Updates to our D-book ("Main Exam Questions for Paper D"), edition July 2019 for EQE2020
Updates to our D-book (edition July 2019, for EQE2020) are available reflecting legal changes that only became known after our Questions and Answers books were published, which supersede and/or supplemente some of the legal references (OJ, case law) in our book.
Please refer to our other post.
Please refer to our other post.
SHARE:
Hi Roel,
ReplyDeleteI have brought the Analysis and Model Solution for EQE2018 - Paper D, and your answers partially differs from the Examiner's Report in particular with respect to the priority issues PCT-BB2 and EP-BB3.
In the Examiner's report, it is stated that the (2.3. EP-BB3 of Examiner's Report, lines 3-7) EP-BB2 has served as a basis for claiming priority and was not withdrawn before EP-BB3 was filed. Moreover, it is stated in said report that PCT-BB2 validly claims priority from EP-BB2 insofar as the apparatus including the dough mixer and the trumpet-shaped nozzle is concerned so that the effective date of this subject-matter is 3 February 2017 (lines 10-12).
But in the Examiner's Report it is also stated that there is no basis in for an apparatus claim that does not included the screw conveyor in either a European patent application based on PCT-BB2....(3.2 EP-BB3 of the Examiner's Report)
But in DeltaPatents alleges the following in the model solution:
(Q.2-c) EP-BB3):
"But we can still add priority claim to PCT-BB2 as far as that has new matter vs EP-BB2"
3.3-b Improved patent situation - PCT-BB3
"PCT-BB3 cannot validly claim prio from EP-BB3 for apparatus with a mixer and trumpet-shaped nozzle because EP-BB3 is not first application but EP-BB2."
It is also not clear why the PCT-BB2 has to be withdrawn as suggested in the alternative solution from DeltaPatents. Since EP-BB3 can be withdrawn before publication and a new PCT-BB3 could be filed claiming the priority of PCT-BB2. Trumpet+Screw conveyor and mixer is disclosed for the first time in PCT-BB2. PCT-BB2 does not validly claim the priority of EP-BB2 since it additionally discloses a screw conveyor and thus and additional feature. Thus, the addition of the priority of PCT-BB2 to a new PCT-BB3 and withdrawing EP-BB3 should be correct.
Greetings Peter
I will have a look into it shortly. Please contact me by email, so I can contact you to ask for clarification or I can clarify.
DeleteNote that our suggestion to withdraw PCT-BB2 is part of the "Alternative solution (a consistent advice if you concluded that PCT-BB2 cannot be amended to a subrange because of failure of the purposive selection requirement)", which fits in an interpretation of the paper that no effects are given in PCT-BB2 (3.2: paragraph titled "Note that if however no effects are disclosed in PCT-BB2: in our model solution and remark in italic at the end of 3.2). The lack of an explicit mentioning that the effects were specified in the application caused some confusion to some candidates, and with our alternative answer we indicated the effect of the interpretation that the effects are absent.