Friday, March 17, 2023 Our attempt at e-EQE Paper C 2023 - Road racing pedal

Here's our attempt at this year's paper C. This year's paper concerned pedals for bicycles comprising sensors to help cyclist to optimize their pedaling. 

A good chunk of the paper was quite mechanical requiting candidates to argue about the components of chain drives, but on the other hand a quite complicated ranges puzzles was also presented. The first part was clearly more work than the second part. 

You can find our solution by clicking on "Read more" below.

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 15-03-2023 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname 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.

Joeri, Jelle, Nico, Sander

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, 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!

Wednesday, July 13, 2016 Comparing the committee's solution to our solution

It seems that our solution is matching the committee's solution with only the following issue.

The committee expected for claim 1 a novelty attack based on A2 and an Inventive step attack based on A3+ A4. The inventive step attack is continued for dependent claim 3 (I.S. A3+A4+A6).
We showed the same novelty attack on claim 1 and the same inventive step attack but only for dependent claim 3.

In the Examiner's report it was stated for claim 1: "An inventive step argument was also expected based on Annex 3, because in this case it is a good ground of opposition".

A situation like this where the novelty attack cannot be continued for a dependent claim and an inventive step attack is required starting from other prior art is pretty normal in the C exam.

In the move of the committee to having less attacks but more thoroughly argued ones, it had become normal since 2008 not to do the inventive step attack on the independent claim if that claim could reasonably be attacked under novelty. Candidates who already did the inventive step attack on the independent claim were only awarded marks for the attack on the dependent claims.

At this moment it is not really clear if this approach has been broken and if/how many marks candidates lost who only did the inventive step attack on claim 3(1). Hopefully the committe will clarify matters at the tutor meeting.

Here follows a quick analysis I made of the papers since 2008 for similar situations and remarks made by the committee in those years.

• C 2008
  Cl.1 Nov A5, I.S. A4+A2
  Cl.2(1) I. S.. A4+A2
  “The same number of marks was awarded for raising the inventive step attack regardless whether claims 1 and 2 were attacked independently or together”. 
• C 2009
  Cl.3 (indep): Nov A5, Nov A6
  Cl.5(3) I.S. A3+A5+ common general knowledge
  “An inventive step attack starting from Annex 3 as closest prior art in combination with Annex 5 was not necessary for claim 3 per se. Corresponding marks were awarded for attacks on claim 5”. 
• C 2010
  Cl.1 Nov A4, I.S. A5+A2
  Cl.2(1) I.S. A5 + A2
  “It was expected to provide an inventive step attack using Annex 5, as closest prior art, in combination with Annex 2. If the inventive step attack on claim 1 was not provided, marks were awarded if a corresponding attack on claim 2 was made, giving appropriate arguments”. “Claim 2 has two distinguishing features over Annex 5. These can either be dealt with explicitly under claim 2 or a reference to the first difference can be made in respect to claim 1 and the additional feature (latex) being dealt with fully”. 
• C 2012
  Cl.1 Nov.A3, Nov.A5
  Cl.2(1) I.S. A2 + A6
  Cl.3(1) I.S. A4+A5; I.S. A4 + A6
  No remarks given by the committee 
• C 2013
  Cl. 1 Nov A5
  Cl.2(1) I.S. A3 + A2
  No remarks given by the committee 
• C 2014
  Cl.1 Nov.A6, Nov.A4
  Cl.3(1) I.S. A3+A5; I.S. A3 + A6
  “Claim 1 Novelty attacks were expected based on Annexes 4 and 6.
  This year, a novelty attack based on Annex 4 was not straightforward based on the French text, since Annex 4 uses different terminology in relation to the resilient foam … (translation error). In view of this, in the absence of a novelty attack on claim 1, this year, an inventive step attack could be made using Annex 3 combined with Annex 5.” 
• C 2015
  Cl.1 Nov.A2, Nov.A5, Nov.A6
  Cl.2(1) I.S. A3 + A4
  “Claim 1: An additional argumentation as to lack of inventive step of claim 1 was not expected” 

Monday, March 07, 2016 Closest prior art for Claim 3 in paper C 2016

There has been some discussion around what should be the closest prior art for Claim 3 in paper C of EQE 2016. We received attacks on Claim 3 starting from A3, A5, and A6. In this post we'll review the arguments for selecting the closest prior art in Claim 3.

Friday, March 04, 2016 Paper C 2016 - Reusable cooling device

Paper C of the EQE of 2016 provides us with an excursion into cooling devices for horses. My first impression is that this paper should be doable in the time provided. Although the number of annexes is a bit large (7), one of them quickly disappears when making the paper and another is 54(3) for most of the claims.

Below is an indication of our solution. Note that in a full solution more details need to be given.

Friday, July 17, 2015 Examiner report EQE Paper C 2015 available

The Examiner report for Paper C of the 2015 EQE is available on the EPO website. The official answer seems to correspond with our preliminary answer given just after the Exam.


Based on the report it is not entirely clear how much marks were available for the novelty attack on Claim 1 based on the oral disclosure related to A2. The possible solution includes this novelty attack. However the introduction gives the impression that only two novelty attacks were required, but that 'marks were available'. We may hear more at the annual meeting of EQE tutors and the EQE committee.

Friday, February 20, 2015 Strict rules of conduct for the exam

We have now received a clear confirmation of the policy during the exam regarding electronic devices from the EQE secretariat:

Electronic devices are strictly forbidden in the examination hall, no matter if they are turned off or not.

Any candidate found with such a device in the hall is clearly breaching the regulations, and he/she might face disqualification from the exam.

The only electronic devices which may be allowed in the examination hall are medical devices that candidates need for health reasons.

We recommend that candidates leave their mobile phone at their hotels if they are travelling.

There are no cloakrooms at the examination centre, however we will provide envelopes (you will have to write your name on it) where the device can be placed and it will be put in a box.

The box will be outside of the examination hall. Neither the Examination centres nor the Examination Secretariat  will take any responsibility for loss or damage to the items stored in this box.

This is probably not the solution that you wanted, but this is becoming common practice for exams. A simple watch with an analogue dial is the only thing you can have with you.

So either leave them all at home, or in the hotel, or car, or in train station locker.

And finally: we wish all candidates good luck!!!

Tuesday, April 06, 2010 Ranges and purposive selection

Amongst candidates for the EQE C paper of 2010 a lot of discusion is going on about how to attack the ranges in claims 4 and 5. Is it possible to do a novelty attack or do we need inventive step (workshop modification, equivalent alternative or maybe a second document). Today I will give you some advice about how to deal with ranges in the exam (in your daily patent work, you should do the same).

The situation in the exam was as follows:
- Claim 4: 1 mm - 3 mm
- Claim 5(4): less than 1.8 mm (thus 1 mm - 1.8 mm)
- A3: 0.1 mm - 20 mm, 0.5 mm - 2.5 mm and 1.5 mm - 2 mm
- A4: 0.1 mm - 20 mm
- A6: 0.1 mm - 4 mm, 0.9 mm - 4 mm and 0.1 (and/or 0.9) mm - 2 mm

The relevant part of the Guidelines is GL C-IV 9.8 (ii) which gives three criteria for considering a sub-range selected from a broader numerical range to be novel.

Monday, March 29, 2010 EQE 2010: claim 1, 54(2)

With the new DeltaPatents website online we can start working at the content again. As promised, I will say something about the 54(2) attack on claim 1 of last month's EQE exam.

A 54(2) attack may either use novelty or inventive step. Before selecting a closest prior art or novelty destroying embodiment we first determine the claimed object, i.e. a liquid dispenser with a gaseous propellant. Then we try to find this object in the available 54(2) documents (A2, A3, A5). A2 is about a gas dispenser (first line of [0001]), A3 uses an aluminium bottle (first line of [0001]) and in A5 the trapping material is not coated on the wall ([0005] in combination with item 56 in the figure). It is clear that we cannot do a novelty attack and have to select a closest prior art.

Monday, March 22, 2010 EQE C 2010: claim 1, 54(3)

Claim 1 claims a liquid dispenser with a gaseous propellant. For finding all required attacks on this claim we first have to find out what documents we are allowed to use. After determining the effective date of claim 1 (filing date LU1) and looking at the relevant dates of the Annexes, we know that there are two 54(3) documents, A4 and A6, and three 54(2) documents.

First we try to find all 54(3) attacks by looking for claim features not disclosed in A4 or A6. For A6 the situation is pretty clear. A6 only discloses a valve and not a dispenser. We can (for now) disregard this document.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 EQE 2010 - First impressions

The work is done. Now we only have to wait a few months for the results. Of course, also the DeltaPatents tutors have tried to come up with a complete and correct solution to this year's C paper. Starting from today we will, on a regular basis (twice a week) give some of our thoughts and opinions about some important aspects of this exam.

You are free to discuss our opinions in the comments or to contact us with specific viewpoints or questions via e-mail.

Today my first impressions of the C paper of 2010:

• Claims 1 to 3 can be attacked in a relatively straightforward manner. The 54(3) attack on claim 1 may be easy to miss, but the inventive step attacks follow normal problem-solution patterns. It is however important that you know how to deal with partial problem situations
  
• Claims 4 to 6 are more tricky. The exam committee played a lot with effective dates and prior rights. However, when you use a structured approach for determining effective dates and the usability of annexes, finding the right attacks is certainly possible.
  
• Another important issue for claims 4 and 5 is the use of ranges. Different prior art documents describe different ranges. Many prior art ranges are, at least partially, overlapping the claimed ranges. It may be difficult to decide how to attack the ranges in the claims. Novelty? Inventive step?

Monday, February 22, 2010 The front page of Annex 1

The front page may reveal interesting information:

• the proprietor: is there another annex of the same proprietor, be extra alert for 'first application' issues
• priority country: WTO state and Annex 1 is a Euro-PCT, check the transitional provisions
• priority claimed from a US continuation: invalid, it can never be the first application;
  from a US continuation in part - only valid for the later added matter
• warning that claims have been added after filing (it must thus be under EPC2000): all claims must be examined also for added subject-matter
• a B1 publication: if the client indicates that a central limitation has taken place (and what) be aware that you must attack the limited claims and not the claims of the B1 publication

Monday, February 22, 2010 EQE 2010 - possible topic

The last couple of years added subject-matter has not been tested in a complex situation; the issue of disclaimers has also not been in the C exam following G1/03 and G2/03. Combining those two can lead to interesting issues in the exam. For example, the client may be upset that the proprietor introduced a disclaimer during examination. Your first assessment of Annex 1 may reveal that the disclaimere was introduced to restore novelty over an Art.54(3) prior right (e.g. Annex 3). So, it looks like this is an allowable disclaimer. Later you may discover that a normal Art.54(2) disclosure, e.g. Annex 4, which is not an accidental disclosure, already discloses the disclaimed subject-matter. The disclaimer is thus not allowable and vioates Art.100(c) (in view of Art.123(2)).

Any other interesting topics?