EQE Forum http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/ The EQE Forum is provided by the European Patent Academy in Cooperation with the Examination Secretariat for the EQE en Sat, 19 May 2012 07:32:00 GMT vBulletin 10 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/images/misc/rss.png EQE Forum http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/ Peculiarities in examiners report, A 2010 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9209&goto=newpost Fri, 18 May 2012 20:46:12 GMT Does anyone care to comment on the following peculiarities in the examiners report: We are told 35 points are available for the dependent claims,... Does anyone care to comment on the following peculiarities in the examiners report:

We are told 35 points are available for the dependent claims, and the report gives a nice set of 15 dependent claims, totalling up to exactly 35 points.

However, we were also strictly supposed to limit the total claims to 15 max, as the client had indicated so, leaving 14 dependent claims only, whereas apparently 15 are needed for full marks. Strange....

Further, an air outlet is necessary according to the examiners, otherwise the pump can't inflate tyres, see their point 2.1.5. This is true, but should an air inlet then also not be defined in the claim? Without an air inlet, no working pump either (Yes, in one embodiment with the special tube the air outlet also functioned as an air inlet, but an inlet is needed anyway). So either both are needed for a good claim, or none are needed. Can't have one considered essential, and the other not, that's not logical.


Actually, it occured to me that merely specifying an airpump with a piston in a cylinder and the cylinder comprising a bicycle frame tube and being open to the atmosphere should have given novelty, and implies in the most general terms possible an inlet and an outlet. I am not certain it would have gotten many points, seeing the examiners report, but logically it should have been sufficient, shouldn't it?

Kuifje ]]> A 2010 Electricity/Mechanics Kuifje http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9209 A 2007 E/M, various aspects feedback required http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9208&goto=newpost Sun, 13 May 2012 11:57:41 GMT Hi, Found this one very difficult,balancing the required wording for the various attachment types:sliding, sliding blocked with a knot, fixed,... Hi,


Found this one very difficult,balancing the required wording for the various attachment types:sliding, sliding blocked with a knot, fixed, sliding andsimultaneously redirecting the string.


I am puzzled by a few things in theexaminers report, and would appreciate some feedback on them.



  1. The wording of d1: 'being coupled to a second point'. Does this not exclude the embodiments of figs 5,6, 7. The second point is here a redirection point, the string is not 'coupled' there, or is it? And in fig 9 it is only coupled after the string has been pulled sufficiently to pull the knot against the flange, leading to the curious situation that the tea bag of fig 9 as sold does not fall under the claim, but when in use it does. Somewhat unsatisfactopry in my view.
  2. The expectation by the exam committee of a dependent claim (number 10) for a tag with a perforated line to separate it into two tags. This was mentioned in D1, and therefore so clearly not inventive that I intentionally left this out for fear of penalty points. Can somebody explain a) why it should get points; b) why it should not get penalty points?



3) The lack of bonus points for afurther invention: Storing the string inside the bag (maybe combinedwith a tag connected to the bag), as in fig 6. This is alsoapplicable to the tradional package of fig 2, so would have warrenteda side claim for a few points.


Here's my answer for those that care tocomment. As I see it missed point d3, and also c1, but that latter wasintentional, as I find this an unneccessary limitation. Bags, inwhich a flange is created only to attach/slide the string should, notformed from two sheets, are also imaginable, eg pouch type bags, butnot covered by the model answer. I fear I would have lost 10-15points out of the 40 available for these two errors, but maybe atutor will find even more errors.


Infusion package for preparing aninfusion beverage, comprising
a string and an infusion bag of whichedges are bonded into a flange,
whereby the string is attached to theflange at at least two attachment points,
whereby at at least one of theattachement points the string is slidably attached,
characterised in that the stringportion between the attachment points is provide inside the infusionbag.

By using 'attach' first, and making it clear later that attachment may still be slidable, I tried to cover the variants.

Kuifje ]]> Kuifje http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9208 EPA working abroad http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9205&goto=newpost Wed, 09 May 2012 10:41:09 GMT not applicable anymore not applicable anymore ]]> Post-Qualification Corner weansa0 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9205 C-Book 4th Edition http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9204&goto=newpost Mon, 07 May 2012 09:28:51 GMT Does anybody know if it expected a 4th Edition of this book, in order to take into accounts the changes from 2010 and EQE changes? Regards Does anybody know if it expected a 4th Edition of this book, in order to take into accounts the changes from 2010 and EQE changes?

Regards ]]> Paper C - General Berbizier http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9204 Claiming priority - disclosure in abstract http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9203&goto=newpost Thu, 03 May 2012 06:54:40 GMT Dear all, If something is only disclosed in the abstract of a national priority application, can priority for that subject matter still be... Dear all,

If something is only disclosed in the abstract of a national priority application, can priority for that subject matter still be claimed?

A 88(4) seems to imply so, stating 'the documents of the previous application as a whole', so presumably including the abstract, and in extremis even the application form, inventor designation, payment form, etc, whatever was part of ' the previous application'.

However, I am doubting, because for other cases where disclosure is an issue, (well, except published A 54(2) prior art) the abstract is normaly excluded. See also A 85, which gives the abstract informative status only, which however is only applicable to European applications, not to national applications serving as priority applications.

Also, GL C-V 2.2 state: It is sufficient that the documents of the previous application taken as a whole "specifically disclose" such subject-matter. The description and any claims or drawings of the previous application should, therefore, be considered as a whole in deciding this question, except that account should not be taken of subject-matter found solely in that part of the description referring to prior art, or in an explicit disclaimer.

The abstract is specifically not mentioned.

Is there an unambiguous answer?

Thanks

Kuifje ]]> Basic Patent Law Kuifje http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9203 Papers A and B: Chemistry or E/M http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9202&goto=newpost Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:38:32 GMT I'm trying to decide which version of A/B to sit.

I have a chemistry degree (followed by PhD/research in biochemistry), so I always assumed that I would sit the chemistry papers.

However, currently I only really draft mechanical cases (although I deal with office actions for both chemical and mechanical cases). Plus during my revision for the pre-exam I spent some time answering past E/M paper B's. So now I'm not sure which version to sit.

Does anyone have any advice? ]]> Question about the exam procedure scat0292 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9202 apparent contradiction between A 51(2) and A 164(1) http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9201&goto=newpost Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:37:11 GMT Articles 51(2) says: Time limits for the payment of fees other than those fixed by this Convention shall be laid down in the Implementing... Articles 51(2) says:

Time limits for the payment of fees other than those fixed by this Convention shall be laid down in the Implementing Regulations.

and Article 164(1) says:

The Implementing Regulations, ... shall be integral parts of this Convention.

Is a fee laid down in Implementing Regulations fixed by "this Convention" or not? ]]> Basic Patent Law ihdd http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9201 C-2012 - list of attack http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9199&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:55:25 GMT 1: Novelty vis-à-vis A3 2+1: inventive step A2+A5 (closest prior art A2) 3+1: 1st partial problem internal layer of glue inventive... 1: Novelty vis-à-vis A3
2+1: inventive step A2+A5 (closest prior art A2)
3+1: 1st partial problem internal layer of glue inventive step A4+A5 (closest prior art A4)
2nd partial problem external layer of glue inventive step A4+A6 (closest prior art A4)
4+1 inventive step A3+A6 (closest prior art A3)
5 novelty A3
6 novelty A4
7 inventive step A6+A5 (closest prior art A6) ]]> C 2012 Allain http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9199 Medical conditions and special circumstances http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9198&goto=newpost Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:37:05 GMT I have RSI which I've managed for 9 years now through and MSc and the UK JEBs by typing answers on a computer (split keyboard, ergonomic mouse etc). Does anyone know how I go about sitting the EQE the same way? Obviously it wasn't necessary for the pre-exam.
TIA ]]> Question about the exam procedure slk123 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9198 Confirmation of participant 2012 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9197&goto=newpost Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:52:12 GMT Today I got my answer sheets from the EPO!

How sure are the correctness of the summarize results from "djackson" ? ]]> Pre-Exam 2012 tiptap http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9197 2013 Exam Enrollment http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9194&goto=newpost Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:35:16 GMT Enrollment details can be found here : http://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/admission/2013.html ---Quote--- The examination consisting of four... Enrollment details can be found here : http://www.epo.org/learning-events/e...sion/2013.html
Quote:
The examination consisting of four papers - A, B, C and D - will be referred to as "the main examination". Candidates wishing to register and enrol for the pre-examination or the main examination may submit their application as from 1 April 2012. Those awaiting results from the EQE 2012 may file their application after their results are known.

Closing dates


1. Pre-examination
Complete applications must be received by the Examination Secretariat no later than 11 June 2012.


2. Main examination
Complete applications of candidates wishing to sit the main examination must be received by the Examination Secretariat no later than 5 September 2012.
]]> General EQE Topics paul http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9194 Who selects the closest prior art? http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9193&goto=newpost Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:27:59 GMT According to the P&S-approach, the closest prior art is selected in knowledge of the invention and also the problem is formulated in knowledge of the invention. Only when obviousness is assessed, it is -of course - assumed that the skilled person does not know the invention.

It is my understanding of the P&S-approach, that by selecting the CPA and defining an objective technical problem based on it, a situation is created in which the skilled person could have realistically been. Someone could have presented the skilled with the CPA and the OTP ("Dear skilled person, please develop this CPA such that it solves this OTP."). It is then assessed whether - in this situation - the skilled person could and would have arrived at the claimed subject-matter.

However, in some of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal, you read sentences like "the skilled person would not select Dx als CPA, because...". In my view, this is dogmatically incorrect since the CPA can only be selected by someone knowing the invention, while the skilled person does not know the invention.

Any thoughts on that? ]]> Post-Qualification Corner immibi1 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9193 EQE 2013 : new format http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9192&goto=newpost Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:02:34 GMT Different changes are expected in the format of the EQE from 2013. Does anyone have a reference summarizing these different changes ? Thank you ! Different changes are expected in the format of the EQE from 2013. Does anyone have a reference summarizing these different changes ? Thank you ! ]]> General EQE Topics den http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9192 New Guidelines June 2012 http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9191&goto=newpost Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:47:55 GMT New guidelines are expected in June 2012. See for instance in the last issue of the Patent Information News, page 11. Deep changes are expected as... New guidelines are expected in June 2012. See for instance in the last issue of the Patent Information News, page 11. Deep changes are expected as the new guidelines should include 8 parts (and no longer 5 parts).

Does anyone know if we would have to cite these new guidelines for paper D of the EQE 2013 ? I am a bit worried as I have annotated my EPC with the guidelines that are now applicable.


Thank you ]]> Basic Patent Law den http://www.eqe-online.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9191