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?

Was the number of claims as expected, or more, or less? And the number of prior art documents?
Were the various attack types well balanced - novelty, inventive step, added subject-matter, ...?
Was the described technology well understandable? For electronics/electricity attorneys, mechanics attorneys, chemists, biotech attorneys, ...?

How many marks do you expect to have scored?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the 2013 - 2016 papers (assuming your practiced those)

The paper and our answers

Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, in all three languages here (English, French and German).

The core of our answers will be given as soon as possible in a separate blog post.

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 03-03-2015 03:03"), 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!