Thursday, July 02, 2015 Results Main Exam EQE 2015 now available!

Today, 2 July 2015, the results from the EQE Main Exam 2015 were made available on the EQE webpages (pdf), as a list showing the marks per EQE regnr. The pdf-file also indicates that the official results letters will be dispatched as of 14 July onwards, and that only the results as notified in the official results letter are legally binding.

Pass rates for each of the papers papers and score distributions are presented in our general EQE blog: http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.nl/

Friday, February 27, 2015 EQE Paper C 2015 - Carving out a solution

After the ski of paper B we get snowboards with paper C (English, French, German). Candidates faced claims with different dates, admissibility problems, added subject matter, multiple novelty attacks and the usual agonizing over the closest prior art.

Claim 1

This claim is a very broad, and gives little information on the relationship between the various elements. This should be used to do no less than three novelty attacks: a novelty attack on 54(3) document A6, a novelty attack based on A5 and a novelty attack based on the trade show Ski, Hop and Jump as evidenced by A2.

The novelty attack based on A2 is quite weak, as we hardly have evidence for the disclosure. The answer should make this clear, by presenting what little evidence we have now and offering to present additional evidence.

Claim 2

The novelty attacks of Claim 1 do not extend to Claim 2. Note, that the snow board of A2 is not unidirectional.

This leaves us with inventive step attacks. There are two potential closest prior arts: A2 and A3.

Starting from A3 would lead to a conventional inventive step attack with A4 as combining document.

Starting from A2 we have a number of problems. In theory we could finish this attack starting from A2 and combining with common general knowledge to change to board from freestyle to unidirectional. However, there are several drawbacks for this approach. First of all, evidentiary A2 is a weak document. Second, changing from freestyle to unidirectional may be quite a change. As the core determines the shape of the board, the entire board has to be thrown away and one has to start again from scratch.

Between these two options, the attack A3+A4 seems stronger, so we opt for this one.

Claim 3

There are no novelty attacks. Candidates for closest prior art are A2 (which for this claim is much stronger, as Claim 3 has a later effective date), and A3. Both documents miss the matrix, but A3 misses much more. Moreover, with A3 we have the problem of starting with the wrong type of snow board (unidirectional instead of freestyle). The attack based on A2 + A6 seems to work fine.

Claim 4

This is an 'or' claim because it refers back to two different claims: claims 2 and 3. These two variants should be attacked separately. Claim 4(3) was added during prosecution but does not have support. It can be attacked under A. 100(c). Claim 4(2) refers back to Claim 2 for which we already have an inventive step attack. Fortunately, the new feature of Claim 4 is part of the closest prior art, so the attack for claim 2 can be extended to claim 4(2).

Claim 5

This claim introduces a claimed object, a damper instead of a sports article. We find dampers in A2, A3, and A5. A2 is a weak document here, and misses the sensing, the filtering, and the frequencies. We discard this option. A3 shows sensing, but not together with dampening. A3 shows filtering but only for sensing not for dampening. A5 on the other hand has all features except the correct frequency. Moreover, A5 explains that the frequency can easily be changed, and that the damper may be used for other sports articles. It appears that A5 is thus the better closest prior art, A3 is then used as the combining document. A potential weak point of an attack based on A5+A3 is that A5 is only concerned with longitudinal waves whereas A3 needs damping for torsional waves. In the end the combination A5+A3 seems easier to make then the reverse one, so we opt for this.

Claim 6

There are two potential closest prior arts for this claim: A2 and A3. Although, easy to miss, A2 actually has every feature of claim 6 except the measuring step. A3 on the other hand, has the measuring step but also a teaching away against the piezoelectronic damper. The combination A2+A3 works thus much better than starting from A3.

In summary, our attacks are:

Claim 1: Novelty A2, A5, A6
Claim 2: Inventive step A3+A4
Claim 3: Inventive step A2+A6
Claim 4(2): Inventive step A3+A4
Claim 4(3): Added subject matter
Claim 5: Inventive step A5+A3
Claim 6: Inventive step A2+A3


Sander, Jelle, and Joeri

Here now also our unique analysis sheet, used in our methodology courses and model solution for all papers. Also this year it lead to the solution in a straightforward way, but the exam was a lot of work.

© Copyright DeltaPatents, 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this answer may be reproduced, used in any way for generating further course material or updates, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written consent of DeltaPatents.
The answer is made available for personal use only.

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!!!

Thursday, July 24, 2014 Analysis of the Examiner's Report Paper C 2014

The report is out and can be found here

No real surprises for us in this report; the report matches our solution fully. If you want to get a thorough insight on how this exam should have been done and how it could have been done in a structured way, I will soon complete oour analysis and model solution, which you can order in our web shop.
If you want to have personal feedback, we can mark your actual exam paper and indicate where you've lost your marks and make some suggestions for improvement; you can order this also in our web shop as part of our correction paper program (it inlcudes the analysis and model solution).

The Exam committee mainly refrains from indicating which issues caused candidates problems.
One major problem is discussed: there was a translation mistake in the French version of Annex 4. It was the intention to perform a novelty attack on claim 1 based on A4. Based on the French version this was difficult to argue. In this exceptional situation, all candidates which did not perform this attack but instead did the inventive step attack A3+A5 (any how required for dependent claim 3) also got full marks.

From the discussions on blog web sites, it is clear that many candidates missed a priority issue (first application problem) with claim 1. Annex 6 was of the same applicant as Annex 1. If priority was valid for all claims, A6 could not be used (was an AU application published in the priority year of A1; not useable as such under Art.54(2) or 54(3)). The client indicates that A6 was of the same applicant as A1 and makes clear which content was already present in an earlier priority application of this applicant whose priority was not claimed by A1. Candidates were expected to argue that claim 1 was derivable from this earlier priority application, causing claim 1 to loose priority, making A6 an Art.54(2) document for claim 1, giving a second novelty attack on claim 1. Missing this was not deadly; based on the marking shown in the report, I guess that the penalty was 10 marks. Of course if you totally missed it, you gained time for the rest (which for many candidates may have been the biggest hurdle).

Claim 2 only required an attack under added subject-matter. Although the claimed features were disclosed in the filed application, they were not disclosed in the claimed combination. This may have caused some candidates some headache.

Claim 3 covered two embodiments (polyurethane or biodegradable starch copolymer). The second option was not entitled to priority as could be derived from the clients letter. For the second option, A6 could thus be used again. For both options A3 was the closest prior art (A2 and A4 are not related to the purpose of tensioning the skin; A5 is rather different; A6 cannot be used). For option a. the missing feature and effect could be taken out of A5 in a straightforward way. Similarly, for option b. the missing feature and effect could be taken out of A6 in a straightforward way.

Claim 4 was independent and related to a razor cartridge with a flexible fencing element causing less abrasion. In principle only A2 and A3 could be used as the closest prior art. A2 is closer because it already uses a fencing sheet and is more stable (purpose). The missing feature could be taken out of A3 in a straightforward way.

Claim 5 dependent on claim 4. The same attack could be continued; the feature of claim 4 is already disclosed in the closest prior art A2.

Claim 6 (independent) related to the use of a resilient foam in a razor. A novelty attack based on A5 was possible. No further attack required.

Comparing the model solution of the exam committee to the one I have prepared myself, I do not see surprising aspects in the attacks/argumentation. As already clear for several years, the committee requires the best possible argumentation also for arguing that a combination is straightforward. Probably, quite some candidates lost a few marks here.

Was the exam then easy? 
No, clearly not. Priority and added subject-matter was not of the easiest type.
In total 7 embodiments to attack; in principle doable if you get through the technical analysis in time. There was a lot of text to plough through. Probably candidates with a low mechanical insight struggled getting a grip of how the different types of razor heads were arranged, particularly since terminology differed in the annexes (not unusual in the C exam).

Friday, July 11, 2014 First results Paper C EQE 2014

Some figures for paper C:

Total number of candidates: 1080
Average mark:         40.8
Fails:                      605 candidates, 56%
Compensable fails:  114 candidates, 10.6%
Pass:                      361 candidates, 33.4 %

How does this compare to previous years?
Here a graph:

The conclusion seems to be that, after a slightly easier C 2013, we are back at pretty normal pass rates.
Paper C is not easy.

Tuesday, March 04, 2014 Copies of C paper in all three languages available

The C-paper of EQE 2014 is available in all three languages via the following links:

• English
• French
• German

We thank candidate W.W. to provide us with the paper in all three EPO languages.

Please post your comments to the separate blog "A close shave for paper C 2014". Some candidates already noted that the French version of the paper seems to have an inconsistency between [0002], [0006], [0010] and claim 1, which appears to be due to a translation error in claim 3 of Annex 1 in the French version of the paper. Any further comments as to differences, but also to the paper itself, are appreciated.

Friday, February 28, 2014 A close shave for paper C 2014

Paper C 2014 of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) was held last Thursday (27.02.2014). The paper concerned razor cartridges that featured improved tension of the skin and a fencing element to avoid cutting yourself. 

First impression is that this paper is considerably harder than paper C of 2013. Priority issues played a role both in the application itself and in the prior art. Getting the effective dates and list of evidence right in this paper was the first challenge to take. 

To determining the effective dates of the claim, one had to spot that the applicant of A1 and of A6 was the same. Although this information is given twice: both in the client's letter and on the application this is easy to miss. As result the priority claim of A1 is not valid for subject matter that was previously disclosed in the priority document of A6. A6 itself could be used for attacking all claims that lost priority. Getting this wrong would cost you only one novelty attack though so this issue should be survivable. 

Below are our attacks for the claims: