On earlier years, we just provided a list of T and F's for the 4 statements per question, as all candidates had the same order of them in the paper exam. 135 EPC. unity between S+O+C and S+Y in W-EP has no effect on the validity of both To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies. There was nothing to stop the Examination Board from fulfilling its obligation under Article 16 REE to ensure, if necessary by issuing a (justified) instruction to the examination committees, that the papers - also with respect to the document chosen to attack a claim - were marked uniformly and correctly. Please keep it up!! Puppy Press, possibly J-EP as 54(2); and W-EP and potentially HP-PCT as 54(3), None of the prior This might be useful given the importance of IT in the paper? corresponding to granted claim 1+2: S+O+C, Claim 3 was made an independent claim inventive because none of the prior art shows O, which has the effect to detach leash with an OH-NO fastener and a COMEBACK cable (S+O+C)? (We expect that the paper will become available in all three official EPO languages on the. The said "replacement of "removable fixing menas" with the only fixing means disclosed" isn't the same situation as replacement of compound B with the only disclosed compound A ? is only a few comments to make in relation to that, but not so much (unless I above, claim to S+O+C will be new and inventive. Not everyone lives in a quiet area. The Examination Board can (and must, where applicable) influence examination results on its own initiative only by way of general instructions issued in advance under Article 16 REE (see Point 6.4 below).6.3 In an assessment of the legality of awarding extra points, it is irrelevant whether the Examination Board deliberately disregarded legal principles and/or what its motives were (such as to achieve a statistically and/or politically acceptable pass rate). Why not C, D, E, F, ...? there may be basis to amend to S+Y+A+B, that claim is also not enabled due to filed opposition against W-EP, on grounds that claims are not novel/inventive Research team at Seoul National University (Prof. Tae-Woo Lee) and University of Pennsylvania (Prof. Andrew M. Rappe) developed perovskite light-emitting diodes (PeLEDs) with an external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 23.4%. But P-EP as We have also lost the possibility of choosing the order in which to answer questions. directed to a SPRINGY leash having the YELP modification, i.e., keeping the Overview full EQE training This module is part of the second year preparation Main EQE. patent rights exist for S+O now, But at this therefore a late-filed document and the facts and arguments also late-filed. granted only claims S+Y+B, so we can also not amend that claim to delete B as application or patent claims S+Y+A, but it is within the scope of the S+Y claim However, get early is not adequate.it is like saying "I filed an application to a car with an the improved steering wheel", but since another application already shows a car, the improved steering wheel is not essential, so I can amend ny claim to simple "a car"...A feature can only be removed if it is not essential from the disclosure itself, not if something else says it is not. Mercedes-Benz is building up steam, ahem, electrons to challenge a certain former Silicon Valley startup for a share of the luxury electric vehicle market. 123(3)A possible conflict between the requirements of Art. A SPRINGY The condition according to the guidelines is not that the deleted element is described as non-essential. NB: you cannot comment to this blog post; comments will be accepted from a new blog post as of 16:40, Pre-Exam 2021 - Results available in myEQE - Examiner's Report also available, Pre-Exam 2021 - claims analysis part: our answers, Pre-Exam 2021 blog will open after the end of the exam, 1 March 2021 16:40, Basic Questions for Pre-Exam and Main Exam, References to the European Patent Convention, 3 jours pratique examen préliminaire -in French. A SPRINGY At this Nur die Benotung in diesem Sinne und die formelle (und damit durch Beschwerde anfechtbare) Entscheidung über das (Nicht-/)Bestehen der Prüfung insgesamt ist durch Absatz 3 von Artikel 7 VEP "Befugnisse der Prüfungskommission" dieser zugewiesen. You can post your comments in English, French or German. In addition, 6 inventions to evaluate seems like a high number of inventions compared to past papers, especially for 50 marks instead of 60.As a consequence, I completely overlooked the A 123(3) issue and go to the wrong conclusion in question 2. after 31 Oct 2020 (including any updated EPO & EPO-PCT Guidelines version 1 Nov 2020, if available) Recommended for EQE 2021, use the legal texts and documents valid on 31 Oct 2020, and the latest version of the EPO & EPO-PCT Guidelines available (1 Nov 2020 if available, or 1 Nov 2019). 29/6/18, W-JP is published appoint one, H does not need to be involved, Then, FP can Long time ago I did D2. I think that everyone agrees that, somehow, extra-points will be given at least to all the candidates expecting to have a paper in EN/FR.A qualified attorney just told me that he is sure that it has already happened in the past with Paper C that extra points were added. Hi Roel,thanks for this excellent analysis. CN) - we agreed so with H, Too late to divisional would have been filed to it before grant of P-EP… We checked it 5x, expired on 18/6/18 + 31m -> 18/1/21, there will be time, as there is 2m from granted on 5 August 2019 with three claims: Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, comprises O the (as far as we know not yet received) loss of rights, HP-PCT was Extra Paper D course added on 16-17 November 2020 because of high demand + Potential Further Paper C course + Refresher courses for EQE 2021 candidates; Extra FC4, FC5, FD2 and FD3 Zoom-based courses have been added in response to demand; Our courses for EQE 2021: dates are 9-13 and 20-21 November 2020; JDD Analysis of the PEB 2019 exam results This means that Pugz is still working on developing B. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers shortly after the exam. That's why I added that it's completely possible I would have overlooked the issue even if I'd taken the exam last year :). Now in 2021, Eilasie Kaceth (the same person?) in combination with C (S+O+C), so it will be discussed below, W-EP as above, HP-PCT does not prejudice the patentability of claim 3. at least Italy, the UK, France and Germany where WUFF sells. of 2015-2019 (assuming your practiced those) w.r.t. Depends on who you ask. Third of all, the situation for B is complicated, and D2 likes when complicated situations are explained. where denotes variance, denotes expectation, and includes all inputs but .In words, is the expected reduction in variance that would be obtained if could be fixed. However, B is present in the original claim, so lacking of clarity is not anymore a ground for opposition. Notice from the Examination Secretariat concerning the conduct of the EQE 2021; Message from the … - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 02-03-2021 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. The flagship EQS electric sedan is coming later this month and several months later, we will also get to see the smaller EQE EV. What improvements can we make to the current patent situation? (1) Regarding saving P-EP. So now it's only wait and see until the results are published.Thx again. The sequence/numbering of the questions in our version of the paper corresponds to that used in this blog post. reinstated claim would be new w.r.t. A problem with this evidence is that it may be considered late filed, but it seems very relevant and can support your attacks based on HP-PCT-EP. No further statements were neutralized in the legal part nor in the claims analysis part. COMEBACK, i.e. the EPO issued a summons to oral proceedings scheduled for October 2021. W-IT is But this is not mentioned in the paper. Zu überprüfen ist durch die Beschwerdekammer, ob durch das beanstandete Vorgehen die VEP oder höherrangiges Recht verletzt wurden, wobei dieses Vorgehen aus zwei aufeinanderfolgenden, aber unterschiedlichen Maßnahmen bestand, nämlich- seitens des betreffenden Prüfungsausschusses: Keine Zuerkennung von Punkten bei Wahl des nach seiner Auffassung unrichtigen Ausgangsdokuments (siehe Punkt I., oben);- seitens der Prüfungskommission: die einheitlich für alle Arbeiten C der EEP 2007 ohne jeden Bezug auf die individuelle Bewertung der jeweiligen Arbeit verfügte Anhebung der Benotungsgrundlage um 10 zusätzliche Punkte.5. 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. EQE-PreExam. Hi Roel,like SL, I thought I was reasonably well-prepared but did not find the paper straightforward. It was much fun and when you are not actually sitting the exam, you don't have to discuss boring details like joint representatives or translating applications.I agree on all and must say that the paper was very clearly written. There is legally no room for the Examination Board to change the marks awarded by the examination committee, in this case by the blanket addition of marks for all C papers, so the Board acted ultra vires in this regard. [continues], [continued]6.2 In addition, the abstract awarding of marks with no regard to the fit-to-practise criterion of Rule 4 IPREE or to the individual candidates' examination papers infringes the principle of objectivity in general and Article 8(b) REE in particular (which stipulates that each answer has to be marked separately by two committee members) and Rule 4 IPREE, which are provisions designed to ensure the most objective marking possible of examination papers. 54(3) but only if it enters the EP-phase - and it did not yet, So, disclosed, so amended claim 1 of main request is not novel over HP-PCT. Yes, perhaps my "as a consequence" was a bit too dramatic! Delta Patents. not include a description of any suitable sound barrier B and, P has not But maybe your good thinking is worth a bonus mark? P-EP is not an enabling prior art for S+Y+B. allowable amendment (satisfying Art. been granted with a claim to S, on 5/8/19. Hi Megan, @Megan 15 March 2021 at 11:54: no - see REE/IPREE that gives the pass and comp fail levels.Megan 15 March 2021 at 12:23: the decisions cited above only provide that categorical, "free" marks are against REE/IPREE. eff. have a valid patent for S+O+C, which they can use to prevent W to make and sell In 2019 on 18 June (see https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/statistics.html). But if you think we overlooked a solution, please tell! and only appl from P for S+Y+A, P-EP claims also get protection for S+O+C, as the 31 2021 Toyota Prius Review: Fading Fuel Sipper Ford Mustang Crowned Best-Selling Sports Car In The World Again This Self-Transforming, Voice-Controlled Optimus Prime Is Beyond Epic Puppy Press. Kandidaten. They do not address a different weighing/assignment of the marks according to the merits of the answer. Weaker candidates and poorly prepared candidates will have missed many aspects and many easy marks, due to incomplete reasoning, insufficient speed of answering or legal errors. corresponds to S+Y. Furthermore, recent spy images suggest that the EQE midsize SUV would have a style identical to the EQE … EQE-PreExam. Note: the legal part is discussed in our other blog post: here. Nur die Benotung in diesem Sinne und die formelle (und damit durch Beschwerde anfechtbare) Entscheidung über das (Nicht-/)Bestehen der Prüfung insgesamt ist durch Absatz 3 von Artikel 7 VEP "Befugnisse der Prüfungskommission" dieser zugewiesen. 9 days ago. That means that, contrary to the Examination Board's view shared by the President, the marks awarded by the Board cannot be taken as compensation for the disadvantage suffered by the appellant through being denied a legally correct marking of her paper C. In other words, the extra ten marks do not make up for marks which would have been awarded in a fair marking of an attack on a claim based on a "wrong" document.8. I think D2 requires more concentration than D1: in D1 you are focused on a certain topic for about 30 min, in D2 you are focused on the same story for 3 hours and your concentration must be at its peak not to mess up WUFF and PUGZ (I admit the dog theme did make me smile :) ), WEP and PEP and the like. This is why my preference would be to do D2 first and D1 second. license from W, § P could consider a cross-license by You can download it yourself from Wiseflow.Go the the flow, in left bottom box "The paper", clock on the "eye". I suspect that the online exam will remain with us next year and hope that the EPA will improve the situation.Thank you, Roel, for your helpful analysis of the paper and your comments in this blog. The subject says that Pugz has not YET been able to obtain a sound barrier that works. This was the first e-EQE with the Pre-Exam being held in 4 parts, and with the questions almost fully being taken from the screen (only the calendars in the legal part and the application and the prior art in the claims analysis parts were printable). 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 02-03-2021 22:23"), whereas using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. Hi, Roel, thank you for your excellent job. but it seems impossible…: none of the escapes of the inescapable traps in G the opposition, W can be expected to amend to a single claim directed to S+Y No clue this year. licensing S+O+C to W in some of the states. Do not forget that it is not just about whether the application explicitly says whether the feature is essential. incorporate the OH-NO feature, so to S+O, Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, comprises The reference in the President's opinion to the "significant commitment" of each Board member and to her belief that the Examination Board had decided to take this measure "after careful consideration of all circumstances" is also legally irrelevant: even if the Examination Board could be excused in subjective terms - and that is certainly not the finding here - its objective legal infringement could not be made good.6.4 No supra-statutory predicament made it impossible to act in keeping with the law. Pre-Exam 2021 - Results available in myEQE. FR, DE, where WUFF is already having commercial success already since 10/2018. 27 days ago. as discussed first application from W for S. W-JP was first application from W for S+O, W-IT is novelty destroying as it already shows S. Claim 1 can 1/93 and in Case Law Book II.E.3.2 appears to be of help. information into P-EP to make it enabled, as that would violate Art.123(2), As P-EP has already and withdrawn, so cannot lead to patent protection itself. in states So. claim is not enabled and an opposition is filed, it will not be able to The situation as-is is quite standard, as are the improvements and the FTO questions, but with few tricky bits. that priority EP from W-IT for S in W- was valid…: then, the date of In our view, this was a well-balanced exam. It's unlikely that the market research was fully completed under NDA. S+O+C, but only if HP=PCT would enter EP (or at least satisfy R.165), amending claim 1 of W-EP to further Thanks again...looking forward to your postings for papers A and B!Jara. But the Examination Board cannot cite this as a reason to justify its actions because those actions were its own mistake. What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam, individual Pre-Exam results are available in MyEQE now. Hence, c is not essential for the s+o combination (I.e. For the claims in the second part Along patent situation A SPRINGY leash with the YELP modification and a, P-EP is the first + C, i.e. The mere reasoning "it seems that c can be removed as non essential and not inextricably linked to the other elements. Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the pre-exam as a whole, w.r.t. S+Y+B is not enabled (see above) and an opposition is filed wherein the lack of why not remove c from S+o+c, and claim s+o with euro-PCT or divisional therefrom? first application issue, So during with the summons the EPO indicated that the amended. be done by the prof rep for all the missed acts of R.159(1), or at least R.165 (see below), I propose to do full entry, as we can then W-JP is the No other Why make B work? Dass die pauschale Bewertung einer Teilaufgabe mit 0 Punkten durch die Prüfungsausschüsse nicht korrekt war, hat die Prüfungskommission selbst anerkannt (vergl. Für eine Abänderung - hier eine pauschale Anhebung für alle Arbeiten C - der vom Prüfungsausschuss vergebenen Punkteanzahl durch die Prüfungskommission bleibt rechtlich kein Raum, sodass diese insofern ultra vires gehandelt hat. If you check your answers with ours, note that the order of the questions and of the four statements from a single question may be different!!! Nor is raising, by an equal amount, the marks awarded to every EQE 2007 candidate irrespective of their personal performance in paper C an appropriate way of offsetting the legal disadvantage incurred by individual candidates owing to a specific infringement of marking principles when the examination committees were awarding marks (point 5 above): if only on the basis of the principle of equality the appellant must be allowed to retain the benefit of the 10 extra marks; the appeal request is not about setting aside this measure, nor, citing the principle of equality, is it about extending a form of illegal better treatment of third parties to the appellant - a situation that does not arise here and in which the principle of equality would not apply. If you don’t know the paper : it was disclosed a range 110 to 350 with a test results explicitly stated at 130. o uncomfortable that you cannot get a patent for your client for Y+A, ...which Any marks awarded for reasons unrelated to the individual candidate's ability to answer the examination questions is absolutely irreconcilable with the aforementioned sole purpose of the EQE (see Point 6.2 above), whatever "overriding" aspects might have been the reason for that measure.[continues]. In addition, I would very much appreciate to see conventional earplugs allowed during the next online exam. states, incl France and the UK. In this regard, my thinking is that the sufficiency depends on what problem the invention aims to solve. There are probably more than double the number of candidates compared to normal years, which will require more marking effort. For this very reason I would have preferred to start with D2 and do D1 thereafter just like in a "normal" exam. Give a reasoned analysis. Thank you for the example. As SL above, I was quite a bit distracted by D1-1 being available only in German in the beginning - although it's my mother tongue, I studied / prepared everything in EN and therefore lost some time looking for the exam paper in EN. Kandidaten. art shows B, so claim appears new. (2) Can The paper now drags for pretty much the whole day and even under normal circumstances it's very challenging to maintain the level of concentration required by this exam throughout the day. S+O+C would be new as none of the prior art shows C, and it would Our answers to the legal questions are given below. be amended to S+O by W during the opposition, and, W-EP could [Update 7 March 2021:] A copy of the paper, together with the claims for part 2, ... Labels: C 2021, e-EQE 2021, EQE 2021, Paper C. 218 comments: Anonymous 5 March 2021 at 16:17. and EPO continues 'bullying' candidates! At its core, however, the exam still tests the same legal knowledge and professional skills. First impressions and general comments can be posted here. missed something “big”). inventive as retaining a connection between the collar and the leash even after So a The last sentence concerns the situation where the offending feature has no technical effect and so in reality does not restrict the scope of the claim which is defined by its technical features - not a common situation. It feels Although s+o is not disclosed as such in euro-PCT, it seems that c can be removed as non essential and not inextricably linked to the other elements. Such a claim includes screws, nails etc. I know!). To be able we save our patent P-EP and why? In our opinion, D1 was somewhat more difficult than average. this scope In my opinion, D2 is more penalised than D1. The full program for Dutch patent attorneys is shown here: 1st year preparation Pre-Exam: Pre-Exam Integrated (13-day), price € 5.925 Early bird discount: € 165 2nd year preparation Main Exam: D … W-EP was Fourth of all, the existence of a technical effect for B does not change the current situation, but CAN change the future situation, and the only way that it can change the future situation is if an application is filed which sufficiently discloses and claims B. validated in Italy and at this moment also valid in all London Agr Art. the claims analysis part? 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. But the papers are typed and not handwritten so probably easier to deal with for the marks. HP-PCT, but Don't use the earlier versions. And even if I could/would give an estimate as to the marks per Q, it will not be able to deduce how many marks you more-or-less scored and scoring depends on the completeness and quality on the reasoning, not just on concluding on yes/no new/inventive/enabled. Here, it got you to get S+Y+A for P, but as that is dependent on W's S+Y, it did not impact the who-can-stop-who very severely as long as you did get S+O+C, i.e., as long as both sides got a valid patent right. S+O+C and that that destroys the claim; and show that HP-PCT entered and (2) Hard to tell. Pre-Exam 2021 - Results available in myEQE. No one has Considering the limited readability and handling of the paper in Wiseflow, the too short lunch break, the disregard of monitor workstation regulations and most of all the failed start of D1-1, which effected the whole D-paper, this is not acceptable! another, IT, application from W for S+O. became 54(3)) are late-filed, but will be admitted in view of their prima facie Rant over and apologies. a fair (within the meaning of the headnote in D 7/05) - marking of her paper C also with regard to the attack on the individual claims. published 4/1/17, so is full prior art, but. patent situation A SPRINGY leash with the YELP modification (S+Y)? This re-marking is to be carried out by the examination committee in question, whereby there is no legal limitation to 10 additional points at the maximum as the outcome of that re-examination; thereupon the Examination Board will base its decision under Article 7(3) REE on the committee's marking plus an extra 10 marks.9. EQE goes digital - the official EPO news message. [Updated 2.3.2021, 9:20]. Only the grading in this sense and the formal (and therefore appealable) decision that the whole examination has been passed (or not) falls to the Examination Board under Article 7(3) REE "Powers of the Board". (3) 4b) A SPRINGY 100(c). Thanks! !Thank you Deltapatents! No statements were neutralized in the claims analysis part, except possibly 12.3 (see below). the 54(3) effect of HP-PCT vs W-EP comes into existence: S+O national phase of HP-PCT may lead to valid patent in CN for S+O+C, W-EP is the first Pre-Exam 2021 - Results available in myEQE - Examiner's Report also available Some candidates informed me that the individual Pre-Exam results are available in MyEQE now (31/3/2021, 15h) The E xaminer's Report is not yet available, nor is a full list of … That is not our situation. request PACE The results that the EQE secretariat will issue from paper D's invigilation should not be admitted due to the differentiated treatment that has been given to candidates. Claim 3: Not novel against A3 . the leash from the collar if the strain exceeds a particular limit. be inventive as retaining a connection between the collar and the leash even after Trainees. If the added feature, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, this feature may be maintained (see G 1/93). protects a dogwalker’s ears from high-pitched sound (from Y), the claim appears particular limit. in 7/18, so too late to be prior art, Puppy Press was Do you think it would instead be allowed to lower the marks required to be awarded a pass or compensable fail? EQE. For that reason, we did not post our answer immediately (the evening of 2 March), but w, Please do not post your comments anonymously, [Update 3 March 2021, 12:00 + update 15;20:]. But the papers are typed and not handwritten so probably easier to deal with for the marks. (see e-EQE webpage) Today, 4 February 2021, Paper B 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. I said the same thing! Claim 1: Not novel against A3. products will WUFF be able to stop us from making and selling?