Wednesday, August 11, 2010 Extra feedback for EQE 2010 Re-Sitters (Paper C and D)

Congratulations to those who passed at least something at the EQE 2010. Any exam passed is quite an achievement.

Remember that if you got 45-49 points at EQE 2010, you may not have to resit this paper if you are able to compensate with future attempts.
If you got 44 or less, then you must retake the paper.

For those who unfortunately failed C or D, we offer extra feedback to help face the preparation for EQE 2011.

The feedback from the examination committees is generally not enough to figure out where points were lost - you only get the marks per question as a marking sheet.


Under our Correction of  EQE papers program, we offer correction of EQE 2010 C, DI and DII papers at the end of August 2010 to help re-sitters figure out what went wrong. We provide individual comments, suggestions for improvement, our own detailed marking sheet and our proprietary model solutions.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 The results for D (EQE 2010) are known

As most candidates will already know, the EPO has changed its way of communicating the results of the EQE. Instead of a secure website where every candidate can find his own results after entering a password, they decided to make all results public. On the EPO-website you can find all results of all EQE candidates of 2010. Click here for all results.


And of course, we are exploiting this opportunity to do some statistical analysis. The first results for D covering all candidates (both first time and resitters):

candidates	1279
average	41
		%
0-44		51
45-49		10
50-100		39

Thursday, March 18, 2010 DII paper - EQE 2010 - possible issue

The reference to EP1 by EPKM is a problem for enablement.Withdrawing EP1 solves this, but EP1 is the first application for the signal. 

I did the exam in the office under exam conditions, and I admit I missed the complication - I read the Guidelines, and simply suggested withdrawing EP1. To get the broadest invention patented (signal), I suggested claiming priority of EP1 with EP3.
I thought of it afterwards, so I asked a couple of knowledgeable people and they didn't know for certain either.

The Case Law book A.I.2(b) says:
In T 737/90 it was explicitly stated that a reference to another document can only be taken into account if the document referred to can be unambiguously identified and the relevant addressees have ready access to it. This depends solely on the facts of the case.
----------

The public must be able to find it on the publication date of EPKM - that is clear from the guidelines.

It is clear that EP1 is due to be published 1 month before EPKM - therefore, if you do nothing, EPKM will be enabled.

If you withdraw EP1 prior to publication, and do not claim priority, then the public cannot find it so that EPKM is not enabled.

If EP3 claims priority of EP1, you are in a grey area. Sure, EP3 is published then 1m before EPKM, but EPKM refers to EP1. If you type in the application number of EP1 in the "application" field in espacenet, you will get no hit. But if you type the EP1 number in the "priority" field, you will find EP3.

In the OJEPO case law supplement of 2007, you find:
T341/04: the question was whether a referenced document, which could be unambiguously identified at the date of filing of the document containing the
reference by its document number, but which document itself was "missing" in the sense that it was not available at said date of filing, could be "taken into account" for the purpose of Article 83 EPC by relying on information present in a family member of the referenced document.
In this particular case, the board answered in the affirmative. The EPO would have easily retrieved the document, as would a member of the public, availing himself, if necessary, of the professional skills of a librarian on or after the (international) publication date of the application that matured into the patent in suit.
-----------

I have read the case and it was very similar - a published family member claimed priority from the referenced filing.
-----------

As I said, I didn't know the sufficiency test in such detail. I suspect not many candidates knew it either. I don't like them using minute details of patent law for the exam - people can get very frustrated because they cannot figure it out in the exam. It could also be that they did not anticipate this complication when they made the exam.

However, the DII marking is usually constructed so that if you miss a couple of things, but do well on the rest, you can still get more than 30 points. Most people probably saw the issue, and got some points for discussing enablement and withdrawing EP1. If a lot of people struggle with it, they can even reduce the weighting in the marking.

Thursday, March 18, 2010 D paper - EQE 2010 - possible solutions

I am not involved with the Exam Committee, so I have no inside information.

I always do the D exam in the office as soon as possible after the exam, under exam conditions - books on paper, exam timing etc. This gives me a feeling for the difficulty and any unclear parts of the papers.

When the Compendium answers are published in August, I can check my attempt to see how close I would have been. I aim to do each paper in less than official time to approach the stress felt by candidates.
Click below to see my impressions - comments are welcome
First a pep talk.
No-one knows the expected answers yet, so it is a lot of speculation. Also the exam committee does give points for more than one answer - that is why the Compendium calls it a "Possible Solution". Most candidates only think of the things they got wrong or missed - there are still a lot of things you got right.

Thursday, March 18, 2010 DII paper - EQE 2010 - possible issue

The reference to EP1 by EPKM is a problem for enablement.Withdrawing EP1 solves this, but EP1 is the first application for the signal. 

I did the exam in the office under exam conditions, and I admit I missed the complication - I read the Guidelines, and simply suggested withdrawing EP1. To get the broadest invention patented (signal), I suggested claiming priority of EP1 with EP3.
I thought of it afterwards, so I asked a couple of knowledgeable people and they didn't know for certain either.

The Case Law book A.I.2(b) says:
In T 737/90 it was explicitly stated that a reference to another document can only be taken into account if the document referred to can be unambiguously identified and the relevant addressees have ready access to it. This depends solely on the facts of the case.

Friday, March 12, 2010 Did any of this help ?

Please let me know if any of the posts helped you. Also if anything was wrong or misleading.
Of course, you may want to wait for the results in August ;-)

Enjoy the summer.

Friday, March 12, 2010 Opinion on DI and DII - EQE 2010

I am not involved with the Exam Committee, so I have no inside information.

I always do the D exam in the office as soon as possible after the exam, under exam conditions - books on paper, exam timing etc. This gives me a feeling for the difficulty and any unclear parts of the papers.

When the Compendium answers are published in August, I can check my attempt to see how close I would have been. I aim to do each paper in less than official time to approach the stress felt by candidates.
Click below to see my impressions - comments are welcome
First a pep talk.
No-one knows the expected answers yet, so it is a lot of speculation. Also the exam committee does give points for more than one answer - that is why the Compendium calls it a "Possible Solution". Most candidates only think of the things they got wrong or missed - there are still a lot of things you got right.

This is particularly true on DII where an inferior or unexpected solution may still get some points.

I am not going to give full answers, just comments on some things that appear to have been tested.

DI - in 2 hours 40 minutes
Generally,  it seemed a reasonable paper.Some questions were tough to do in the time, some were faster. I think it was easier than the DI of 2009.

Possible Solutions
Q1: Very similar to Q7 of 2009 - G1/91, G9/91
Q2: A chain of divisionals - G1/05, G1/06 (as predicted here as nr.2)
Q3: Tricky just reading PCT, but R.82.1 is explained in the PCT Applicants Guide or in this guide I recommended here
Q4: Filing by reference (as predicted here as nr. 15)
Q5: R.164 EPC
Q6: Art.70(3) and National Law book (recommended to take to exam here)
Q7: Art.86(2) and National Law book Table VI and IV (London Agreement as predicted here as nr. 6)
Q8: Filing by reference (as predicted here as nr. 15)
Q9: R.14

DII 2010 in 3 hours and 40 minutes
Generally, easier than DII 2009. Unusual to see two pieces - we haven't seen this for several years. It looked like the pieces could be done separately. However, you are never given the points per question, so you don't know how to plan your time.

Possible Solution (some highlights)
Q1, Q2:
- Repair EP3 using R.56
- Signal is patentable (T1194/97)
- EPKM only enabled via reference to EP1. Presumably if EP1 withdrawn before publication, EPKM not enabled

Q3, Q4:
- NO only EPC state since 1 Jan 2008 (predicted here as nr. 7)
- Make PCT-JU a prior right - R.165 - using further processing
- Oppose EPF

Tuesday, March 09, 2010 EQE 2010 papers now available on-line

The EPO has now put the EQE 2010 papers on-line

Thursday, February 25, 2010 Good Luck on the EQE !!!

- get to the exam on-time
- take a suitcase on wheels for your D library
- don't panic. think simple
the papers are designed so that all 1600 candidates can answer them 

- 2010 results are under the new EQE compensation system,
so 45 points is probably enough for 1 or 2 papers

Monday, February 22, 2010 Take your own calendars to the D-exam?

I frequently get asked about taking your own calendars - you can highlight holidays and weekends in advance, for example.

Preparation of your own calendars takes some time, so you need to balance this investment with any benefit and the risk. You have to decide which years to take, and try not to make any mistakes.

Some people either take the ones from the relevant OJEPO,
or they use the DeltaPatents ones, which we provide are for use with our training materials.
We recommend on balance that you should not use your own calendars

You will get EQE calendars with the DI and DII papers, and these are the only ones you will need to answer the papers. Normally you will get them for 2 or 3 different years.


Also

– if there is a mistake in your calendars (usually a missing holiday or a holiday on the wrong day), the exam committee will not know why you gave the wrong answer.
- if there is a mistake in the official EQE calendars (which has happened before) then the exam committee will see this and correct the marking accordingly.  

Good luck next week

Monday, February 15, 2010 EPC1973 Ancillary Regulations

The EPO has removed the Ancillary Regulations EPC1973 from their web site. As I pointed out, many of the references have been superseded, so probably the EPO feels that making old references available is confusing for users.


They suggest accessing the references via the on-line EPC and OJEPO's, but that is rather time-consuming if you are looking for a number of references.

See here for my earlier post on why you may need this document for the EQE 2010.

Purely for study purposes, I have made the document available as:

1. The complete EPC1973 Ancillary Regulations book
2. Only the section "Legal Advices" from the back

These links point to the DeltaPatents web-site.

Friday, February 12, 2010 Mock pre-exam - questions & answers

The Examination Board has published the questions and answers from the mock Pre-Exam, held last week.
As they indicate, this may not necessarily reflect the final format.

It comprises some legal questions based on the DI 2007, and some claim interpretation based on A 2004.
So, for anybody preparing for EQE2010, you may want to do it as an extra check during your preparation.
The questions of DI 2007 (and answers) have been updated with more recent dates.
The questions are here in German / English / French. An answer sheet is provided on the last page
The answers are here

Monday, February 01, 2010 Potential exam questions EQE 2010 - from OJEPO and PCT NL

I get asked many times what I think will be on the D exam. Most of the questions and issues will be based upon the core of the EPC, which changes little.
However, they also like to ask questions based on things that have been published and changed “recently”.

These "recent changes" can be found in the OJEPO and PCT Newsletters of 2008 and 2009. It does take sometime to go through them,but you learn a lot by reading them and deciding what is relevant.You should read these and take them with you to the exam. Note that many of these OJEPO notices/decisions are also provided in the appendix to Jelle Hoekstra’s book.

It is dangerous to make predictions, but from all the "recent changes", the following seem the most important and most likely to be asked:

1. the EPC changes of 1/4/09 (especially OJ 2009, 118)
2. G1/05 & G1/06 (OJ 2008, 271)
3. G1/05 Interlocutory decision (OJ 2007, 362)
4. G2/06 (OJ 2009, 306)
5. the decisions of the Board of Appeal indicated below,especially T1178/04
6. London Agreement (National Law Table IV) (OJ 2008, 123)
7. Newest EPC states (NO, HR, MK, SM) (OJ 2007, 531/OJ 2007, 637/OJ 2008, 507/OJ 2009, 396
8. Oral proceedings (OJ 2009, 68)
9. Electronic filing (OJ 2009, 182)
10. Filing priority document (OJ 2009, 236)
11. Filing by reference (supplying copy) (OJ 2009, 486)
12. Search & exam fees (OJ 2007, 642 / 2008, 12  / 2008, 521 / 2009, 96 / 2009, 99)
13. PCT agreement (OJ 2007, 617 / 2009, 206)
14. PCT changes of 1/1/09 and 1/7/09 (see below)
15. Also, there may be something on filing by reference R.40(2),(3) in general, because it was supposed to be in the DII 2009, but they took it out. This EPC2000 change has not yet been asked.
16. Another thing not yet tested is the 2nd sentence of R.134(1). This actually happened in July 2009 - see OJ 2009, 79. You don't need to know this particular unavailability (they will put it on the exam calendar if required), just the general principle. 

WIPO presentations on recent changes

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ppt/2009changes.ppt

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ppt/sis.ppt

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/ppt/2009practice_changes.ppt

"Recently published" Board of Appeal Decisions:

T 439/06 - 3.5.01 - Electronic trading system/REUTERS (OJ 2007, 491) " Re-establishment of rights (no)" - "All due care required by the representative (no)" - "Application of principle of proportionality (no)"	view	131 kB
T 1227/05 - 3.5.01 - Circuit simulation Infineon Technologies (OJ 2007, 574) " Computer-implemented method with mathematical steps for simulating the performance of a circuit subject to 1/f noise - technical character (yes)" " Undefined technical purpose - adequate for clarity (no)"	view	163 kB
T 154/04 - 3.5.01 - Estimating sales activity / DUNS LICENSING ASSOCIATES (OJ 2008, 46) " Requirement of invention -- method, main request (no)" - "Requirement of invention -- method, auxiliary request 1 (yes)" - "Inventive step -- system, main and auxiliary requests 1 to 3 (no)" - "Amendments -- claim 1, auxiliary requests 4 and 5 (inadmissible)" -"Remittal for further prosecution (refused)" - "Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (refused)"	view	252 kB
T 1178/04 - 3.3.09 - Enzyme additives for ruminant feeds/HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA (OJ 2008, 80 and GL D-I, 4) " Purported new opponent a 'party to proceedings' (yes)" - "Admissibility of purported opponent's appeal (yes)" - "Ruling on transfer of opponent status a 'decision' of the Opposition Division (yes)" - "Proprietor adversely affected by decision (no)" - "Proprietor not adversely affected by decision prevented from presenting arguments relating to validity of transfer of opponent status (no)" - "Reformatio in peius (not applicable)" - "Validity of transfer of opponent status (no)" - "Remittal to Opposition Division (yes)" - "Reimbursement of appeal fee (no)"	view	213 kB
T 263/05 - 3.2.06 - Laser welding/HONDA GIKEN KOGYO K.K. (OJ 2008, 329) "Novelty and inventive step of one independent claim and its dependent claims (yes)" - "Amendments prohibited by Rules 57a or 29(2) EPC (no)" - "Amendments to description (allowed)" - "Amendment of a party's case to introduce a new line of argument in appeal proceedings after filing of reply (not allowed)" - "Extent of duty of board of appeal to examine claims ex officio (Article 114(1) EPC)" - "Extent of power of Board acting ex officio under Article 111(1) EPC to remit a case to the opposition division" - "Remittal of case to opposition division (no)" - "Requests to record matters in minutes (refused)"	View	409 KB
T 1093/05 - 3.5.01 - Multiplier circuit/Infineon Technologies (OJ 2008, 430) "Interpreting a decision to grant a patent" – "Correction of a decision to grant a patent (no)" – "Amendments after the communication under Rule 51(4)"	View	125 KB
J 10/07 - 3.1.01 - Subsequent filing of drawings/AMAZONEN-WERKE (OJ 2008, 567) "Transitional provisions of the EPC 2000" - "Subsequent filing of drawings not contained in the original application; re-dating of the application (no)" - "Substantial procedural violation (yes)" - "Reimbursement of appeal fee (yes)" - "Protection of legitimate expectations"	view	217 KB
J 3/06 - 3.1.01 - transitional provisions/HEITKAMP (OJ 2009, 170) "Applicability of Rule 56 EPC to filings made before its entry into force - no" - "Valid claiming of priority - no"	view	90 KB
T 307/03 - 3.3.07 - ARCO/Double patenting (OJ 2009, 422) "Principle of prohibition of double patenting - applicable under EPC (yes)" - "Later claim more broadly formulated - double patenting prohibition applicable (yes)"	view	92 KB
T 1063/06 - 3.3.10 - Reach-through claim/BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (OJ 2009, 516) "All requests: reach-through claim - chemical compounds defined in functional terms - future inventions also claimed - limiting claim to actual contribution to art both reasonable and imperative - invention cannot be carried out within the entire scope claimed without undue effort - research programme"	view	110 KB

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 Updated info about the EQE 2010

The EQE Board appears to be updating all the old notices regarding the exam. Usually the secretariat send this in an e-mail, but just in case you don't get it, you can find the updated instructions regarding the conduct of the EQE here

Differences I have noticed with the previous version (from Dec 2008 - see here):


- (15) electronic devices are limited to an analogue wrist watch (so presumably not one with a digital display)
- (2b& 9 & 15c) strict instructions about only being able to hand in an answer on EQE paper (except the C opposition paper). It is a regular comment that pre-prepared materials are not accepted)
- most notably, the list of advised books to bring has been deleted. The only guidance is the very broad syllabus found in Art. 13 of the REE)
- (7) instructions not to write your name or initials anywhere in your answer (to preserve anonymity)
- (15d) not stapling or pasting pages together (the answers have to be copied)
- (17) leave the hall after handing in question paper and answer (presumably this is also if you have to got to the bathroom)

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 Changes to EPC on1 April 2010 (1/4/10) will NOT be tested on EQE 2010

At the meeting between the tutors and the examination committees two weeks ago, it was clearly stated  by the D committee that the changes scheduled for 1/4/10 will NOT be tested.
The exam tests the law on the 31/12/09 - the fact that these changes have been published in the OJEPO this year does not mean that they automatically form part of the syllabus.
That should make studying a little bit easier.