D 2019: first impressions?
To all who sat the D-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's D-paper? Any general or specific comments?
How did this year's D-paper compare to the D papers of 2013 - 2018 (assuming your practiced those) - DI and DII-wise: was DI similar as to its subjects and difficulty as the last few years? Was DII similar as 2013-2017 or more like 2018 with a large legal case part of the DII?
How much time did you allocate for DI, how much for DII? Which part did you do first, DI or DII?
How much time did you allocate for DI, how much for DII? Which part did you do first, DI or DII?
How many marks do you expect to have scored in the DI-part, in the DII-part, and for the whole D?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did you use the additional 30 minutes that were available to to the paper? Did you use it for the DI or the DII part? How many marks do you expect to have scored extra thanks to those 30 minutes?
Were the topics well balanced in the DI-part? Was the balance between EPC and PCT right for you? Any substantive topics in DI (e.g., was partial priority tested)?
Which of the the DI Questions did you consider particularly difficult, and which relatively 'easy'?
Did you skip any DI-questions? If so, why (e.g., too difficult, allocating the time for another question, no time left)?
Were the legal issues in the DII-part well doable? Patentability? Difficult priority analysis? Non-standard claim formats? Business situation and relevance clear? Exploitation?
Did, in your view, a single error in one of the legal issues or one of the patentability issues in DII have a big knock-on effect on the rest of the paper (the D papers of the last six years were very well designed in this respect!)?
If you participated in the pilot program to answer the exam using a computer, what were you experiences? Would you recommend it? What are the pros and cons that you experienced while doing it?
If you participated in the pilot program to answer the exam using a computer, what were you experiences? Would you recommend it? What are the pros and cons that you experienced while doing it?
The paper and our answers
The D paper is available in all 3 languages on the EQE webpages, Compendium, D
The core of our answers will be given in two separate blog posts: one for the DI-questions and another post for the DII-part.
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 03-03-2018 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 the D-paper as a whole, and to the two parts (DI and DII) as whole part to this blog.
SHARE:
Hi there
ReplyDeletein [002] first two lines was described the effect of increased energy storage. In my view, this included automatically that the foam structure of a shoe sole should comprise metal NNP. So, because of that, claim 1 of EP-F2 is entitled to priority from EP-F1. If this is wrong, how else shall one interpret the sentence "EP-F1 describes the effect of increased energy storage"?
In the end that was my interpretation too, so that claim 1 was entitled to priority, but I don’t know if that is what they intended. I thought the paragraph was very unclear.
DeleteThat was indeed tricky.
DeleteI thought that client did not explicitly disclose ss+metal in EP-F1. For me the chosen wording of "increased" was selected for copper nanoparticles in paragraph 2. So I went with that assumption.
Then it was partial priority all over, which I find very overcomplicated now. Then I had to make an assumption that selecting non-copper metal is not inventive etc.
Annoying that the paper starts off with such an unclarity! I did not know what to do, running around in circles for a while. Again, as in 2018, needing to base the answer on assumptions rather than on facts provided... hope I made a choice that gets me marks (chanegd my mind, first thought no priority for claim 1 at all, but then the situation is hopeless... and partial priority overly complicated. It was better when I assumed claim 1 did get priority).
DeleteNoMoreEnergy
If claim 1 has no priority of EP-F1, maybe we could still add the priority of EP-F3. Then this new partial priority could rescue the claim?
DeleteWe had some discussion on it as well. But based on the difference in wording in [002] and [003], we concludes that a show sole comprising metal nanoparticles was not as such disclosed in EP-F1, but only a shoe sole with copper nanoparticles up to 40 nm. For us, as for Hiker Fast, the chosen wording of "the effect of increased energy storage" was selected for copper nanoparticles in [002]. So we also went with that assumption.
DeleteInitially, one of us had the assumption that the descriptio of EP-F1 included the complete par [002], so also the "any metal nanoparticle", as that was mentioned to also have an "improved energy storage". As however the term "increase" and "increased" were only used in combination with copper (4th and 7th line of [002]), that one person accepted the interpretation of the other tutors. The "increased enery storage" is in [002] as being described in EP-F2 to support inventoive step of its (Sole + Cu < 40nm) claim.
We could however not see a reason why this complication is in the paper, it seems to be unlucky rather then intentional; it has quite some impact if you consider the description of EP-F1 to disclose the subject-matter of claim 1 of EP-F3...
Please refer to our DII blog for further discussion on this topic.
Is it important that the first application also discloses the technical effect connected to subject-matter for a valid priority claim?
DeleteIn my view, the assessment of whether a claim enjoys a valid priority only requires an assessment whether all features of said claim are directly and unambiguously derivable from the first application. In short, if the claim in question does not recite the technical effect, the technical effect does not have to be disclosed in the first (priority) application for the priority claim to be valid.
In other words, the disclosure of a feature-effect connection is not important as long as all features recited in the claim in question (i.e. of the subsequent application) are derivable from the first application. Do I overlook something?
Yes, if you want to defend inventive step of a claim, the technical effect that you use for that needs to be in the priority document as well if you need the valid priority for it.
DeleteThe reason is that the technical teaching needs to be there - all the technical info you use, so also the effect, needs to be in the priority.
See e.g. Case Law Book (2018) I.D.4.1:
Delete"In identifying the problem it is not permissible to draw on knowledge acquired only after
the date of filing or priority. According to T 268/89 (OJ 1994, 50) the non-effectiveness of
a prior art apparatus or method recognised or alleged only after the priority or filing date
could not be drawn on in formulating the problem, particularly where that problem was
adduced in support of inventive step in a "problem invention" (see T 2/83, OJ 1984, 265).
Inventive step had to be assessed on the basis of the skilled person's knowledge before
the priority or filing date (see also T 365/89)."
I see your point. However, the priority claim should be valid anyway. If the inventive step argumentation is successful is another story.
DeleteFrom said passage of the case law book, i can only take that the objective technical problem must be derivable from the original application. This can e.g. be the case if an effect is plausible for the skilled person in the frame of his common general knowledge. It is not important - in my view - that each and every technical effect is explicitly disclosed.
Naturally, the eqe is different in this regard and i share your point on inventive step in the eqe context. I do not agree with the conclusion on the validity of the priority claim.
I would like to thank you for your comments and help.
I made the same assumption, given that client tells us that he was aware of the effect of any metal and described the effect in the application.
ReplyDeleteDI was reasonably well structured. In contrast to other papers I had the feeling that it covered a lot more legal topics. Probably not as deep as in previous years, but definitely a broader scope. DII felt also ok, with the exception of one feature effect pair - it was not clear whether EP-F1 discloses ALL metal nanoparticles or only copper nanoparticles ([02]) - hence validity of priority of cl. 1 of EP-F2 was not clear. Also, it seemed unclear from the paper if the effects of 100% and 150% increase of energy storage in EP-F2 are indeed disclosed in EP-F2 (hence support/enablement issues). The rest was ok, but these small issues took a lot of time to think about and I eventually ran out of time in the improvements section- managed to fix only sole A.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first unclarity. We think we made the right choice in our answer, but one can debate whether the paper directly and unambiguously discloses that EP-F1 only describes the Cu embodiment and not also the any metal embodiment in view of the first sentence of [002]. As some candidates indicated, it was possible that a candidate did not even doubt that the any metal was included, whereas it was also possible that a candidate did not doubt that only the Cu embodiment was described and that the enery increase related to tha of the Cu embodiment. Quite some candidates seem to have seen the problem, and were possibly not able to draw a solid conclusion in the absence of a conclusive description of what was exactly in EP-F1. The last candidates may have lost a lot of time in trying to solve what was unsolvable, and may also have made the wrong choice or may have needed a lot of time in discussing both possibilities.
DeleteBut w.r.t your second point: In view of the available Art.54(2) prior art, was it needed that the effects of 100% and 150% increase of energy storage in EP-F2 are indeed disclosed in EP-F2, or was it sufficient that it disclosed "increase of energy storage" without indicating specific amounts?
And if the specific amounts were not in, but you nevertheless needed it, was then "an increase of enery storage" not a good-enough effect to allow you to show later that the increase is even better than that in your 54(2)s?
I was not sure whether EP-F1 should be considered to disclose metal NPs in the description, so discussed both cases-wasted so much time on it. It is not fair.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, is claim 3 of EP-F2 entitled to partial priority?
I agree with K. Not at all clear whether EP-F1 discloses ALL metal nanoparticles or only copper nanoparticles ([020])- hence validity of priority of cl. 1 of EP-F2 was not clear. And that is quite key for the paper!
ReplyDeleteYes, claim 3 of EP-F2 is entitled to partial priority for the smaller than 40 nm Cu in EP-F1. But does it help? Claim 1 and 2 are also, but even less helpful?
The last line of [002] clearly only relates to a shoe sole comprising copper nanoparticles, and the effect of increased energy storage (by 200%) of that sole. Why do you think that EP-F1 contains more than just that? [002] really does not provide that EP-F1 also describes that all other metal nanoparticles have such an effect. If I was to get that from that paragraph, it should have been written differently!
DeleteM
Yes, claim 3 of EP-F2 is entitled to partial priority for the smaller than 40 nm Cu in EP-F1, but it does not help as the rest of the claim is not novel.
DeleteBut it gets you on the track to an improvement: amend the claim to just the <40 part, which you can as EP-F1 is fully part of EP-F2.
See our answer in our DII blog.
I find DI on a scale in the part of harder, but not the hardest. It has tested many points in broader extent, and I had to spend a lot of time to write a lot, because I was not really sure where the points would lie.
ReplyDeleteDII was for me the hardest. Possibly because I somehow got messed up and did not notice in the beginning that original disclosure of EP-H does not disclose nanoparticles, and EP-H publication was erroneous, so the publication must not be considered as state of the art.
Then another question popped up, which is if H's disclosure for sole B is also erroneous. I took the view that H is manufacturer and it discloses that it will produce. So I took the view that it is not erroneous, because H possibly made some tests as F did. So I considered Ann-B as prior art.
Then it was all over partial priority for me. And as I wrote in a previous comment, I had to make an assumption that selecting non-copper metal is not inventive etc. I also took the view that EP-F1 does not disclose ss+metal np.
Eventually I came up with:
F cannot manufacture sole A or sole B in Austria because of AT-H.
Sole A is free for all at the time (which will change)
H cannot manufacture sole B because of claim 3 of EP-F2 (in Austria, or anywhere in EP)
I file application for sole B by using A55 for the disclosure of H of Ann-A.
I take over if H already filed EP appln for sole B with A61.
I file opposition against EP-H, added subject matter.
Cross license for AT-H with EP-F2, and possibly with EP-soleB.
Why do you consider "EP-H publication was erroneous" - it is what it should be: the EPO published the trabslation that the applicant had filed.
DeleteWhy do you conclude "so the publication must not be considered as state of the art"? What is your legal basis? I think it is prior art under Art.54(2) for later filings, I do not see why you could discard a publication.
M
M, here is my argument, though I am also not sure:
DeleteParagraph 7 states that EP-H was filed in Chinese. Original Chinese text had mentioned copper particles in micrometers. The publication mentioned that copper particles are in nanometers.
The original text of the application is Chinese application. Irrespective of either it is EPO's or applicant's mistake, the disclosure of EP-H in nanometers does not represent the intended technical result for copper nanoparticles. The original filing was about copper particles in micrometers. This would not possibly relate to the subject matter. So this should not be considered as part of the state of the art. (T77/87)
That decision relates to an erroneiys disclosure that is immediately understood as a “technical impossibility”. That is not the case here.
DeleteThe decision also gives the mail rule: a disclosure has to be taken as it is.
I didn't think nanoparticles were enabled in EP-H (whatever language). Disclosure might be sufficient for microparticles but that doesn't mean it's sufficient for nanoparticles. Prior art must be enabling.
DeleteHowever, I decided we weren't supposed to go down that path.
At least I think I did. I can't remember.
Obviously what I meant is I file application for sole A by using A55... Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, maybe, priority of EP-F3 could still be claimed. Then, we have partial priority for those conceptual parts of our claims which corresponds to the EP-F3 claim S/NP/Metal/(35-80nm). Then, the internet disclosure of S/NP/Copper/(70-80nm) falls in that scope and is no longer state of the art so that our claim would be novel. But not sure at all...
DeleteDid EP-F2 contain the claim of EP-F1? (EP2 has the same disclosure). If not, we should add a claim in EP-F2 corresponding to the EP-F1 claim...
DeleteI believe you are right. I did not see that in the exam, but I believe the date is set so, that we should have claimed priority from EP-F3. But I do not see how we could include 35-80 range to EP-F2, because EP-F2 does not include that subject matter.
DeleteI think you are also right that EP-F2 may also have a claim for the range 0-40. But I don't know how it would serve helpful under this context.
In my view, we cannot include it, because it is not disclosed. Nevertheless i could imagine that the priority would then become valid for the state of the art that falls in that partial priority scope if i understand G1/15 correctly...
Delete@Hiker Fast: see our answer to the DII. Original claim 3 of EP-F2 is not novel. Amending claim 3 of EP-F2 to S + Cu NP < 40 makes the claim to have priority from EP-F1 and to be novel. Details in our answer.
Delete@Hiker Fast: you can indeed not at a claim to 35-80 range in EP-F2, as that would violate Art.123(2), but if you add a priority claim to EP-F3, the <80 claim benefits from partial priority of the 35-80 range in EP-F3 (G 1/15), such that the 70-80 disclosures from EP-H's publication in English and the announcement are no longer prior art to that conceptual part of the claim, and not novelty-destroying to the conceptual remaining part of the claim.
DeleteSee our answser for details.
Honestly, that sounds really good. Correct me if I am wrong but you propose that:
ReplyDelete(Limiting the subject matter to ss+copper np)
Range of 0-40 is disclosed already in claim of EP-F1. So partial priority works.
If I claim priority from EP-F3 (35-80), partial priority would also work for for EP-F3 for the range of 35-80, so I also cover the range of 40-80 with priority from EP-F3?
That sounds right to me. Because otherwise EP-F3 does not serve any purpose in my analysis.
For my assessment the range of 40-80 was also novel and inventive anyway (I considered EP-H as disclosing micrometers according to G-IV, 5.1), but your version sounds really right.
EP-F1 Claims metal nanoparticles (1), metal in range 0-80nm (1), and Copper in range 0-80nm (3).
ReplyDeleteClaim 3: partial priority from EP-F1 for copper 0-40nm. This divides Claim 3 into part1: Copper 0-40nm (with prio from F1) and part2: Copper 40-80nm (no prio). "announcement B" as well the English text of EP-H are novelty destroying (Copper 70-80nm) for the second part w/o priority. The first part enjoys priority and is novel, we can amend the Claim to "Copper 0-40nm" because EP-F1 is included in EP-F2 (--> Basis). Copper 0-40nm is then novel (valid prio, no Prior art), has a surprising effect (200% increase instead of 150% increase for "Copper 0-80nm"). So novel, inventive, patent yeah!
Claim 2: Claim prio from EP-F3, still possible within 16m from EP-F1, Claim 2 then divides into 2 parts:
Claim 2, first part: "metal 0-35nm", has no prio because not in EP-F3. EP-H and announcement B disclose "metal 70-80nm" --> different range, novel. "Metal 0-40nm" has effect of improving shoe in a different range, therefore inventive.
Claim 2, second part: "metal 35nm-80nm" enjoys priority from EP-F3 with filing date before publication of "announcement B" and EP-H publication. EP-H is not A54(3) Prior art because the Content of the authentic text (Chinese) is determining the Prior Right and discloses 70-80 Micrometer. Therefore, there is no relevant Prior art for this part. There is an effect also in this range, therefore: novel, inventive, patent (yeah). That is, patent for the whole range of metal 0-80nm!
Claim 1: has no valid prio. EP-H and announcemnet A54(2) nov destroying Prior art.
Hi JD, that sounds quite OK! See our answer on the DII-blog (https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2019/02/dii-2019-shoe-soles.html)
DeleteIs it possible to consider the part of EP-F2 contained in EP-F1 as Art54(3) prior art for the part of EP-F2 contained in EP-F3 since these two parts have different priority dates and thus consider metal 35-80 in EP-F3 is not novel over copper 0-40 in EP-F1?
ReplyDeleteNo. With G 1/15, effectively priority documents can not be novelty-destroying - do the partial priority analysis in full and you will come to that conclusion here as well.
DeleteSee our answer on the DII-blog.
Kann mich hier nur zu 100% anschließen. Wieso fällt es keinem der Probeschreiber auf, dass gleich der erste Gegenstand vollkommen unklar beschrieben ist. Habe mich letztlich dafür entschieden, dass Prio Feuer Anspruch 1 wirksam. Was sollte sonst in EP-FR1 mit beschreibt den Effekt gemeint sein? Den speziellen Effekt von Kupfer? Dann haette es der spezielle Effekt heißen muessen. Wenn nur der Effekt genannt wird, also es kann Energiespeicherung in Sohle verbessert werden, ohne zu sagen durch was, dann wäre das eine sehr seltsame Anmeldung. Offenbarte Wirkung, ohne zu nennen, wann diese Eintritt. Das ergibt fuer eine Patentanmeldungen keinen Sinn!
ReplyDeleteDennoch hat das viel zu viel Zeit gekostet, die fuer die weiteren Fragen sinnvoll einsetzbar gewesen wäre!
I think claims 1 to 3 of EP-F2 should be split into two parts (in line with G 1/15): One part for Cu 0-40 nm having the filing date of EP-F1 and the other part (the rest of the generic claim) that of Ep-F2.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I applied G1/15 to all of the claims 1 to 3 of F2.. meaning parts are either encompassed by priority claim or novel over F1.
DeleteF1 is not prior art under 54(3) EPC for the remaining part of the claim, because it is withdrawn. Therefore, it should not be required to state that the remainder of the claims are novel over F1
DeleteI didn't even think about the possibiliity that EP-F1 discloses something other than Cu. If that was the case, the whole exam wouldn't make sense. I split all three claims into parts validly claiming priority (Cu 40nm) and parts that don't. Adding a priority claim to EP-F3 then helps in securing priority for claim 2, so that Ann. B is not prior art anymore for claim 2.
ReplyDeleteIMHO this was similar to an older paper (can't remember the year) where the Examiner's report stated clearly that candidates were expected to analyze partial priorities (in that case even though there was a dependent claim clearly enjoying priority)
Dear YueMeigi,
DeletePartial priority only exists since G 1/15 and has thus not been topic of any earlier paper. You may be confusing with multiple priorities of an (explicit) OR-claim, which are frequently in the exam - which is more complex than single-priority claims but in principle straigh-forward as each alternative of the OR-claim found its subject-matter explicitly disclosed in the same form in one of the priority application (rather different than partial priority, where you donot find the claimed subject-matter explicitly in the priority application in the same form). Different priorities for independent and dependent claims is in almost every exam and should not lead to any problems for a well-prepared candidate.
Please refer to our answer on the DII-blog for partial priority in this exam.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, an interesting paper D. In my opinion, DII was by far more costly than average in terms of time. There was the partial priority issue compounded by the combination with ranges, the Article 70 issue to clarify with the translation error and whether it is a 54(2) or not, the novelty within ranges, the national protection, the disclosure of intention to sell in future but explicitly stating the actual technical features, etc. It is true that the number of disclosures to assess was limited but the sheer amount of legal basis to consult and cite was disproportionate with regard to previous years. It´s as if instead of having one or two main issues, there were 3-5 lengthy issues to research. Also, some data was missing (e.g. designations for EP-H), more detail in describing effects/disclosure in description. In my opinion this DII would be reasonable if meant to be solved in 5 hours. Since DI was not uncomplicated, the time foreseen was very scarce. I am very eager to analyse the distribution of marks.
ReplyDeleteAs there is no answer yet from any Delta P. specialists I assume this was indeed unclear and the Delta tutors are still thinking about a correct assessment of [002]. I only "took things as they were", see my first post: the effect was described in connection with "all metal NNP". I did of course other stupid mistakes in the paper but it's still sad that sometimes is examined whether candidates are able to guess and not whether the candidates know the law etc..
ReplyDeleteDear John,
DeleteThe reason was not that it was unclear, although we indeed had a discussion on the correct assessment of [002] and whether that described any metal NP or only copper, quite curcial for priority of EP-F2.
The reason is more than we also need time to do the exam, do review the answer from other tutors, to type it all, and then to get it into the blog interface (which messed up my layout of the DII completely).
And we donot get the paper at the same time as you, but only after the exan, when one of the candidates that sat the exam sends a scan to us... so, we neded the last bit of the afternoon and some of the evening to do it, then we had to have our lives as well, and we used almost the whole day to review and finalize.
In our view, the DI and the DII were together well doable in 5- 5,5 hours, for a well-prepared candidate. Partial priority should not have come as a surprise, the main issue with that is when you should do a very extensive analysis and when you cxan be brief (see the comment in our post). What took me most time in the DII was the [002]/metal-or-only-Cu issue, but -as said- that was not the reason to have our answers not yet on this morning at 8:03.
I suggested correction of EP-H (nm to ym) via R140 as non obvious (commented by chinese translator), opposition against EP-H seems not applicable based on a wrong translation.
ReplyDeleteI also put in an undsclosed disclaimer into claim 3 70-80 nm.
EP-H wasn't owned by the client, so this was not an issue.
DeleteThe opposition against EP-H is based on A123(2) as the amendment to 70-80nm adds matter over the 70-80 microns as filed. Any amendment to correct would violate A123(3), so EP-H can't be saved.
ok...but EPO can correct R140 by itself "everytime", e.g. after grant.
DeleteNevertheless i wrote that opposition still possible, so should give marks anyway.
Rule 140 relates to errors in _decisions of the EPO_, not in application texts or translations. You probably wanted to cite aritcle 14(2): "Throughout the proceedings before the European Patent Office, such translation may be brought into conformity with the application as filed."
DeleteHowever, guidlines A-VII, 7 say: "However, correction of the translation during opposition proceedings will not be allowed if it contravenes Art. 123(3), i.e. if it implies an amendment of the claims which extends the protection conferred."
Here, we have an article 123(3) issue, since "70-80um" is an aliud to "70-80 nm".
See our answer on the DII blog.
DeleteCJBizzle is fully correct - the proprietor is in a Art.14(2)-Art.123(3) trap / Art.123(2)-Art.123(3) trap - see also the GL reference that Cand. gave.
R.140 can not be used. See G 1/10 and the Guidelines parts that relate to R.140.
Our answers to the DI and DII parts have been posted as two seperate blog posts:
ReplyDeleteDI : https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2019/02/di-2019-entitlement-third-party.html
DII: https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2019/02/dii-2019-shoe-soles.html
We look forward to receive your comments and discussions on DI and DII topics on those two blogs. General comments to the D paper as a whole can of course still be posted to the current blog.
So, in reply to your question: What are your first impressions to this year's D-paper? Any general or specific comments?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe DI was identical in difficulty to past exams, and I found the questions were easy to understand (unlike 2018's). I also found some questions interesting, like the differences in TPOs in PCT vs. EPC and also the late filing of the claims in PCT vs. EPC.
I found the DII part a bit demanding which, given the time pressure, resulted in having to take shortcuts instead of providing the whole answer. I am sure everyone is familiar with partial priorities and generic vs specific disclosures, however, in the exam everything gets complicated and it is difficult to analyse the situation in a clear concise manner.
I started by DI. Took me 2h15 min. When I finished the DII part I still had one hour. Instead of improving the DII, I came back to DI and tried to improve those questions. I believe the extra 30 minutes are really necessary, not only for improving your already written reply but also to avoid being under too much pressure during the exam.. To be honest I think that maybe, I have only improved .. 5 marks max. from those extra minutes...
I expect 25 in DI and 25 in DII (optimist).
I believe the pass rate is going to be similar to previous years.
I think the topics were well balanced in the DI-part.
Hope the above is of help! Cheers
Dear DP People,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the quick feedback on the exams. I found exam D fairly OK even if a bit long (especially D2). In D1 I followed your path except for Q4 b) and Q5 a). In D2 I missed the re-use of EP-F3 for improving EP-F2 claims. However, my answer are much less elaborated than yours. In particularly in D2 I had to follow my instinct (on the translation of EP-H) due to the lack of time to check in the litterature the correct approach. I had no time at all to review my answers. For me it was a race from the 1st minute to the last and I needed to use shortcut, not having time to develop a full argumentation in writing. I wrote my last word few seconds before the end. So I may have passed even if my too concise answers will probably be punished.
My approach during the exam was : read the paper, take a decision what to reply, check the litterature to get the references (d1), write it, forget it and go to the next question. No time for re-thinking, no time for review. To be able to review my answers I would have needed 1/2 hour extra.
Cheers.
The results are out!
ReplyDeleteSee https://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2019/06/results-eqe-2019-available.html for statistics.
the Examiner's Reports are not yet available.
The Examiner's Report is now also available:
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/compendium/D.html --> http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/837BCDDD81C9ADCBC125841E00407479/$File/ExRep_D_2019_EN_for_web.pdf