EQE Tools Free tools for the European Qualifying Examination and more. EQE 2012 Countdown. Contact EQETools. Any questions, remarks, corrections or suggestions can be sent by e-mail to Join EQETools on LinkedIn. An update of the G Summary can be found here. Visit developer.google.com/products for the complete list of our latest developer products and tools including documentation, examples, community forums and more.
Tom So DI was pretty fair, but again a wall of text. Q5b = Was the answer a divisional? DII complicated: I didn´t see the option for PCT-BB2 to claim 175-200°C as selection invention. Consequently, I thought that PCT-BB2 contains no patentable subject matter and proposed as an improvement to withdraw/not enter the EP-Phase. Reason: to avoid patentability problems for EP-BB3, because PCT-BB2 contained the drawings (as a misfiling) of EP-BB3 and would be A.54(3) soa EP-BB3/PCT-BB3 Moreover, I didn´t realize that the priority for a PCT-BB3 might invalid, because EP-BB2 is the first disclosure. I thought there is no way that PCT-BB3 can claim validly the priority form EP-BB2 (but well PCT 2 Month etc could work, but not for EPO, because RE with all due care before the EPO will not work) That´s the stuff I missed. I hope this will not screw me.
DII - Q1, what was to do? = reasoned statement was filed in time = claim combination 1+3 might be accepted, because BB can provide measurements? Protection for method and directly obtained product possible in validated epc states. JP For me, I think it was not a disaster but it did not go well either. I thought there was a lot of appeal stuff. In part II, I suspect now that our appeal was not properly substantiated.but I tried to argue that it was.
What do people think? Otherwise, I found it very difficult to organise part II by application and given that lack of any real opponent with conflicting applications, it was also difficult I feel to gain marks in the advice section.
For part I, I found it fairly ok, not great but ok. There were lots of things I was familiar with and I felt I could say something sensible for every question, but I was also pushed for time right until the last minute. So not opportunity to check my answers. Part I about average, part II noticeably more difficult and the random appeal question really threw me off. Exactly my own experience. This year the DII question rather was a C-type question: Various Products (FLP, Oliebollen) AND Processes AND starting substances (fruits) AND temperature ranges AND embodiments (conical, trumpet) AND further essential features (screw type conveyor, etc.) together with the usual issues (priority, disclosure, patentability) - this was far too much for me to solve completely in the remaining time, after having lost time with solving DI and the surprisingly appearing '6th DI question' at the beginning of DII. Anonymous I found the paper markedly more difficult compared to the 2012-2017 past papers which I covered in my preparation.
In part, I hadn't prepared enough for the short answer questions. I spent over 3 hours on the first 4 D-I questions and decided to move on to D-II with just under 2.5 hours to go. I rushed D-II with having question 5 still to do at the back of my mind, so made sloppy mistakes. I had about 10 minutes left to come back to question 5, but my brain was completely frazzled.
I found a G decision about amendments being allowed at the discretion of the examining division until the Decision to grant is handed down to the postal service. Now I think there is actually a rule to go with this. D-II threw me compared to previous years. I was not practiced enough in dealing with overlapping ranges and selection inventions. I also suggested to withdraw PCT-BB2 before publication or at least refrain from entering the European phase to avoid an Art54(3) situation. I thought the appeal by BB was inadmissible because they merely filed their same opposition submissions and did not indicate reasons for setting aside the decision R99(2), T213/85. BB would still be a party as of right because the opponent's appeal was admissible, but would be in a reformation in peius situation.
However now I'm thinking this is all wrong and I misunderstood what BB actually filed as their grounds. In summary, harder than previous years but probably just myself to blame.
Sharky To me it felt very different to past D papers (I did the last four years). DI was just about doable but as others have said there was far too much text to read, and I felt that the questions were too generic i.e.wall of text. 'Advise the applicant'. DII really threw me. Question 1 felt just like a D1 question, except I couldn't figure out what they were getting. As others have said, the breaking down into applications rather than subject matter made it much more difficult to assess novelty etc. When there were multiple claims per application.
So I lost a lot of time just putting together a novelty table. Similarly in previous years there were generally obvious suggestions to improve the client position, but that seemed much less clear-cut this year. I was writing up until the last minute, even with the extra 30 minutes.
Yes, indeed, that was exactly my own experience. I first worked through part 1 as planned, but when starting part 2 I was convinced I would have to solve the appeal question first and thoroughly because this would significantly influence the answers to the following questions (What else could be the reason for posing this long question right at the beginning of part 2?). Thus, I lost time with this actually '6th part 1 question' and as my brain was already exhausted and part 2 was intentionally drafted quite confusing (e.g. The drawings issue, discussion per application instead of subject-matter, etc.) it took even more time and at the end I ran out of time, despite the 5,5 hours. If I fail the exam by 2-3 marks I would rather blame the structure of part 2 rather than my own strategy. Tom DI in brief Q1 = file missing parts and avoid redating = Requirements fullfilled, because checkbox was marked.
Do this before early publication to get quick protection. For quick protection - request early publication at IB - Pay additional fee, because ISR not yet available - cite legal basis that pct has same legal effect as EP application. I found the paper unusual, and I think that many people will find it difficult precisely for this reason. Question 1 was a very laborious PCT thing (citing all the legal basis right, oh dear). The rest was okay. The 'please advise' manner of questions is not very helpful, but then we all know that the questions don't have to be leading or helpful, so no one can Part 2 was interesting.
Initially I didn't like it, but as I progressed through the paper, I started to like it more and more. The appeal question was definitely my thing. The rest was doable, a bit long but doable. I was also counting my 'idiot factor' (how many facepalms while thinking 'oh these clients are idiots') - it was unusually high this year.:). Rule 48.4 (l) PCT: (l) The International Bureau shall, upon a reasoned request by the applicant received by the International Bureau prior to the completion of the technical preparations for international publication, omit from publication any information, if it finds that: (i) this information does not obviously serve the purpose of informing the public about the international application; (ii) publication of such information would clearly prejudice the personal or economic interests of any person; and (iii) there is no prevailing public interest to have access to that information. Quite OK, I felt that DII was pretty fine. Timeline was not so complicated, since there was no competitor with a pile of applications.
Questions were different this year but maybe this way it's easier to know what to answer in which question. I skipped one DI question because I didn't have time anymore. Only 5 questions, so quite a lot of points per question was allocated. I skipped Q4.
I was a little bit disappointed that there were not much (or at all) questions on recent changes. No need to check National Law tables or PCT annexes. It's frustrating to get and bring all that material - for nothing. Why they don't e.g. Specify that this year bring the annexes of these 10 countries. We know the alphabets, so no need to test that.
Missing parts asked twice, which was a bit annoying. Anonymous a) I think the right answer is to claim priority of EP-BB2 for EP-BB3: - still possible - otherwise PCT-BB2 would be Art 54(3) EPC upon entry into European phase; withdrawing: no, since one would lose the process claims). For the new PCT-application (other countries then EP) PCT-BB2 no state of the art (no problem; no priority needed) b) I restricted the process claims to range 175 to 200°C which has the effect (not over 150 to 220° which however is not new) over the here relevant Euro-PCT-FK1 range of 155°C to 250° of a lower acryl content (for 220 250, PCT-FKI does not show this effect). C) All in all, DII was difficult to structure properly.
The questions didn´t help much in this regard but rendered the structuring even more cumbersome.