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:
this is maddening that the EPO had been notified of this issue during Mock exams, disregarded it and did not compile the solution to this problem in their compilation trouble shooting document. this information to me add insult to the injury. I did all mocks. I simulated power outage, internet disconnection, I was prepared for anything going wrong on my side. starting D1-1 30 minutes late, not knowing you would get an extra 30 minutes at the end, how do you recover from this? I wasn't helped for the full 30 minutes. The longest 30 minutes of my life where I thought I wasn't going to sit paper D once again (after 2020 cancelation) and that once again I would have to redo all this studying and sacrifice my family. there is nothing that can fairly compensate me for this. I just wanted a fair shot at this. and to think that candidates were only affected on part D1-1 when I had 10 minutes to eat (i.e. didn't eat) is completely unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteI HAVE AN IDEA!
ReplyDeleteCOMPENSATION FOR D1 and C:
-First criteria: normal correction, total amount of marks.
-Second criteria: If the candidate did not passed using the first criteria, consider only the best part of each two-part paper and double. I can imagine that many candidates performed better on part 2 of D1 and in part 2 of C. So this would give a chance to well prepared candidates to compensate for their stresses at the beginning of D1 and at the beginning of C. Note, that a compensation of the second part is also possible based on a better performance on part 1. This avoids the "free" distribution of marks that would benefit candidates that were actually not even prepared and are now taking benefit form this nightmare.
Compensation for D2 and A: case-by-case basis
Compensation for B: distribute the marks for claims amendments to other parts of the paper. Judge the novelty and inventive step in view of the amendments made by each candidate. Judge added matter according to each argumentation.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I HAVE AN IDEA:
ReplyDeleteCOMPENSATION FOR THE TWO-PART PAPERS:
a) if the total amount of marks of the candidate is not enough for a “pass”; double the amount of marks obtained in one part. I believe that many candidates performed better in the second part of D1 and in the second part of C. Note, that the first part can also be compensated based on the second. This improves the situation, but only for well-prepared candidates who were victims of the stress in D1 and victims of the size+stress of C.
Of course, this does not change anything for candidates who had enough marks to pass based on the total amount.
If a candidate performed badly in all parts, there will be no “free marks”.
So if the candidate had 10 marks in part 1 of C, and 25 marks in part 2.
10+25= 35 not enough to pass based on total amount
Compensation applies: part having the highest score is doubled. So Part 2 is multiplied by 2. Thus: 2x25= 50, pass.
COMPENSATION FOR D2 and A:
To be decided on a case-by-case basis.
COMPENSATION FOR B:
No marks for polemic amendments. Redistribution of marks to clear-cut parts of the paper.
Basis for amendments: marks for the argumentation.
Novelty and inventive step: correction in view of the amendments made by the candidate.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I HAVE AN IDEA:
ReplyDeleteCOMPENSATION FOR THE TWO-PART PAPERS:
a) if the total amount of marks of the candidate is not enough for a “pass”; double the amount of marks obtained in one part. I believe that many candidates performed better in the second part of D1 and in the second part of C. Note, that the first part can also be compensated based on the second. This improves the situation, but only for well-prepared candidates who were victims of the stress in D1 and victims of the size+stress of C.
Of course, this does not change anything for candidates who had enough marks to pass based on the total amount.
If a candidate performed badly in all parts, there will be no “free marks”.
So if the candidate had 10 marks in part 1 of C, and 25 marks in part 2.
10+25= 35 not enough to pass based on total amount
Compensation applies: part having the highest score is doubled. So Part 2 is multiplied by 2. Thus: 2x25= 50, pass.
COMPENSATION FOR D2 and A:
To be decided on a case-by-case basis.
COMPENSATION FOR B:
No marks for polemic amendments. Redistribution of marks to clear-cut parts of the paper.
Basis for amendments: marks for the argumentation.
Novelty and inventive step: correction in view of the amendments made by the candidate.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?