Friday, March 05, 2021 Paper C 2021 - First solution

We're still working on double checking the solution to Paper C 2021, but we didn't want to delay posting a solution any longer.  

My first impression was that the first half was a bit more work than the second half. The claims related to some fairly complex mechanical structures, so in the first half you spent quite some time getting a grip on things. The second half had more tricky features though, although perhaps a bit less work.  

A funny detail is that some of the dramatis personae of Paper C 2015 returned in this paper. In 2015 Mr. Eilasie Kacez of Sabela Sports Industries asked the attorney Ms Molly Dorsett Pauley to file an opposition against Winterwute Corp. Now in 2021, Eilasie Kaceth (the same person?) switched jobs, but again asks Ms Molly Dorsett Pauley to file an opposition against Winterwute Corp.

We found the following attacks against the claims in the first part

Claim 1: Not novel against A3

Claim 2: Not inventive against A3 + A4 + A6

Claim 3:  Not novel against A3

 

For the claims in the second part

Claim 4: Not novel against A5

Claim 5: Not inventive against A4 + A5

Claim 6 +1 : added subject matter, no disclosure for spacers and 35% of RZCH

Claim 6+5 + range 17-23 has partial priority from P2. Is not inventive against A4+A5

Claim 6+5 + range 23-35 has the filing date. Is not inventive against A2+A6

Thursday, August 15, 2019 Rule 25(3) IPREE amended

A Decision of the Supervisory Board amending Rule 25 of the Implementing provisions to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives has been published in the Official Journal - OJ 2019, A66.

The decision amends Rule 25(3) IPREE with immediate effect.

Earlier Rule 25(3) read:
"(3) Candidates are expected to put themselves in the position of the representative and, using only the information provided by the client, prepare a notice of opposition which when typed would be ready for filing. The pre-printed opposition form provided may be used, but it is not obligatory and marks will not be lost if it is not used."

Amended Rule 25(3) IPREE reads:

"(3) Candidates are expected to put themselves in the position of the representative and, using only the information provided by the client, prepare a notice of opposition which when typed would be ready for filing."

I.e., the text “The pre-printed opposition form provided may be used, but it is not obligatory and marks will not be lost if it is not used.” has been deleted from the Rule.

No further information is available yet as to the reasons for this change and the effects, e.g., as to whether the pre-printed opposition form will still be handed out as part of the C paper, whether it will be allowed to bring (and hand-in) a copy yourself to the exam (probably not in view of Art. 6 and 9(d) from the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination), or whether it is still necessary to provide all the infornation usually provided by candidates on the form to get an admissible opposition (esp. the information referred to in Art. 99(1), Rule 76(2)(c) and Rule 77(1) EPC) and a signature.

(15.08.2019)

Update 30.09.2019:
The following Notice from the Examination Board of the European qualifying examination (EQE) was published om the EQE website today:

Thursday, March 03, 2016 C 2016: 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, 2014 and 2015 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!

Jelle, Sander, Nico, Joeri, Gregory