tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post7848634448777284346..comments2024-03-21T14:45:52.667+01:00Comments on Deltapatents EQE Paper D: D 2017: first impressions?DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-7395076111072713902017-03-12T17:21:37.430+01:002017-03-12T17:21:37.430+01:00This is the first time I did it, so I am not sure ...This is the first time I did it, so I am not sure how close I got to 50. I have marked a lot of D papers, so I have an idea of the way a lot of people answer papers.<br /><br />I did DII + DI in about 4.5 hours really writing out my answer. I handed in about 20 pages in total. I spent the last hour making a handwritten copy of my answers.<br /><br />Reducing the time hopefully compensates for the fact that I don't have to look much up. Whenever I do the papers for the first time, I always do it this way - I don't give myself too much time to think, and I often go with my instinct. In general doing this, I usually miss a couple of things in DII, and get some aspects of the DI questions wrong.<br /><br />For the DII, I stopped at 3 hrs 5 minutes having just about answered Q3. Normally, I am very structured in my analysis, but for the benchmarking, I followed a more "organic" approach, which meant that I got a little lost in all the subject matter. <br /><br />For DI, I stuck to the main part of what I thought the answer was asking, so really following the guidance of the paper. I avoided going into details about some of the issues, and left out some things that few candidates would think about writing down. I made a couple of small mistakes that candidates also frequently make. <br /><br />We will see. Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01203724517158856590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-69898706024138599952017-03-12T07:27:00.767+01:002017-03-12T07:27:00.767+01:00Hi Pete,
How do you go about the objective of sco...Hi Pete,<br /><br />How do you go about the objective of scoring only half the marks? Do you leave half the questions unanswered, is it that linear a relationship?<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-32937390965179202572017-03-09T17:20:40.946+01:002017-03-09T17:20:40.946+01:00I did the paper on Tuesday under exam conditions i...I did the paper on Tuesday under exam conditions in Munich as a bench marker. Per paper, there are about 5 people who do it who have already passed the EQE. The papers are not used to calibrate points, but are used for the initial discussions relating to marking instructions - what is sufficient/insufficient for points etc. The bench markers are asked not to study, and to try and score about half the points. <br />A a tutor, it was good to do this again to remind me of the experience - very conscious of the time you spend on everything (seeing people run to the toilets & back). Getting stressed by statements that you are uncertain about when you read them first time - you have to understand it. Bringing food but having no time to eat ;-)<br />I did the DII first, because that is (was - see below) my favorite part, and it needs continuous concentration. I then attempted all the DI questions.<br /> <br />I thought the DI was reasonable - there was a 4 point question (Q.3) and they easily suck up more time than they are worth. A 10 point question (Q.5) covers so may subjects, you could also easily spend a lot of time on side issues. The legal issues asked were all fairly regular DI subjects. I think it is the first time the page fee was asked for an EPC application - Q.6a). Q.4 was a bit of a surprise as it tested the application of substantive law (novelty/inventive step).<br />I found DII heavy going compared to previous years. It seemed like most of the issues were a little ambiguous, and the inventions were phrased as product-by-process claims. This makes the patentability difficult to judge depending on how literal you take the text as what is actually claimed. You also have the complication of process subject matter and product subject matter to be compared.<br />There were 6 applications, including 3 with different effective dates for their claims, and a PCT application which has to be treated as two applications - EP (Euro-PCT) and outside EP. <br />There was the transfer of priority and the transfer of the application, and a lot of detail. I think it was the first time that an illegal priority claim based on a transfer has been on the D paper. The trade fair was also complicated - the beams were demonstrated and test results were presented and a video of the rolling process was shown. Not just China, Spain, UK but also UAE (so a quick check to make sure thay are a PCT state). <br />And on the last page, they surprise you with CB-EP with a different kind of rolling process before almost all of the effective dates. <br />I don't think the DII issues to deal with were too complicated one-by-one, but it took a long time for things to fall into place.Pete Pollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13914699133722171472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-24632935580954223292017-03-08T13:32:12.632+01:002017-03-08T13:32:12.632+01:00Done on two seperate blogs: DI on https://eqe-d.bl...Done on two seperate blogs: DI on https://eqe-d.blogspot.nl/2017/03/d-2017-our-answers-to-di-part.html and the DII on http://eqe-d.blogspot.nl/2017/03/d-2017-metal-beams-having-projections.htmlRoel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-60172508252204744592017-03-08T13:31:12.103+01:002017-03-08T13:31:12.103+01:00@Anonymous7 March 2017 at 23:44: you are correct, ...@Anonymous7 March 2017 at 23:44: you are correct, but you would get an ST-EP1 granted with an invalid claim 2 (directed to SHAPE-A). You can at thhis moment still do an amendment without too much of a delay of you delete this claim and waive the second R.71(3).Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-41555756113805296002017-03-08T13:29:17.608+01:002017-03-08T13:29:17.608+01:00The discussion on the DII is continued on the para...The discussion on the DII is continued on the parallel blog with our answer and detailed discussions: http://eqe-d.blogspot.nl/2017/03/d-2017-metal-beams-having-projections.htmlRoel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-64525935039118469082017-03-08T13:26:05.222+01:002017-03-08T13:26:05.222+01:00Copies of the papers, in English, French and Germa...Copies of the papers, in English, French and German are now available via the links in our original post.Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-18548020689154466722017-03-08T07:06:50.455+01:002017-03-08T07:06:50.455+01:00I suggested to oppose CB-EP on A.56 over common ge...I suggested to oppose CB-EP on A.56 over common general knowledge, as STEELCO argued in letter to SR for ST-EP1 that rolling with or without teeth remove stress from the metal beam contrary to stamping. swisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15552777143364304573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-61442750178643709592017-03-07T23:46:57.910+01:002017-03-07T23:46:57.910+01:00Is that claimed? I think not. And if "suffici...Is that claimed? I think not. And if "sufficient stability" is not in the claims, then t just claims beams with a certain shape - which can be made. If not sufficiently stable, it would be lack of inventive step. Or???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-81397865260164478582017-03-07T23:44:36.365+01:002017-03-07T23:44:36.365+01:00Just FP seems enough to me (for all acts of R.71(3...Just FP seems enough to me (for all acts of R.71(3) at just a single 255 euro FP fee), as we got the 71(3) communication, so will go to grant (unless for some new reason the examination would be reopened). Deleting, adding or amending claims would delay the procedure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-47499480139865255482017-03-07T23:41:35.796+01:002017-03-07T23:41:35.796+01:00To Anonymous of 7 March 2017 at 18:39: Why can you...To Anonymous of 7 March 2017 at 18:39: Why can you not oppose CB-EP1 due to lack of novelty over ST-EP1, which has valid prio and this earlier date for the process. I think that is the way to go. Lack of inventive step over OLD1 does not seem to be supported by any fact in the paper - or did you see anything to support that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-49329386498435600442017-03-07T22:01:55.193+01:002017-03-07T22:01:55.193+01:00Thanks for your reply Roel.
Indeed...
I (wrongly) ...Thanks for your reply Roel.<br />Indeed...<br />I (wrongly) interpreted a fee for registering a transfer of an application as a fee for the application, i.e. any fee related to the application.<br />IMHO the wording in the paper is rather unfortunate. But questionning a statement ('registered') is never a good idea in the exam.DII-doubtfulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-65812246041823049062017-03-07T21:34:40.416+01:002017-03-07T21:34:40.416+01:00yes! or at least I think I did!! such a whirlwind ...yes! or at least I think I did!! such a whirlwind rush I can't remember. I do remember struggling to find many juicy "interesting" things, other than naughty Mr G selling rights all over the place. I too don't know how people coped with half an hour less. I spent longer on the first part than I had intended, yet imagine my answer looks pretty shameful.<br />One down..Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-67528319967055009592017-03-07T20:59:23.823+01:002017-03-07T20:59:23.823+01:00I don't see where the 2010 paper could be used...I don't see where the 2010 paper could be used. To me the restoration was a question of applying R.26bis.3 PCT, as explained in AG-IP 5.062-5.064. I almost copied all of those paragraphs. Did not realise it was crystal clear explained as well in EPG (2016) https://www.epo.org/applying/international/guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_b_33.html<br /><br />I hope I got that one right. I focused on DII but maybe failed it miserably.Znoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-32417987817010548912017-03-07T19:22:58.846+01:002017-03-07T19:22:58.846+01:00A rolling process may mean that the whole metal sh...A rolling process may mean that the whole metal sheet is reduced in thickness, i.e. not partially and locally like a stamp prcess in order to increase moment of inertia according to Steiner.<br /><br />Sorry, I am an mechanical engineer.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-7793168006301879782017-03-07T19:10:13.438+01:002017-03-07T19:10:13.438+01:00A rolling process without teeth cannot be consider...A rolling process without teeth cannot be considered as a stamp process in my opinion.<br /><br />EP1 does not directly and unambiguously disclose a stamp process.<br /><br />I feel that a rolling process without teeth can only be equivalent to a stamp process.<br /><br />So, only an opposition under 56 EPC can be considered, because EP1 is a 54(3) document which is not relevant regarding inventive step. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-18262723431973846422017-03-07T19:06:31.115+01:002017-03-07T19:06:31.115+01:00How about arguing that CB-EP is not novel because ...How about arguing that CB-EP is not novel because par.2 of the text said that "it was widely accepted at that time beams without surf.imperfec. and PROJECTIONS would be stronger"? In other words, having no projections is widely used and considered as common general knowledge in 2013. CB-EP claims a process for forming metal beams (not mentioning beam having projections).<br /><br />Resitter 2020Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-75138122879180884622017-03-07T18:55:05.002+01:002017-03-07T18:55:05.002+01:00Hello unknown at 18:17,
novelty cannot be used as ...Hello unknown at 18:17,<br />novelty cannot be used as EP1 is 54(3) document.<br />Only A 56 can be used in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-30802392144233179812017-03-07T18:49:57.797+01:002017-03-07T18:49:57.797+01:00Nice input.
This makes only sense if CB-PCT will n...Nice input.<br />This makes only sense if CB-PCT will not enter EP phase.<br />Have not considered this. Good point.<br />Protection for Shape-B1 was potentially possible in EP for ST depending on the future regarding CB-PCT.<br />Nice comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-24340417078779349412017-03-07T18:39:15.246+01:002017-03-07T18:39:15.246+01:00Hello Roel,
A56 was the only possibility to file a...Hello Roel,<br />A56 was the only possibility to file an opposition based on OLD1. There is no other document that can be used.<br /><br />I considered the pair of rolls as an equivalent to a stamp.<br /><br />In the response letter it is said "with or without teeth".<br /><br />One should be careful not to provide arguments against EP1.<br /><br />My 2 cents.<br /><br />By the way, thanks to DP and your blog and your efforts. <br /><br />It would be further great if you would consider blogging 2 months prior to the exam. Such a part is missing in your blog. Up to date you just open blog discussions after the respective exam papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-3935921139343326152017-03-07T18:17:59.856+01:002017-03-07T18:17:59.856+01:00Also, the validity of the transfer of priority rig...Also, the validity of the transfer of priority right is completely independent of whether or not it was registered. There is no requirement for the applicants to be the same on the register for priority right to be transferred, i think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-16905751631797604362017-03-07T18:17:47.175+01:002017-03-07T18:17:47.175+01:00I had the same considerations as SG. The process f...I had the same considerations as SG. The process from ST-GB1/ST-EPI is a specific rolling process using teeth so its novelty destroying against CB-EP already granted claim to the generic process. ST-EP1 was novelty destroying A.54(3) against CB-EP, so opposition was absolutely crucial for the client as otherwise he was infringing every time he produces any beam using any rolling process. /AKAKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360903710740281918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-91072967838430080912017-03-07T18:17:04.254+01:002017-03-07T18:17:04.254+01:00FYI: we will post our answers to DI and DII tomorr...FYI: we will post our answers to DI and DII tomorrow.Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-41334817769061831242017-03-07T18:13:25.086+01:002017-03-07T18:13:25.086+01:00@Anonymous7 March 2017 at 18:00:
Where in the pape...@Anonymous7 March 2017 at 18:00:<br />Where in the paper do you see information that leads you to conclude that OLD1 is equivalent? Par.[005] clearly describes that the rolling process has many advantages, so the OLD1 process cannot be equivalent.Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832835369014787139.post-55251765389783455842017-03-07T18:11:11.972+01:002017-03-07T18:11:11.972+01:00yes I did the same. I also added a claim towards a...yes I did the same. I also added a claim towards a rolling process with teeth, which is not known and enjoys priority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com