Paper D e-EQE 2021: first impressions?
[Update 3 March 2021, 15h30:]
Breaking news 3 March 2021:
The message below has just been published on the e-EQE website (here):
-------
[Original post:]
To all who sat the D-paper today:
What are your first impressions to this year's D-paper? Any general or specific comments?
This was the first D-paper of which the DI:DII ratio was not 40:60 anymore; it was announced in December, when the "Information on the time schedule" was published, that it was 50:50. And even more specifically, that it was split into 3 parts with break in between the 3 parts: a first DI part of 25 marks, a second DI part of 25 marks and a DII part of 50 marks.
How did that change of 40:60 to 50:50 influence your preparation?
How did the split of the paper into 3 parts influence your preparation? How did it effect your exam? How did you use the breaks? Could you forget about the finished part and free your mind for the next part in each break? Were the breaks no enough? Did you also take any unscheduled breaks?
What was the effect of doing it online? Of doing it typed rather than handwritten?
How did you experience taking the exam from your home or office location rather than in an examination center? (How) was it different due to the due of the LockDown Browser?
What was the effect of the situation that you had to take the exam largely from the screen (as only a small part could be printed) rather than from paper?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?
How did this year's D-paper compare to the earlier D papers of 2013 - 2019?
Was DI similar as to its subjects and difficulty as the last few years (on top of that it was longer)?
Was DII similar as 2013-2017 & 2019 (on top of that it was shorter) or more like 2018 with a large legal case part of the DII?
Was the additional 15 minutes in each DI apart and the additional 30 minutes in the DII part sufficient to compensate for the restrictions caused by the fixed time schedule of 3 parts?
Was the additional 15 minutes in each DI apart and the additional 30 minutes in the DII part sufficient to compensate for the restrictions caused by the fixed time schedule of 3 parts?
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; were disclaimer 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 seven years were very well designed in this respect!)?
The paper and our answers
[Updated 04.03.2021 9:00:] We compiled a complete version of the D 2021 paper (both D1 parts, the DII part and the calendars): it is available here. (We expect that they will be made available in all 3 official EPO languages on the EQE webpages, Compendium, D at the end of this week or next week).
Our answers will be given in two separate blog posts: one for the DI-questions and another post for the DII-part. We will post our answers tomorrow morning (3 March), to first allow you to post your comments and question without being biased by our answers.
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 03-03-2021 03:03"), whereas using your real name or a nickname 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.
Please post substantial questions to specific DI questions to our DI post and DII-related questions to our DII post. Thanks!SHARE:
Terrible! The non-availability for EN/FR document in the beginning messed up the tempo of the exams. I sent a message on zendesk and my number of 307!
ReplyDeleteI could only freak out during that time. Though the addition of 30 min helped but it is unjust for those who couldn't read DE compared to those who can!
Later for D1-2 my 'hand-in' was not successful and I was told to manually upload my answer. Though I refreshed the page and then it was handed in... wasted my time there.
So I only had 10-15 min for my lunch.
it wreacked my first part!! as I opened zendesk, there is a queue of 872!!!
DeleteI cannot refrain from putting some shitty words against EPO on that -- they have asked us to test the system so many times and I have no problems with all of the mocks at all, and today they shitted on all us.
sorry but I am so angry....
Pitre
I am still shot through with adrenaline, I don't expect I will be able to sleep tonight, or even tomorrow night. It was horrible.
DeletePaper DII seemed less straight forward than usual.
ReplyDeleteI also found part 2 of D1 was particularly difficult.
Let's not talk about the English version of the Assignment not available on start of part 1 of D1... I apologized to the invigilator via Zen Desk for all the curses I yelled :)
Yes, DII was a mess. I drafted a time line, only to discover too much happened around June 2018 so I had to redraft on a new sheet of paper, only to get into trouble in autumn 2020 so I had to make the timelines on a THIRD sheet of paper. There are 13 entries on my list, it was all very complex.
DeleteAnd thanks to the language issue I failed seeing that S+O+C could kill W-EP.
I have done many exams in my life, few if any have been as brutal as this one.
So many ridiculous issues today!
ReplyDeleteAlthough additional time was given, I still believe that those folks fluent in German had a further advantage over us English speaking folks as it was 15 minutes before I was able to access the correct assignment - I believe everyone got additional time but those that could read the Germany paper had additional time over everyone else in my opinion.
DII, this was difficult, so much to consider from oppositions to summons etc., doing the time line without paper copies for highlighting, I found myself treble checking even quadruple checking things.
Further to my above comment at 16:58 ..... Also, WiseFlow crashed on me for some unknown reason, screen just disappeared mid answer and disrupted my flow due to the panic with getting in touch with invigilator etc. Things were stressful enough without having to deal with browser crash and assignment access delays - increased the stress level without a doubt
DeleteI had the same problem today, screen disappeared for no reason!
DeleteQuite a rush start with the unavailability of the English text.
ReplyDeletethe additional time for D1-I was very much welcome and helped ease the mind, but then there was an incredible rush-feeling in D1-II
I reached he last question of D1-II almost out of breath
D2 felt incredibly long to digest, and I started extremely slow... I was almost panicking towards the end when I realized I still had plenty of time to read everything again and dot the i's... really weird feeling of time passing today, I guess being alone in the room with no external contact makes you lose track easier than when there are other people doing the same thing around you. Fingers crossed! Let's hope the committee keeps into account the exceptional circumstances of this year's exam and of poor guinea-pig candidates Y_Y
Das erklärt weshalb es 30 Minuten obendrauf gab. Ich muss zugeben als Deutsch Muttersprachler waren die 30 Minuten extra gigantisch. Aber unfair den anderen gegenüber die, die extra Zeit nicht nutzen konnten um in den Rilis genauer nach zu lesen und eine Aufgabe bis ins Detail zu beantworten.
ReplyDeleteI had the same language issues as everyone else. Also, I had the issue where my "internet was not connected" even though I was clearly using ZenDesk to communicate with the EPO and connected to the internet. The extra time was not added until I spoke to someone at the EPO. I did all the mocks, all the info sessions, all the e-EQE reading, and I never saw these issues.
ReplyDeleteI did my absolution best to recover, but as every point is SO important on D, I wish I had 5-10 minutes that I lost from the stress to help myself.
At least the EPO gave us 20 minutes. But emotionally, I was stressed and there was basically barely a break between D1-I and DI-II as I was speaking with the EPO.
I hope the EPO does something to fix the lost time and stress with D. 20 min in my opinion (when you spent 2 years studying for this) is not enough.
Same EN Language issue. Lost near on 20 mins not to mention the state of mind following that. Following the notice of an extra 30 mins, I tried my best to reprofile my attempt accordingly only for my flow to end on the normal time, pop up saying hand in with no way out. So 30 mins lost + frustration + inadvertent and unexpected end. 2ys and we get to this :-(
ReplyDeleteI had language issues in Mock 2 and Mock 3. I wrote at least two emails to the Helpdesk reporting the language issues and told them that a simple solution is to put the paper-EN first instead of paper-DE, as everyone knows english well. I understand the EPO tradition regarding the alphebet order, but isn't it easier and fairer to simply move the paper-EN before paper-DE?? They replied that it was my own system problem, since other people did not report similar issues and thus I need to adjust my computer setup or just remember to reload the Lockdown browser after choosing the paper-EN. Today I felt fooled by the helpdesk...how rediculous ;-)
ReplyDeleteFor those who are too impatient to wait for DeltaPatents solutions (jokes aside, we all know we'll be browsing the blog this evening, waiting for the solutions to be posted...)
ReplyDeleteAbout DII:
(i) Could P-EP be saved (e.g. by amendment proposed by client)?
(ii) What improvements did you find?
For (i), I thought that P-EP cannot be saved, because removing/replacing feature B would ensue A123(3) infringement.
For (ii), I only found (a) to carry out acts for EP entry (+FP) for HP PCT, and (b) to argue about lack of novelty of W-EP vis-à-vis HP PCT (once R165 was complied with) during opposition proceedings against W-EP.
Agree
Deletefor (i), I caught the same issues as you. I said WUFF would argue Art. 123(3) is violated and this would be a stronger argument, but I did care to say how the EPO Opp DIV would rule. There is probably some case law about what substitution for a different element is enough for Art. 123(3) or not, but I could not find it. If it can't be saved, then what does he have left? Thus, I pointed out he should at least make the argument and if he convinces the OPP DIV, he can get that claim allowed. Maybe they mark me down.
Delete(ii) Same, HP-PCT could become ARt. 54(3) prior art if R.165 complied with, but need to do FP to "save it".
There is: G 1/99. But it does not work here. At least I did not see how.
DeleteL.
I agree with Gregory. What else is he left with? Especially don't forget in the letter the client had said that P-EP is validated in Italy and he "would like to maintain it in UK and some other country". That's a clear client wish. If we don't help out in that then what's the use of that wish being there as its the only wish that I could find. So I argued like Gregory but in stronger terms(probably to my detriment) with all kinds of arguments, the soundness of which I am not so sure about...
DeleteI also saw no remedy for P-EP, except that I think the revoked patent could be converted under art. 135 to an IT utility model.
DeleteI failed to see how P-EP could be saved, and felt terrible since the remaining questions suggested some rights should remain. The client was left in a dire situation, very depressing after the language mess earlier.
DeleteI could kill S+O+C but that is useless as Wuff still keeps S+O.
The paper said P-EP is validated in Italy and the client "intends" to maintain it in the UK and France. I saw that as reflecting that you don't validate a granted EP in the UK and France, you merely need to maintain it. Not so much a wish as an expression of the current situation.
DeleteActually, S+O+C is also novelty-destroying for S+O. I didn't realise that until it was too late.
DeleteAnonymous2 March 2021 at 18:22, UK and FR are automatically validated, only maintenance fees are required.
DeleteWhy not giving out a free licence to W in exchange for them withdrawing their opposition?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWasn't the priority claim to W-IT invalid in respect of S+O (not first application in view of W-JP)?
DeleteYes, P-EP could be saved by claiming S+Y+A. Couldn't have B in combination with anything because of lack of sufficiency
DeleteI thought you couldn't claim S+Y+A because of A123(3)
DeleteAnonymous2 March 2021 at 19:26, I found the W-JP a bit mysterious but it had been withdrawn with no rights, after publishing, never entered EPO.
DeleteI think this was a trick question since it was the same applicant and that can be a problem in other jurisdictions but not, I thought, in EPO.
Anonymous 2 March at 19.28. If S+Y+A was disclosed in the application as filed then you can add a claim to it without infringing A 123(2) EPC
Deletewoof woof2 March 2021 at 20:29, this would still mean you removed feature B, which is a broadening. Third parties S+Y+A safe in their belief that the patent was not going to be broadened, would now be severely disadvantaged when feature B was replaced with A.
DeleteAlso A123(2) is for an application, but at this stage we are talking about a granted patent, so A123(3) seems more applicable.
Anonymous, I appreciate your point. We will see what the answer is
DeleteIf you still have questions on any of the aspects raised/discussed in the thread above after having check the blog post with our DII answer (http://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-2021-dii-part.html), then please post your question/comment there
DeleteI think the main issues in D II were:
ReplyDelete1) invalid priority claim due to not being the first application,
2) extending protection scope in Opposition, in relation to removing non-enalbed feature.
3) further processing for entry into EP
I don't understand what you mean in 2). Lack of sufficiency meant any combination with B was out of the question. However, could still add a claim to S+Y+A
DeleteWas the market research novelty-destroying? I couldn't figure out exactly what was disclosed
DeleteI said the market research was between two business parties and it was presumed confidential. I thought about it. There was no evidence that anyone outside of the two parties saw the subject matter, right? So, I mentioned it, but stated it was "presumed" confidential and not prior art.
DeleteFor 2), I meant, amendment to claim S+Y+A from S+A+B was not possible for removing the insufficiency issue, as it changes the protection scope of the grantes patent [A.123(3)].
DeleteYes - I really couldn't decide if it was market research where they went out and surveyed people, or market research where they did some private online searches or something. I ended up writing "If the market research was public then...", "If the market research was not public then..." for every part to cover all bases, but I worry that it made my answer very long and a bit confusing!
DeleteAnonymous 20:07, don't need to claim S+Y+A from S+Y+B, because S+Y+A was already disclosed in the application as filed. therefore, can delete claim to S+Y+B and add a claim to S+Y+A without adding subject matter
DeleteDog collar, the possibilty you explained is for application [A.123(2)].
DeleteThis case is the granted patent (claim), this [A.123(3)] applies.
3) further processing for entry into EP is a rather daring move but faces a formidable uphill struggle, from what I can see.
DeleteFirst you need a PCT application more than a year late (should have been filed July 2019 based on subject matter disclosed only in P-EP. Next you need to bring that into EP phase to gain rights from it.
If you manage that you should be awarded 100% score, with merits and oak leaves.
@ Anonymous 2 March 2021 at 17:35: indeed, those were the main big issues, besides the usual patentability and exploitation discussions.
DeleteIf you still have questions on any of the aspects raised/discussed in the thread above after having check the blog post with our DII answer (http://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-2021-dii-part.html), then please post your question/comment there
For me, I did not get the extra time at all. At exactly 11:00, I got the message to hand in now or exit without hand in. There was no way of going back after that. Very frustrating.
ReplyDeleteSame here. What makes it worse is that I very much planned with the announced extra time, hence got cut off when least expected
DeleteSame here, but I got back in with invigilation password after 13 minutes of rebooting my computer.So 17 minutes extra instead if 30. Password was given without difficulty fortunately.
DeleteBut I was not so affected. I can read german and after 5 minutes searching for the EN version, i just started to answer the question in english
Same here, my D1 part 1 ended at 10.00 am UK time. Luckily I still managed to finish that section, tbh I don't know how since I started it 30 min late because of the unavailability of the EN paper. I wrote an email to the EQE helpdesk about it, I suggest you do the same. The more noise we make, the more likely it is they will hear us
DeleteI'm glad they separated the exam into three parts. I really allows to stay focused and to take a good break in-between. However, the second break for lunch was very short, due to the shift of the schedule. I do not understand why they did not also shift D2 to let us some time to eat. Someone had a train to catch?
ReplyDeleteAnd what a panic at the beginning: looking for my exam in French and only seeing it in German! When i connected to zendesk and saw that I was 505th in the queue, i understood that i was not alone... and had a good laugh, remembering when the EPO instructed us to test our system!
No "Step by step to the e-EQE" for the EQE organization itself?
DeleteI'm envious of your position as 505th in the queue, I was over position 1000 in the queue! I didn't receive a zendesk response for at least 20 minutes.
Deletehaha 'someone had a train to catch'
DeleteAside from the language fiasco, did anyone else laugh when they saw the third question of D1-1 being labelled 'Question 6'?
ReplyDeleteI mean, I can understand why that happened in the mocks but they had a whole year to change the numbers to be in the correct order!!
AP
When I saw this I was surprised. This could be an issue for graders? Maybe they will not known what do if someone labels the question, question "3" because question "3" is actually in D1-2.
DeleteBUt yeah, I think most people saw this as a silly typo.
Yes easily understandable typo, particularly as we know Qs are split this year. probably didn't affect anyone but still astonishing nobody thought to make the easy edit to correct the numbering...
DeleteI got caught out by this, didn't spot it was question 6 not 3,so labelled my answer "question 3" :( I am hoping it will be obvious which question I was answering, especially as the real question 3 was in a whole other part of the exam...
DeleteYEAH - I saw this too. Did they not test this paper - clearly not. They also clearly didn't check the system today before the exam started.
DeleteAt first I thought I misunderstood the whole concept of the test but then I realized it. Don’t we all love those unnecessary rushes of adrenaline mid-exam..
DeleteI did not suspect this being a typo since the front page also referred to Question 6 ;) Probably the question was added or shifted to have both D parts with equal points?
DeleteI am quite certain that if you label the answers in your D1-1 as Q.1, Q.2, Q.3 rather than Q.1., Q.2, Q.6, there will be no negative impact on your marking.
DeleteObviously, there must be some kind of formal reason why the questions were not consecutively numbered. Presumably, the paper was originally designed as a EQE2021 paper D paper, with 50 mark DI and 50 mark DII (in line with the announcement that it would not necessarily be 40:60, but somewhere in the range 40:60 - 60:40) and that paper was basically ready and approved at all various levels in July. And then, decision was made to make it an online exam... in 3 parts of 25:25;50 marks. So they shuffled the questions such that D1-1 was exactly 25 marks and D1-2 was exactly 25 marks. Change of the paper, so requires again a review & approval process. My best would be that changing the order of the questions but no single character required a less extensive review and approval process than if they would have renumbered the questions. With Q.1, Q.2, Q.6 in D1-1 and Q.3, Q.4, Q.5 in D1-2 as a result. Well, in the end, who care about the Q-number? But... it made me also think a few minutes: is there a snag? ... There was not, it was just a strange way if counting.
I didn't get the EN paper until 9:02 UK time. I was thinking it was punishment for Brexit? ;)
ReplyDeleteHilarious.
DeleteBrexit was clearly the best thing you could have possibly done, so it may have been envy at most! XD
DeleteThat's interesting, I got the EN paper at exactly 9:02 (UK time) as well!
DeleteComplete shambles today with the EN and FR version not available. It affect my performance for the whole today and NOT just DI part 1. Shambles!
ReplyDeleteSince the issue this morning I could not focus again. I am out of my mind... did stupid mistakes in easy questions... and had no structure to handle the difficult questions... DII was specially difficult this year. And the Exam situation?? Pure stress. I will try to put myself together.. still 3 days to go.
DeleteI feel your pain, same situation. Beyond ridiculous.
DeleteUtterly disgraceful of today's event. Candidates have worked hard and prepared. They gave the EPO as much feedback/benefit of the doubt for working up an online solution that they had a year to work on.
ReplyDeleteIt is very unprofessional from the EPO to provide this broken system for professional examinations.
Seriously!! A PDF viewer!! This is BASIC!!
DeleteDid anyone experience wiseflow crashing on them. It happened to me in DII.
ReplyDeleteThe "alt-tab" possibility is excluded? I am so worry of potentially hitting that combined keystrokes
Deleteyes, I had to train myself for a month NOT to hit alt-tab. It was a problem with wiseflow. The pages won't move when you click on the arrows.
DeleteI think also ctrl-tab is disallowed. And I have used all possible keyboard accelerators in my daily work for over 20 years, well before joining the profession. This made me rather worried and disrupts my working habits.
DeleteHappened to mr - I was mid flow answering a section and the system just went blank, wiseflow disappeared and could just see my desktop...panicked to get in touch with invigilator and completely lost my flow of concentration tbh
DeleteMy first impression: pretty much the worst case for such an exam. I feel sorry for the organizers, I wouldn't wnat to be in their shoes now, having to somehow find a solution for the people who got kicked out half an hour early, or did not get their assignments until half an hour late. And probably there will even be some who had both problems. No idea how they want to find a fair way to treat all this.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I was notified about the 30 min plus I was kicked the hell out at 5 AM (here in Miami). That’s not nice, I didn’t even start with the last one in D1-1
ReplyDeleteShocking really. Today is NOT good and so many candidates will be anxious tonight for the rest of the week. Confidence has been severely dented.
ReplyDeleteI got the English paper 30 minutes into the exam too, after 30 minutes of utter panic. An invigilator told me I had ten minutes extra at the end. I therefore completely rushed my reading and answers to questions 1 and 2 to make sure I had at least a bit of time for question 3. I found out 10 mins before the end that I actually had an extra 20 minutes. But by that point I'd already written 2 incredibly rushed answers! I tried to fix as best I could but it was a disastrous start to the day
ReplyDeletesame here. I ended up rushing and then told 10 minutes before the exam ends you got a bit more time. I still didn't finish as I was set aback quite a bit.
DeleteThen for DI part 2, the same thing happen again. No EN or FR version available at the start. Incredible.
Same for me. See my comments at 19:12 please.
DeleteYes I think this is the main problem which happened today. Those of us who started 30mins late, ended up starting the 3 questions with 1hr to spare. We then ended up rushing through Q1+2, only to start Q6 to hear that 30mins has been added on.
DeleteTechnically it was a stresstest, perhaps good for airplane pilot training?
ReplyDeleteContent: at least it was an exam worthy of the forced year of extra studying due to corona.
Problem is that I think today's event will affect me for the rest of the week. Still shaking now. Badly affected by today.
ReplyDeleteSame here. I prepared a lot. Really a lot. Got a lot of support from my office AND family. Cannot even think about it... Another Christmas studying...
DeleteWeirdly enough am shaking too - all the stress from panic made me make stupid stupid mistakes. This sucked big time tbh. Hoping to get some study done but head not with it at the moment.
DeleteGood job sticking with it though! I´m sure the marking will take all the chaos into account and award additional marks for just surviving the day :) Good luck for the rest of the week everyone!
DeleteI did not get the 10 minutes extra! Now that I entered again to request the receipt for handing in the massage about the 10 minutes appeared!!! WTF. I am so angry!!!
ReplyDeleteMe neither. And I never got a massage, I could use one though.
DeleteAlso, the question related to the metal bolt made my head hurt. I knew there was partial priority issue (AL EP-D0), but I was not exactly sure how it would matter. For questions (a) and (b) it was clear, but (c) got tricky. Looking forward to the Detla patent solution. If I had a little more time on the test (lost time due technial issues), I probably could have figured it out. But that stress and lost time did not help.
ReplyDeleteI thought this question was about undisclosed disclaimers... maybe I'm wrong
DeleteI think it was all about undisclosed disclaimers when faced with art54(3) and (2) prior art docs,i.e., to disclaim "aluminium". Priority claim was not valid and so the same prior art document became art 54(2) prior art for the last part of the question.
DeleteI absolutely agree that it was all about disclaimers. The only thing that got me confused was (c). How does EP-D0 become prior art for EP-D1 if its published in April 2020. EP-D1 still has valid priority from US patent application. So I don't see. Did they mean April 2019? In any case, just to get the marks, I laid down the entire case for 54(2) as well (no accidental anticipation because from same field etc) but concluded that in this case, its still 54(3). Did i miss something? how does EP-D0 become 54(2) without being published BEFORE the effective date of EP-D1 (which EP-D1 gets from the US patent) ?
DeleteRules 133 and 134 apply to the priority period under Art. 87(1).
DeleteAnonymous 2 March 2021 at 19:39, I concluded the same. My feeling was the question addressed whether the priority date or filing date is the relevant date. Art 89 replaces filing date with priority date for the purpose of Art. 54(3), so the conclusion would be no change.
DeleteYes, it was about undisclosed disclaimers. I got that part. But you can only use undisclosed disclaimers against ARt. 54(3), not against ARt. 54(2) and that is what made we wonder about Part (c) of the questions, where the EP-DO publishes earlier (before a filing date) and then maybe it is ARt. 54(2) if EP-D1 does not have its priority? I was not sure. Applicant D was the applicant for all, but each application had a wrinkle. I wonder if partial priority applied later. Maybe I over thought it.
DeleteThis was a difficult question... I think you had to apply the partial priority concept of G1/15 to deciding what was the first application - see T282/12.
DeleteGregory, in part c, EP-D0 was indeed 54(2) art. So cannot add an undisclosed disclaimer because it can only be added in the case where the 54(2) document was an accidental anticipation, which it wasn't G1/03
DeleteWas EP-D0 and US-D filed by the same applicant?
Delete@Confused: See my answer to this same question in the DI-post:
Deletehttps://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-2021-di-parts.html
@Gregor: indeed in c), you cannot introduce an undisclosed disclaimer as the killing prior art is a 54(2).
DeleteOur answer is given in the DI-post.
When can we the questions?
ReplyDeleteWhen can we see the questions on the EPO side?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/compendium/D.html
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteW.R.T Q5 of D-I
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of application was it - EUROPEAN OR INTERNATIONAL?
"...filed an international application PCT-E on..."
DeleteDid someone conclude that feature B could in fact be replaced by A as it was not essential? Essential test in guidelines H? I found rendering it inadmissible due to lack of disclosure too simple to be true.
ReplyDeleteGood point. But can you remove B? At best, I think you would get S+Y+B+A, which is still not enabled.
DeleteEssential or not, wouldn't removal be contrary to Art 123(3) EPC?
DeleteI just checked my answers again. It says S+Y+A combination was disclosed in the description of P-EP. Let's wait for the delta patents answers.
DeleteAnonymous 2 March 2021 at 19:12, yes, I think you're right. So you have to do S+Y+B+A because B must be construed as a limitation, even if not enabled. So you end up with not enable S+Y+B+A.
DeleteNo need for essentiality test, S+Y+A was already present in application as filed
DeleteIt's not possible to change B to A because of A. 123(3).
DeleteI agree with SL, but I see that there's lot of confusion on the matter, so I'm still not sure. There's not much in case law either.
DeleteHow about Guidelines H-V,3.1 Replacing features from a claim.
DeleteI heavily discussed the three criteria and came to the conclusion that it does not contravene Art 123(3) replacing B with A. But again, maybe I am wrong.
basically, the claim can't include B because of insufficiency. You can't remove B from the claim because then you are extending the scope of protection. Even if you replace B with A, the scope of protection is now different (inflatable sound barrier -> AHHH which functions to counteract the high pitch sound from YELP). You simply can't do that. I think the question required a lot of analysis in relation to why such amendments are not possible. S+Y+A is in the description but the claimed invention is S+Y+B. You can't change B to A because A does not in any way clarify B or even solve the insufficiency issue. This is my opinion, please feel free to comment or ask if you have any questions.
DeleteM. I think you're mixing up 123(2) and 123(3). The three criteria at H-V,3.1 are for compliance with 123(2). The requirement of 123(3) always stands and can't be overcome by some simple test. This is clear from the last paragraph of H-V-3.1.
DeleteGuidelines H-V,3.1 only applies during examination and not post grant.
DeleteThose guidelines deal with Art. 123(2) EPC tho. I spend a lot of time on this question but I just cannot see how it is not an extension of the scope of protection under Art. 123(3) EPC to remove B...
DeleteM.2 March 2021 at 20:30, I checked Guidelines H-V,3.1 and it refers to two scenarios:
DeleteApplication stage, referring to Art 123(2) EPC, where replacing B with A is fine, and
Post grant stage, referring to Art 123(3) EPC, where such replacements are not fine: "The removal of a limiting feature from an independent granted claim is likely to result in broadening the scope of protection afforded and could therefore contravene Art. 123(3). Likewise, if a feature in a granted claim is replaced, compliance with Art. 123(3) has to be carefully checked."
How exactly is it extension of protection under 123(3) when the application as filed already disclosed S+Y+A? You're not amending the claim to S+Y+B, you are adding a new claim to S+Y+A, which was already disclosed in the application as filed. So I don't think H-IV 3.1 applies because your are not adding removing (for example) B from the S+Y+B claim, which would be a broadening, but instead, you are claiming something different, which has basis in the application as filed, i.e. S+Y+A. Think about the paper and how a new claim to S+Y+A would flow nicely with the questions. I think this is the most likley solution.
DeleteYou cannot replace S+Y+A with S+Y+B post-grant as this clearly violates A123(3), because A is not solely within scope of B and B is a limitation. It doesn't matter if the application as filed discloses S+Y+A as well, because the granted claims did not cover the scope of S+Y+A. Regardless of what happens to the independent claim to S+Y+B, you cannot add an independent claim to S+Y+A without extending the scope of protection of the European patent.
DeleteIf a third party had looked at the patent, seen that S+Y+B was claimed, concluded that S+Y+A would therefore not infringe the claims, and started producing S+Y+A, it would be entirely unfair to this diligent third party if the patent could later be changed to S+Y+A.
For example, if a EP application discloses an embodiment where a widget is included in a submarine and an embodiment where the same widget is included in a helicopter but grants with claims only directed to the widget included in the submarine, you cannot post-grant amend to replace the submarine with the helicopter as the scope of protection will have been extended.
After grant, any amendment must satisfy not only Art.123(2) but also 123(3) - the latter refers to the scope of the claims as granted (or limited during opposition or limitation), so in this case the sole claim to S+Y+B.
DeleteThe main issue with P-EP is that 123(3) prevents to take out B in any kind of way: you would broaden or shift the scope of protection, which is not allowed.
See our answer on
https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-2021-dii-part.html
Dare I say it but today's scandal is far bigger than the HOT/COLD room scandal a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. EPO needs to take some action.
DeleteDefinitely bigger scandal. The biggest so far in the EPO list of errors by far.
DeleteI had language issues both in D1-1 and D1-2. Both times only the DE assignment was available. It threw me totally off in D1-1 in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteD1-2 was even worse. The support couldn’t/didn’t help me and requested - 30m (!) into the exam - that I restart and use the invigilator password. I asked for more time but received no answer. So I continued in DE due to the immense time pressure & stress. I’m really upset and shocked about what I regard as sloppiness in preparing and conducting the exam. I mean the third question in D1-1 was labeled Q6. Imo definitely not a case of “all due care taken” by the examination committee.
same thing happen to me. DE was the only version available for both parts and cost me alot of time.
DeleteAlso, now that my emotions are calming down, I have the feeling that D-II was the exact same as a D-II worth 60 points. I don't see how this D-II was less work than a 60 point total of past papers. There were many patents/applications, and many claims. Each required a lot of analysis (maybe some less, W-EP alone was a piece of work). I thought the 50/50 distribution would help us, but it seems the D-II is just as hard, but worth less points comparatively.
ReplyDeleteDII was very long indeed. I don't think properly adjusted the DII question to account for 50 marks.
DeleteI agree that D2 was very long. I found it to be comparable to a 60 point paper. There was a lot to cover and I didn't finish all questions.
DeleteThat was my impression too.
DeleteWe had to analyze 6 (six!) different subject matters for patentability, and there were 2 different oppositions pending to consider while doing so.
Also, the questions to answer were four, while in the past recent years they were usually three.
DII this year was a 60 mark paper disguised as a 50 mark paper.
yeah - i got completely confused with Q6 vs Q3. In the end - i was more distraught about the language issue then dealing with question numbering. It does not give me any confidence at all.
ReplyDeleteW.R.T Q5 of D-I
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of application was it - EUROPEAN OR INTERNATIONAL?
you mean the receiving office? it's still and international app either way but the rO is different depending on language.
DeleteDid I use an old annex B?
DeleteIn mine it stated for Portugal that nationals and residents of Pt have to file first filings inPortugal for State security. There was no mention in the question of "first filings" but neither of a priority. So that puzzled me.
My understanding from the online documents were were provided with, that PT nationals have to file locally if a national secret is involved but can file with EPO otherwise.
DeleteSo language PT means EP transfers filing to IB as RO, but for EN language EPO becomes RO.
@Anonymous 2 March 2021 at 19:34:
DeleteYes, Q.5 explicitly said it was a PCT application:
Applicant E, resident and national of Portugal, filed an international application PCT-E on 3 January 2021 at the EPO. The EPO was chosen as the International Searching Authority (ISA) in the request.
Last month, applicant E received a notification from the receiving Office dated 29 January 2021, inviting him to furnish a translation.
...
@Lonneke: whether there is a national law requirement to file an application with the national office first or not has no effect on the validity of the PCT application. Same for mandatory filing with your national office for an EP.
DeleteThere is "just" a sanction on you in your national law. We sometimes say: "the application is validly filed, but all communication may be send to your jail rather than your home address".
By the way, if the question says "filed an international application PCT-E on 3 January 2021 at the EPO" then it is a fact that the act of filing was done at the EPO. And in that case, there are two possible offices that can be the receiving office: the EPO or, if you do not satisfy the requirements, the IB by the act of R.19.4.
See also AG-IP 6.010 where it is said explicitly (where IB is rO - WPO often only discussed the IB-situation if there is a possible chance that national offices act somewhat different):
Delete"6.010. Can the receiving Office refuse to treat an international application as such for reasons of national security? Each Contracting State is free to apply measures deemed necessary for the preservation of its national security. For example, each receiving Office has the right not to treat an international application as such and not to transmit the record copy to the International Bureau and the search copy to the International Searching Authority. Compliance with national security prescriptions where the international application is filed with the International Bureau as receiving Office will not be checked by the International Bureau; such compliance is the applicant’s responsibility. Where an international filing date has been accorded but national security considerations prevent transmittal of the record copy, the receiving Office must so declare to the International Bureau before the expiration of 13, or at the latest 17, months from the priority date."
https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/guide/ip06.html#_general
Maybe this possible complication was not considered when the question was designed: it distracts from what is -in my opinion- the real topic. Also the GL/PCT-EPO do not indicate a similar "we will not check" as the IB does in AG-IP 6.010, so you may not be able to settle ion he issue quickly during the exam.
DeleteHow/what did you conclude was the effect of this national security requirements on each of the 4 sub-questions of Q.5?
Everythingnwent so quick. Did they explicitly mention PCT oder international application?
ReplyDeleteSee above: yes, it said so in Q.5
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough stressful and full of feeling the touch of fate, I smiled in DII. The pugs, the wuff, the oh-no technique(for letting the dogs run away), the comeback technique (for not letting dogs run away by the technique they developed for letting dogs run away), the Yelp (for shocking dogs), the Ahhh(for pacifying dogs after using the technique of shocking) ...all those good things..I'd memorize each word...Those old melodies
ReplyDeleteStill sound so good to me
As they melt the years away (check the Mr Riesling etc.in prevoius papers)
Every Sha-la-la-la
Every Wo-o-wo-o
same here! it was cute to read all :)
DeleteDONT FORGET
ReplyDelete11. If a candidate wants to file a
complaint concerning the conduct of the
pre-examination or the main
examination, they must do so as soon
as possible (at the latest by the end of
the day on which the examination was
taken) by emailing it together with a
written statement of the facts to the
Examination Secretariat
(helpdesk@eqe.org).
Also point 39 of the instructions to candidates to outline any disruptions outside of their control. A few of those today I would think!
DeleteImagine the invigilators at 9:29 CET, right guys we got this. have a sip of tea, and get ready for a busy day. 9:31 CET...you have 1000 new messages.
ReplyDelete^^^ This!
DeleteI don't feel sorry for them. When I asked on Zendesk if there was a problem with the EN paper not being available, the invigilator replied "just get on with the exam"
DeleteI told the invigilator I need to place a note under the door that exam overrunning, so do not disturb, the invigilator said get on with it and be quick. They were obviously stressed out to the max!
DeletePete Pollard on Salted patent blogspot has created a template to file a complaint. It will save you some time in writing your own complaint.
ReplyDeleteFunny enough I had a very similar problem last week, the three languages were there in the drop down but after choosing English only the German version would be displayed. I was advised to refresh the browser and read the FAQ. Only after I was told to refresh the browser today I remembered... that being said wiseflow has definitely not been taken by surprise today!
ReplyDeleteI am shocked about what I read here.
ReplyDeleteAs a German speaker I did not have the language issues and thought it to be a quite fair exam. D2 was a bit longer than usual but at least there were not so many different applications to consider.
However, I can imagine how terrible non-german speakers must have felt. I hope the EPO will consider this during grading. For me only Zendesk did not work and I was already worried because of this, which stole a few minutes of concentration in the Beginning.
thats what I thought, too. I could make good use too the 30 minuts extra and wondered, why I got them. I was looking up some stuff in the guidlindes too make sure, that my answer was right, did not need it but it gave some securety to know that the answers given were right. But for those having all those issus... terrible
DeleteI was also happy when the extra time was announced, as there were a number of things I was hoping to look up. But at exctly the normal end time I was told "flow is over" and forced to hand in...
DeleteCould you see yourself/your own camera feed in a small window during the flow? How can you make sure your camera is on during the flow?
ReplyDeleteGood question! I did not see my face during Mocks.
DeleteI would suggest Wiseflow to delete all the old Mock flows for real exam. The flows for the real exams are really down at the bottom of my flow list...is there some way to re-arrange the order?
ReplyDeleteI thought this was ridiculous too. I was always worried about clicking the wrong paper and sitting there waiting before realising I had clicked the wrong paper and therefore losing some time - luckily it didn't happen. They could at least allow people to archive the mock papers.
DeleteReally bad management and handling of the eEQE to be honest. They have had nearly a year to get something in place. Lets not forget that they only provided folks with a little over 2 months to become accustomed to this software amongst the madness of getting IT to sort out Admin rights etc. etc.
Bad form from the EQE committee in my opinion.
I had the same issue with the EN version of the exam not being available during the first 15-20’. Even though I appreciated the extra time, the damage was already done. I never revisited Q1 which sure as day is not complete 🙂.
ReplyDeleteAlso I was not able to hand in my DII. Wiseflow could supposedly not “establish connection” and so I had to download my answer. That was not possible either however as the button to download was deactivated. Did anyone else had this issue? I called the German phone number of the helpdesk (wiseflow was basically frozen) and they noted down my name for this issue. They said that “normally” the answers are auto-saved, but I don’t know what “normally” exactly means in this case 🙂
One last comment: what I find a bit unfair in the new e-eqe scheme is that we can’t manage the time as we please since we are forced to hand in the answers in the different modules and then correcting them is not possible afterwards. More often than not it happens that you realize that you’ve done something wrong or that you forgot something (happened to me with the G1/15 situation...)
I had the same issue when trying to hand in D2. Wiseflow was unable to establish a Connection. I disconnected my LAN cable, so that the laptop switches to WLAN and then I was able to press the "hand-in-button".
DeleteYou can download the handed in papers. Did you have a look at this?
The unavailability of the english version for more than 15 min destroys mentally, completely. That made me completely unable to concentrate afterwards....
ReplyDeleteWe put so much efforts in preparation of the examination but the effort was easily blown away by the mistake of the EPO!!! Will they take the responsibility?
Our DI answers are available on a new blog post:
ReplyDeletehttp://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-2021-di-parts.html
Our DII answer is available on a new blog post:
ReplyDeletehttp://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2021/03/d-2021-dii-part.html
Please post your comments to DI and DII topics to those blogs.
Please continue to post your general comments about the D 2021 exam and your experiences with the e-EQE platform (WISEflow/FlowLock) here.
Looking forward to your comments!
And wishing you luck with the other papers this week if you sit some more.
I started the flow D1-1 in time and was in the LockdownBrowser. When I moved the mouse to the side making room on the working table, I was thrown out of the LockdownBrowser and landed on the Windows surface. Obviously the LockdownBrowser had not locked at all!
ReplyDeleteChat did not respond. With the 2nd attempt I came back into Wiseflow and had to go through the entire initial procedure again. So, at least one German could only start the exam late likewise ... with a lot of stress – seems that we are test persons for an unreliable system
I did three times MOCK1 just for training the handling of the editor, tabs and copy the questions into the text field. However, using this limited system as well as constantly switching between reference book / timeline on paper and the monitor took too much time and attention during the exam.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, also making sure that the reference book does not come too close to the keyboard .....
Especially in DII, the permanent change between timeline on paper and the monitor left no room to concentrate on the solution and resulted in loosing the thread...
In the future, a predefined timeline schould be available in the text editor, which easily can be filled out.
https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/e-eqe.html
ReplyDelete->
Message from the Examination Board about paper D1.1 dated 3.3.2021:
"Munich, 3 March 2021
Message from the Examination Board
The Examination Board of the EQE is aware of a situation that affected paper D1.1. The Examination Board guarantees that the marking process will be conducted so that no candidate will be disadvantaged because of that."
I also panicked for a few minutes and then concluded that panicking would not help me and I just went on with the German questions while writing my answers in English. I did not even notice that the English version arrived later in the exam. For Q6, I referred to the claims in German for Art. 123(2) and noted in the paper (in exact words: "bare with me, my exam text is in German"). Well, that was an exciting start to EQE!
ReplyDeleteWe compiled a complete version of the D 2021 paper (both D1 parts, the DII part and the calendars).
ReplyDeleteIt is available via the link in the blog post.
Enjoy!
FYI: IPKat also commented the start of the eEQE:
ReplyDeletehttps://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-chaotic-start-to-eeqes.html
By the way, I sat the D paper as benchmarker (the epi selects 5 European patent attorneys to sit one or more main exam papers, and -in my understanding those answers are used in the analysis of the exam when preparing the possible solution and reasonable alternatives, as well as the marking of those).
When I started D1-1, I only had the DE version, as all candidates. But I was in the lucky situation of being a benchmarker rather than a candidate “for real”, so I remembered that there had been reports on our blog on the same issue during the Mocks and that the solution was to refresh your browser. That did not immediately work, but I knew nothing else to do (as benchmarker we cannot contact Zendesk), so I kept trying until at 9:36 the system also offered the English and French versions. I thus lost only 6 minutes. But if I would have been a real candidate, I would probably have panicked and not remember. Also, if I would not have been checking all the documentation and blogging on that to help all of you, I would maybe not have known – there is so much information that also changed over time (=different versions), was not always consistent and not always fully correct (e.g., the ToC did indeed not have clickable links in Mock 2 as documented on our blogs and in in “Q&A session of 11.02.2021”) , but it had in the real exam!)
After the exam, I tried to find the information on the issue (by looking for the issue=language versions missing, but also using hindsight by looking for the solution= refresh) in the the FAQ or the 8 documents with instructions, step-by-step, wiseflow tutorial, user guide, tips, ….
It was not so easy to find. The first info I found relating to refreshing was in User Guide indicating in 6.4.2 “Refreshing the browser is not recommended, as doing so will re-trigger the steps for launching the LOCKdown browser, e.g. taking the entry image (see 6.3 above).”. The same was indicated in Tips for candidates 1.1. So that actually was leading away from the solution rather than pointing to it
Tips for candidates v 0.4 (as updated after Mock 2 and 3), section 1 addresses language selection, but does not indicate that it may happen that you cannot select the language. It only discusses what you need to do if you see the wrong language (so if you see the DE version, whereas you can also choose the others) – and that problem relates to what you see when using the side-by-side view, rather than to the separate Tab view. Same for the Wiseflow Tutorial.
The Step-by-step in item 13 (via 23) is not unambiguous on it. It says: “If you want to open the assignment in another language either open it in a separate tab or refresh the browser if the second assignment is not displayed in the desired language (see “Tips for candidates”)”. I understood and still understand the second half sentence, “refresh the browser if the second assignment is not displayed in the desired language (see “Tips for candidates”), to refer to what is showed in the side-by-side view – this understanding being supported by the reference to the Tips for candidates (see previous paragraph). Further, the first part of the sentence in item 13, “If you want to open the assignment in another language either open it in a separate tab” relates to the separate tab, whereas the second relates to the side-by-side view, so there is no solution presented for the separate tab view – at least not in my understanding. So I still did not find the solution for not being presented with the Selection option.
....
... (continued from previous comment - max 4096 characters per comment)
DeleteAlso the “Q&A session of 11.02.2021”, slide 14 only addressed seeing the wrong language in the overlay view, it did also not address not being presented with any Selection option:
“Claim: only the German version is available / works effectively in the overlay window (is this right)?
=> see “Tips for candidates” sections 1.1 second paragraph”
Note: “Tips for candidates” sections 1.1 second paragraph only refers to what you see in the side-by-side view:
“If the assignment is changed during the exam, e.g. because a different language has been selected, it might be necessary to refresh the browser, for the overlay window to display it. Please note that refreshing the browser could take you back to the procedure of taking another entry image (see below). Because of that, it is recommended to first open the overlay window after the assignment has been selected in the desired language (consultations of the other languages can be in the separate tabs – see below).”
And when I checked all our blogs with the comments from all of you: http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2020/12/e-eqe-platform-will-go-online-on-21.html mentioned the issue in some comments (by me, 22 December 2020; by Anonymous 22 December 2020 at 22:00), but only in relation to the side-by-side view not showing the selected language, and not in relation to no selection being presented.
If I overlooked it somewhere, please correct me in a comment to this comment!
So, my refresh appeared to be a best guess, which worked. And was faster that trying to find a solution in all documentation, and still not being able to find it.
I trust that the D Committee and the Examination Board will take into account all circumstances and all information available when marking the paper fairly and will aim that nobody fails that would otherwise have scored a compensable fail or pass. This trust is based in the usual behaviour of the Examination Board (aiming to be fair and reasonable) and very specifically also on the speed with which the Examination Board posted their message -already the next day- that shows their intention without any disclaimers.
I hope that you all could recover reasonably during D1-1, better for D1-2, and were more-or-less in normal shape and state-of-mind during D2. Good luck all!
In my case, there was no chance to "recover".
DeleteParticularly having had both of the breaks cut in length - particularly the 45-minute "lunch break" before D2 - there simply was no time.
I'd have had a packed lunch ready if it was the old-style 5.5 hours non-stop exam; but given that we supposedly had 45 minutes before D2, I had nothing prepared.
Rather than the breaks helping to dissipate the stress and worry, they introduced further stress and worry. There just wasn't enough time to do everything.
Awful, awful execution. They should at least have preserved the lengths of each break.
I was surprised to see only the DE-version. Based on the mock-sessions, as a colleague experienced this language issue during a mock, I knew what to do if it would happen. Unfortunately, the refresh did not solve the issue (also refreshing multiple times). It seems that the document was not available at all. Contacting Zendesk....< 720 persons in the queue already.
ReplyDeleteIt gave much stress, I lost my focus. This issue was not positive for the paper. Also not for the other parts as you keep thinking about this issue at every start.
Too bad that the committee did not double check that all documents were available or not. They knew that it could happen, based on the mock sessions, but they did not learn from it.
Hi, Roel or other folks, do you guys have any idea what the message from the Examination Board exactly means?
ReplyDeleteNo more than you.
DeleteWhat would you do if you were a member of the Examination Board?
I do not know what I would do, I would first gather statistics and correlations.
I assume that the Wiseflow/FlowLock system can tell them when you started and when you stopped, and whether the 30 minutes extra was actually awarded to you (some candidates reported that they did not yet it - probably a browser refresh was needed, as the language-issue tells us that browser refresh is the way to make the system updates applied and visible to you), whether you tool & wrote D1-1 in the same language as D1-2 and D2, ...
I think the message shows the intention that they want to make sure that candidates do not get a fail that would have gotten a pass or a compensable fail if the exam would have run as intended, with 90 minutes in the selected language(s) right from the start. The "guarantee" seems to indicate that the benefit of the doubt will be on the candidates.
As the Examination Board said at earlier tutor meetings:
"The purpose of the EQE is not to make candidates fail. The purpose of the EQE is to make candidates pass if they have showed the competences and knowledge to pass."
(Not a literal citation probably, as it was taken from my memory ;))
okay understand, i thought they would give all candidates for D1.1 a full mark. I guess I was dreaming, sorry for the stupid question.
DeleteDear Roel,
DeleteI can not tell EPO had given 30 minutes extra to all candidates.
The exam was 1h30 for part D1.1.
In summary, we have candidates who:
- had no issue, but received 30 minutes extra (DE native), therefore had 2hours exam.
- had no EN/FR paper, started somehow using the DE paper, received 30 minutes extra (DE speakers), therefore 2 hours exam somehow.
- had no EN/FR paper but received 30 minutes extra, therefore only 1h30 exam.
- had no EN/FR paper and did NOT receive 30 minutes extra, therefore 1hour exam.
It would be wrong if the "examination conditions put certain candidates at a disadvantage for no good reason".
Therefore saying that EPO has given 30 minutes extra seems to mean that we had 1h30 exam + 30mn extra, which is totally wrong from the above demonstration.
In addition, I am not sure how much EPO will compensate the stress to candidates created by this incident!
No even comments about papers B and C!
Kind regards,
Thx for you reply (but please use your name or a nickname for easier and better discussion)
Delete> "I can not tell EPO had given 30 minutes extra to all candidates."
They gave it to all, but not all actually received it: you only received if after a browser refresh; without a browser refresh you did not receive it. That is why I wrote: "whether the 30 minutes extra was actually awarded to you".
As you indicate there is at least these four groups of candidates:
> "In summary, we have candidates who:
- had no issue, but received 30 minutes extra (DE native), therefore had 2hours exam.
- had no EN/FR paper, started somehow using the DE paper, received 30 minutes extra (DE speakers), therefore 2 hours exam somehow.
- had no EN/FR paper but received 30 minutes extra, therefore only 1h30 exam.
- had no EN/FR paper and did NOT receive 30 minutes extra, therefore 1hour exam."
And there is also candidates that wanted to take the exam in EN, but did the complete exam in DE as they did not get noted that the EN version was available after 6 minutes nor after 30 minutes nor at a later moment in time.
I do not know how the D committee, the Examination Board and/or the Supervisory Board will deal with the situation. The message says that “The Examination Board for the EQE is aware of a disruption affecting paper D1.1 and guarantees that no candidate will be disadvantaged as a result during the marking process”.
DeleteLet us assume that the Examination Board needs to decide how this D1-1 disaster has to be dealt in the marking with to aim to come to a fair and reasonable marking whereby no candidates are disadvantages (in the meaning of the final result: PASS/COMP FAIL/FAI:, and possibly even PASS with enough marks to give compensation for other papers) by the course of events, and that the Supervisory Board will need to approve their measures. They cannot of course undo the course of events, so they cannot undo that the trouble affected you and your paper.
Any ideas from all of you?
If you were in the Examination Board, what measure would you take to make sure that candidates are “compensated” in a fair and proportional way?
Any ideas are welcome, as long as you consider your solution to be fair and reasonable; preferably realistic, but it may be original and quasi-exotic.
Thanks for your ideas!
NB1: giving 25 marks to the D1-1 part for all candidates does not seem a realistic solution to me: if a candidate only scored 20 our of the other 75 (D1-1 and D2), that candidate cannot be expected to have scored 25 marks on D1-1, but rather 20/75 * 25 = 7 marks (assuming the efficiency of marking to be constant over the whole paper, D1+D2), getting to a total of 20 + 7 = 27. Awarding such candidate with a compensable fail does not seem reasonable to all other candidates from this and other exam years. There may be some candidates that will receive a somewhat higher score than if it would have been a D without problems, but not too many - the exam needs to stay selective and discriminate between the ones that should not pass and the ones that should pass/comp fail, at last I assume that that is a bioundary constraint of the measures.
NB2: more exotic suggestions are also welcome. E.g.,: disregarding D1-1 completely, and doubling the amount of marks for D1-2, so that the total marks for D1 is still 50.
*********
DeleteAny ideas as to how to "guarantees that no candidate will be disadvantaged as a result during the marking process” are welcome!
If you were in the Examination Board, what measure would you take to make sure that candidates are “compensated” in a fair and proportional way?
Any ideas are welcome, as long as you consider your solution to be fair and reasonable; preferably realistic, but it may be original and quasi-exotic.
**********
The issue I have with "The purpose of the EQE is to make candidates pass if they have showed the competences and knowledge to pass." - I know this was taken from memory, but it would have been very hard for a candidate to show their true competence and knowledge when they are highly stressed and worried as a result of the impact of D1-I which results in them making stupid mistakes from the stress induced impacts and rushing to complete in case they didn't have enough time. I don't know how it can be compensated but the knock on effects from the D paper was distributed throughout the whole week, not just D paper but obviously this cannot be taken into account for the whole week but just highlighting the effect, for me at least, it had.
DeleteHere is my suggestion. If one condidate is failed (< 50 points) based on the normal score he obtained for the whole D paper, provided that he wrote the paper in English or French, then the highest score he got from the 6 questions in DI should be added to the normal score he got as stated above.
DeleteThe problem of all of this was not the time, as such. It was the stress, the feeling that 3 years of preparation will be for nothing. As a matter of fact, at home alone, you dont know that you are not the only one having the issue and that people are working in the background to solve it. The state of mind during all the following parts of D and the following exams was far from ideal. For candidates struggling with technical issues everyday it was very hard so simply focus on the paper and do the job. 6 or 15 or 30 minutes, lost for a real candidate were all enough to lose the concentration and attention to detail. Furthermore, the time management plan was for nothing... we had to simply reallocate the rest of the time and rush through the first and easiest question of D. How the committee will compensate this? How can they give us any guarantee that the disadvantages involved here will be compensated?? Impossible. Also the different conditions faced by the candidates made of this exam a complete disaster.
ReplyDeleteThis really correct. I agree with this.
DeletePsychologically, it had been though for candidates. I don't know how the EPO will compensate stress and the power loss we as candidates got and also the negative impact that had on the performances of other papers, which were very very though compared to other years including 2018 which was supposed to be the harder one !
Kind regards
Ditto!
DeleteIn reply to Roel's bullets - Suggestions in []
ReplyDelete- had no issue, but received 30 minutes extra (DE native), therefore had 2hours exam.
[No action even though these candidates may be unfairly advantaged but this was not through their own actions]
- had no EN/FR paper, started somehow using the DE paper, received 30 minutes extra (DE speakers), therefore 2 hours exam somehow.
[take best two answers and adjust accordingly]
- had no EN/FR paper but received 30 minutes extra, therefore only 1h30 exam.
[Take best two answers and adjust accordingly]
- had no EN/FR paper and did NOT receive 30 minutes extra, therefore 1hour exam."
[Take best answer and adjust accordingly, this critically allows for the unexpected lack of the paper at the start and the unexpected termination also]
And there is also candidates that wanted to take the exam in EN, but did the complete exam in DE as they did not get noted that the EN version was available after 6 minutes nor after 30 minutes nor at a later moment in time.
[Probably take best answer and adjust accordingly]
Dear Sparky,
DeleteWhat do you mean by "take best answer" ? best answer between what and what ?
Kind regards,
I think he means the two answers with highest scores from the 6 qeustions. what I dont understand is "adjust accordingly".
DeleteSuggestion: rather than shooting on each others suggestions, post your own suggestion as to what YOU would do! This is not an opposition, this is about coming to a grant!
DeleteReminder: do not post anonymously, but use your real name or a nick name!
Yes highest scoring question. Should have been clearer. Adjust accordingly in terms of the % of marks D1 actually represented. To find a solution for each scenario will likely require a tailored approach. Just an idea.
DeleteGood idea for me:
DeleteI worked in Q.1 and Q.2 in normal detail level and did not get to Q.6 in D1-1.
But I can imagine that others were completely shocked and could hardly act.
Or that they rushed to try to finish in time. And scored low because of making errors and forgetting things when rushing.
I suggest:
- if candidate used German version (I assume they can see that), also in D1-2 and D2, then mark German version and no compensation. These candidates received full time and had exam as intended.
- in all other cases: do not assume that the D1-1 was done with a normal state of mind and use D1-2 to repair/compensate/design a D1-1 score:
a) if D1-1 score is higher than D1-1 score or the same: use the actual scores. E.g., if 17 for D1-1 + 15 for D1-2, then give 32 for D1.
b) if D1-1 score is quite a bit lower than D1-2 score but not less than half of the D1-2 score, and the D1-2 score is larger than 10 marks: forget D1-1 and give 2* the number of D1-2 marks for the D1 as a whole. E.g., if 8 for D1-1 and 12 for D1-2, then give 2*12 = 24.
c) if D1-1 score is much lower than D1-2 score (D1-1 less than half of the D1-2 score) and the D1-2 score is less than 10 of 25: indication that the candidate was severely affected but also not yet at an comp fail level (45% of 25 = 11): forget D1-1 and give 2* the number of D1-2 marks for the D1 as a whole. E.g., if 5 for D1-1 and 9 for D1-2, then give 2*9 = 18.
d) if the D2 is very good, and with the above D1 rules the candidates would not get a compensable fail or a pass: check the questions and all the information (language, start time, 30 min extra or not, quality of answers, type of errors in answer) to determine whether the candidate "should fail" or "should pass".
Side remark:
DeleteI do not think D1-1 should be fully ignored. Candidates that scored well on it, in whatever language and in whatever time, should not be adversely affected by having their answers to D1-1 ignored.
To above Cor. Your idea is good, but i do not fully agree. All of your suggestions are based on that if the candidate is affected, then D1.1 should be lower than D1.2, or at least the following performance should be better than D1.1. I simply doubt it, because for different candidate the difficulty of D1.1 and D1.2 could be very different.
DeleteMy suggestion would be simply adding the highest score from 6 questions to the real score the candidate has obtained, to make sure that the extra 30 minutes which can generate the best personal performance are given to the candidate.
I like your suggestion to replace the lowest score on a D1 question with the highest score, but it does not compensate well for candidates that compromised on each of the D1-1 questions, trying to rush and get to the end before 11:00.
DeleteMaybe a combination: the highest of:
- the score that a candidate would get from my previous proposal, and
- the score that a candidate would get from replacing his lowest D1 score by his highest F1 score (from D1-1 and D1-2)?
maybe you can send an E-Mail to helpdesk to provide the suggestions. I had already. I think this time it is a difficult situation for EPO and also all of us, and we need to understand each other, rather than only complaining, because no one likes this, but still it happened, just like anything else in the life. Right now the most important thing is to find a solution to compensate for most of the candidates (all candidates would be anyway impossible).
DeleteM.W
The Cats and Kittens commented as well - https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-chaotic-start-to-eeqes.html
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to say that I feel very sorry for all my colleagues who had experienced this D1-1 language disaster and I do hope that EPO will find a fair solution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to point out that besides the D1-1-language issue, there were also other technical issues caused by wiseflow which should also be taken into account when marking (if they prevented a candidate from working on the exam in a reasonable way).
For example, I couldn't open the paper next to the editor in D2 (worked in D1 and A-C, but not for D2). Switching back and forth between the editor and the paper tab was more time consuming and error-prone. The invigilators couldn't help me and I spend quite some time chatting with them and trying to fix the problem (refreshing the broswer), but nothing helped. In the end, I didn't receive any response from them any more. This was distracting and I lost time and concentration because of that.
This is just one example of the technical problems caused by wiseflow (and not the local system).
In my opinion, it would be fair if all technical issues will be somehow taken into account when marking, not only the D1-language problem.
However, a fair, general compensation will be quite difficult. It may be better to evaluate case by case.
Just my 2 cents.
I thank the Examination Board for their message on the day after the exam.
ReplyDeleteBut the EQE secretariat did not make any apologies yet, even though that would have been appropriate. The Direct Messages were sober. No email or MyEQE message yet wherein the secretariat showed any understanding for the situation they got us in. The only message from the EPO since was the press-release, a slam in the face.
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.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
So far, I didn't find any official information about this.
Are you aware of cases where extra points were added?