Pre-Exam 2019: first impressions?
To all who sat the Pre-Exam today:
What are your first impressions to this year's Pre-Exam?
Any general or specific comments?
Any general or specific comments?
Were the legal topics well balanced?
Were the various aspects of claims analysis well balanced?
Was the balance between EPC and PCT right for you?
Were recent changes and stable legal provisions tested in the right balance for you?
Were you able to finish the exam in the 4 hours available (without rushing more than expected)?
Were recent changes and stable legal provisions tested in the right balance for you?
Were you able to finish the exam in the 4 hours available (without rushing more than expected)?
Which of the legal questions did you consider particularly difficult, and which relatively 'easy'?
How much time did you allocate for the legal questions, how much for the claims analysis part? Did you deviate from our original plan (for example, took more time for the legal questions than planned)?
Which part did you do first, the legal part or the claims analysis?
How many marks do you expect to have scored in the legal part, in the claims analysis, and for the whole paper?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?
How did this year's paper compare to the earlier pre-exams of 2015-2018 (assuming your practiced those) w.r.t. the pre-exam as a whole, w.r.t. the legal part and w.r.t. the claims analysis part?
The paper and our answers
Copies of the paper are available in all three languages on the EQE website, Compendium, Pre-Exam
The core of our answers will be given in two separate blog posts: one for the legal questions and another post for the claims analysis part.
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 13-13-2019 13:13"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym 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 Pre-Exam paper as a whole, and to the two parts (legal part and claims analysis) as whole parts to this blog.
Please post substantial questions to specific legal questions to our post for the legal part and claims analysis related questions to our post for the claims analysis part.
Please post substantial questions to specific legal questions to our post for the legal part and claims analysis related questions to our post for the claims analysis part.
Thanks!
SHARE:
I had tried all past papers and I found this paper a little more difficult than the past papers so far, particularly the legal part. The claim analysis part was OK - at times the questions in this section were so straightforward that it made me think twice if these wer trick questions! There were two different inventions in the claim analysis part (two different client applications) which I think is another difference compared to the past papers. Other than that, looking forward to the answers to the legal part being published in your blog!!
ReplyDeleteHi all!
ReplyDeleteMy copies of todays exam :)
Legal q: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x5jcm1c9n7znbn5/2019%20eqe%20pre%20legal.pdf?dl=0
Claims: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhjtf8su4q8nlxc/2019%20eqe%20pre%20claims.pdf?dl=0
Best regards,
MiKylie
One legal question conrcerning the pct application bogs me for several minutes and I managed to nail it down in the end. Otherwise I did not feel more difficult from the previous papers. Claim analysis part is relatively easier this year, including 2 applications/ inventions.
ReplyDeleteWas it the one with the change of adress for the Argentinian applicant? At least that was the one I let open to the very end :) Answer seemed to be "true" according to Visser.
DeleteI chose F for the question about the address change for the Argentinian applicant. The question was:
Delete"If, two months after validly filing PCT-AW, Antonia (Argentinian living in Argentina) moves to Berlin, the EPO will record in relation to PCT-AW the change of residence, upon request."
Thus, the PCT is the relevant regulation and R. 92bis.1 PCT says:
"(a) The International Bureau shall, on the request of the applicant or the receiving Office, record changes in the following indications appearing in the request or demand:
(i) person, name, residence, nationality or address of the applicant,
(ii) person, name or address of the agent, the common representative or the inventor."
Thus, it is the IB that records the change.
@Bjoern, I disagree (according to Rule 92bis PCT the IB will record the change of the address upon request of the applicant or rO).
DeleteI thought it is the IB who will record the changes. But let’s wait and see the response from deltapatent
DeleteYou both seem to have a point. I confused communicating to with recording the change. You can communicate the change to the rO but the change is recorded at the IB.. stupid mistake on my part.
DeleteIt is indeed quite tricky and bogged me for quite few minutes
DeleteBut do we think that the EPO would record the request if it was submitted to them directly as the question implied?
DeleteI guess the EPO would forward the request to the IB as a courtesy? Note that the question doesn't specify that the EPO is rO or indeed has had anything to do with the application so far..
DeleteI believe they can record at the rO but prefer for you to record it at the IB. See AG-IP 11.018. So the answer is True in my view.
DeleteRecord at the IB will be effected on all designated states. So you can request to record at the rO and it will in turn request to IB so in effect, it will record the change. I think the answer is True.
DeleteVery confusing question this one. I think it both answers can be correct so the sensible thing - it should be neutralised.
DeleteAs britt and Jakub said, R.92bis.1(a) PCT clearly says that it is the IB that records the change - so not the EPO or whichever office was the rO.
DeletePlease refer to the blog with our ansswers to the legal part.
Hello Roel, In Rijswijk, we were not allowed to take home the exam. However, I see that other were succesfull, thanks! Regards, Thomas
ReplyDeleteEdit: perhaps had to do with me leaving early...
DeleteI think this is the case. I also was in Rijswijk and nobody stopped me taking the exam with me or anybody else as far as I could tell.
DeleteIf you leave early, you are now allowed to take it. If you stay until the end, then yes.
DeleteI heard also from another candidate that he left early, after about 3h15: were there many that were ready well before the end?
I was in the front so I did not see everyone who left, but at least 5-10 people from our Dutch/Delta Patents group were done after 3 hours
DeleteI finished my exam in 2h40 and the rest of the time used for checking. Surprisingly, and for the first time, it took me longer to do the legal part (1h30) than the claim analysis part (1h10). Perhaps because I'm a chemist and there was finally chemistry in the claim analysis?
DeleteI felt that the claims analysis part was easier than in many of the previous pre-exams. Perhaps an (over-)correction from last years difficulties?
ReplyDeleteHowever, the legal part was more difficult than the previous years'. It was not that the questions themselves were very difficult, but there seemed to be a lot of topics...
I had answered all the questions with about 15 minutes to go, so I had time to look at a few questions that I wanted to re-visit.
I did the claims analysis part first. When practising the previous pre-exams (2014 - 18), I tried both doing the legal part first and the claims analysis first and the latter suited me best.
The second invention in the middle of the claims analysis part really threw me for a second :-D But it worked well, I thought.
I expect to have passed. Based on experience from practising I will not guess at a score...
I thought the claim analysis part was ok. Definitely how the claim analysis part should be and so I don't think it is over-compensation. If anything, the 2018 claim analysis paper was really bad and out of line with all other papers.
DeleteA very tough legal part I must say.
I appreciated that the claims analysis part was composed of two different inventions, one more-or-less chemical but with electro-mechanical aspects to it, and one more-or-less mechanical but with chemical aspects to it (ranges). Also, the applications themselves as well as the prior art documents were concise, and the number of different claim sets and their complexity much reduced, compared to the last few pre-exams (notably that of 2018). This allows candidates to fully focus on claims analysis topics and not needing to spend a large fraction of their time in comparing many lenghty claims with long, complex and/or sometimes confusing embodiments of the application and the prior art. I am curious what the effect will be on the results, pass rate as well as average score on pre-exam as a whole, legal and claims part, and score distribution.
DeleteBelow all from memory, not looked at my paper again, but felt the legal section was a bit trickier than before, wide range of topics and seemed more opened eneded answer questions than perhaps before. Few questions where I found it was difficult to nail down a true or false either way (e.g. I spent a while trying to find if there was a possible opposition fee refund I had missed, the change of PCT applicant address, the amending of claims during opposition for a specific state based on a novelty only citation). Quite a few obscure questions, less date calculations than usual too?
ReplyDeleteClaim analsysis unusual given it was in 2 separate parts but think that overall was a bit easier than 2018-2016. Certainly less ambiguous claim analysis questions I felt? I.e. Not much closest prior art/technical effect stuff. Heavy emphasis on disclosed ranges though which could be a big mark drop if handled badly (spread over a couple of questions?). I spent a while wondering how they would interpret disclosed layers in the prior art.
Of course we are probably always inclined to think a paper was tougher when we actually sat it. Will be interesting to see the mark scheme for some questions.
I found this year's paper a bit tricky. Few of the questions in the legal part were sneaky, although some questions were so straight forward that I reread questions just to make sure I wasn't missing out on anything.
ReplyDeleteI found the questions on overlapping ranges in the claim analysis a bit unfair considering the test that is applied for novelty analysis on it is not as straightforward as usual.
The paper itself wasn't that long as last year and the technologies were straightforward to understand (almost too easy prior art documents).
I thought the overlapping questions were also difficult. I answered T - the spec is novel for the 0.5-1500 range as the prior art discloses 0.7-2000. I guess T because this is a specific disclosure. My reasoning is that neither the "end points" of the range are specifically disclosed in the prior art range.
DeleteWhat does everyone else think?
K
also the guidelines mentioned that this is decided on a case by case basis. So very difficult to work out and like many others have said - the novelty test is not straight forward for overlapping ranges.
DeleteI said false for both as the ranges in the invention were not narrower than the prior art but were overlapping. So, I applied the test of "seriously contemplated" but not sure if I have applied it correctly.
Delete0.5 to 1500 not narrower than 0.7 to 2000. Very hard to determine this? I said true as I went down the route of "specific" disclosure for novelty. Also, the endpoints are not specifically disclosed.
DeleteG
According to EPO practice, a range should also result from a purposive selection, i.e. connected with a technical effect in this specific, narrow range. I think that might not be the case here. From my view, a range of 0.5 to 1500 might not be not novel over a range of 0.7 to 2000.
DeleteThe range of 0.5-1500 includes the specific endpoint of 0.7 of the prior Art. Thus, it cannot be novel.
DeleteI thought recent case law decides that a purposive selection just needs to be novel and that they got rid of the "technical effect" aspect.
DeleteThere is no "overlapping ranges" tests that need to be done, so no "seriously contemplating" or alike:
Deletethe claimed ranges are destroyed by prior art points that are within the claimed range (e.g, the 0.7 end-point destroys the range 0.5 - 1500).
considering what happen last year where people ran out of time and claim analysis was so bad, this year seems ok but legal part was a lot harder. Some questions relating to PCT felt harder. Claim analysis felt more reasonable.
ReplyDeleteKarl
I already found the results for part 1 here: https://gg-ip.eu/2019/02/25/vorpruefung-2019/
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the first answer is correct - you need to indicate reference doc, provide priority filing date, number, office to accord a F.D.
DeleteI would wait for Delta Patents. They tend to me very accurate over the past few years.
To my understanding the first question refers to the “normal“ filing of an EP and not filing by reference
DeleteYes, but the question mentioned that only the IT-P was provided in the email. Hence, there is no description of EP-P so therefore you will have to rely on the description of IT-P. So it implies that EP-P should be filed be reference to the priority doc.
DeleteYes, I agree but the information is enough to file an EP without reference to IT-P. To file an EP we need a request, contact details (email or representative is sufficient) and a description
DeleteThis felt like another question set without thinking it through properly. Even in the "cold light of day" I can see an arguable answer for both? Not just me?
DeleteI'm not too convinced about 2.4. You need an interpreter? so answer is F. And 2.2. - also F. Why would Jane be allowed to speak at oral proceedings?
DeleteI have identical results as GG-IP with the exception of
DeleteQ2.2: No (GG-IP: Yes) -> why would a US paten agent be allowed to make submissions in EP opposition proceedings as a general rule?
Q8.3: No (GG-IP: Yes) -> 10.06.2019 is a holiday.
In the exam I found specific case law saying foreign patent agents don't get special treatment regarding speaking at OP. With that and them missing Whit Monday I woulnt trust those answers.
DeleteFor the first question. the bit that threw me off is "no other information or other document available". So im not sure if you are meant to interpret that a description is available. You can see it both ways. A copy of IT-P to be filed by reference or it can be used as a description (but no information is available to say this). Very ambiguous and certainly open to interpretation.
DeleteInteresting that that blog states Jane would be allowed to speak 'as a general rule's, despite their quoted case law saying the American attorney, Mr. Eriksson, is not able to speak even with 1 months notice.
Delete"on the basis of information given" - it does not say description available but I can see the point about a copy of IT-P being sent via email. It is a very difficult first question - quite confusing. I answered F because I thought it would be reference to priority question. But now, I'm not sure. Very dubious this question.
DeleteRegarding 2.2, I think T is correct because (at least in the English edition), it says Jane wants to make submissions to "the oral proceedings". (emphasis on "the"). Here, they are talking about the specific oral and oral proceedings in general. The "as a general rule" refers to the fact that Jane can speak.
DeleteI have the same results as GG-IP except for Q2.2 where I have F. GG-IP has adapted their answer for Q8.3 in the meantime, to the presumably correct F
Delete@unknown - how confident are you that the rest of the answers from GG-IP are correct. Apart from Q2.2 which I think is F too.
DeleteRegarding 2.2
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_iii_r_5_4.htm
I Think this implies that 2.2. False is correct because the same principles apply to a us attorney
>> Bjoern 25 February 2019 at 20:56
Delete>> Q8.3: No (GG-IP: Yes) -> 10.06.2019 is a holiday.
In my opinion, the correct answer to Q8.3 is yes. The notification is deemed to be delivered on the tenth day irrespective of the fact that 10.6.2019 is a holiday (R 126(2) EPC)
I am anonymous 21:58 of 25/02. I said something wrong: I wanted to refer to Q8.4 instead of Q8.3. sorry
DeleteThe paper overall was balanced I thought. Lots of tough legal questions in there, especially regarding areas of the EPC that many trainees will not have been exposed to in their practice. That's not a criticism: we have to know it.
ReplyDeleteThe claims analysis section I thought they got spot on this year. Allowed me to focus on the issues at hand without constantly flipping between a million prior art documents and claim sets. I think having two applications and two sets of prior art is a good format: allows the candidate to demonstrate knowledge over different types of application (simple mechanical vs simple composition) which I think is good because it stops a weakness with one type of application ruining the whole section.
Hopefully did enough on the day to pass.
I think it was definitely shorter than 2017 and 2018 but the composition in the claim analysis part was quite a surprise.
ReplyDeleteAlso questions on ranges were a bit of unexpected.
Shorter and less difficult than 2018, but not too easy. Legal section was medium to difficult with a few very tricky questions (see above). Claim section was not bad, expect I really wonder about some novelty questions with respect the word "first layer" and "second layer". It seems to me that these are relatively broad terms, and some prior art could have a "first layer" and "second layer" (see D1 and D2) and claims l.1 to l.9.
ReplyDeleteYes been waiting for somebody else to mention layers, wondering if I was being dim. I had two questions down as strong "not sure" regarding novelty of layers from prior art.
DeleteI had a long think of layers in the exam. In the end, for 13.3 and 13.4 - I put it down as novel as I think they are selection invention i.e. first layer + detergent. Also, given the fact that it is an explicit disclosure too so I went for - it is novel.
DeleteCan a layer be made out of multiple (sub-)layers?
DeleteI think it can be, so a 4-layer structure can be within the scope of a claim directed to a 3-layer structure (where one of the 3 layers is further structured into two (sub-)layers).
I donot think so in this exam, where there is no hint that you could take that interpretation. So, with all the facts being present (Rule 22(3) IPREE), I think a 4-layer stucture cannot be considered a 3-layer structure in this exam.
DeleteIn real life, I would say yes though.
I think the exam was the right length. Legal part was heavily difficult especially the first question. Confusion as to whether it is referenced to priority or a description is provided???
ReplyDeleteQuestion on PCT - to record at EPO - I said T. I suppose you can request it directly at the EPO.
Claim analysis - overlapping ranges was very tricky. Did not know how to interpret this and the guidelines weren't too helpful in the sense that these cases are decided on a case by case basis. Not much to rely on so just went for straight novelty analysis.
Some novelty questions such as first layer and second layer seemed straight forward.
A surprise that there are two invention in claim analysis. Some tricky ones - not an easy paper but I hope I pass. 70% still seems very high to achieve.
As far as I can remember, the question on PCT was who will record the change, not whether you could request it at the EPO. Or am I false?
DeleteI got 3.2 as True but the Vorprufung has it down as False. Anyone know why. I would say it is True.
DeleteI answered F to 3.2 as the 3rd year renewal fee would fall due on 31 January 2020.
DeleteI also answer F, renewal fees for 3rd year are due.
DeleteSteve
In addition to grant and publishing fees, renewal fees must be paid for the 3rd year.
ReplyDeleteFor 2.4 - I have down as F - you need an interpreter. Does anyone else agree with this?
ReplyDeleteI disagree. R. 4(4) EPC:
Delete"If the parties and the European Patent Office agree, any language may be used. "
I quote Britt, if all party and EPO agree they can speak Portuguese
DeleteSteve
If the parties and the EPO agree... could you be allowed to speak klingon? Sorry, academic discussion as I will assume there is no case law on constructed languages :-D
DeleteBjoern question 8.3 was about the EP-S delivered on a Sunday (true) and 8.4 about the expire on 10June => 11 June (false).
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3.1: yes or no?
DeleteArt. 14(4) together with R8(1) EPC states that one _shall_ file a translation within two month of filing the application. Failure to do so will, however, lead to an invitation under Rule 58 EPC to file the translation within two months. Thus, it is my opinion that the answer to question 8.3 is "no", since one must not necessarily file the translation within two months of filing the application.
Agonised over this for a while. I opted for truth but felt it was another unnecessaryily ambiguous question?
DeleteI assume you refer to art 14(2) and r6(1) epc. I had T. Although not a real legal basis, I refer to Q4.3 of the 2017 pre eqe which had the same question and were the correct answer was considered to be T. Even though indeed, you'll get an invitation under r.58...
DeleteI also thought about Q4.3 of 2017 in the exam. However, in my opinion, Q4.3 of 2017 is slightly different in that it is actually directed to „the provisions of the EPC“, ie Art. 14(2), whereas this year‘s Q4.1 seemed to be directed to the options of the applicant and whether he must file a translation within two months. Maybe I also thought too much about it and leveled myself
DeleteRule 6(1) gives a requirement that you shall/must fullfil: file within 2m.
DeleteIf you miss that 2m, there is a deficiency. Rule 58 provides for an invitation to remedy this deficiency. Legally, it does NOT relax the requirement, but it gives you the chance to recover from a deficient state.
So, there is no doubt that the legal requirement is that he must/shall file the translation within 2m of the filing of the application.
It is unfortunate, as in the earlier two exams (see our post with our legal ansswer) which had a very similar question, that a candidates that knows well how the system works in practice (i.e., knows that there will be a risk-less R.58 invitation of the 2m yoo literally for practical purposes) may be worse of than a less-knowledgable candidate that just applies R.6(1) and is ignorant about R.58 and as such as less risk to go wrong.
But... With the two earlier exams using substantially the same wording, why would there now be room for a different interpretation?
I agree with you Anom. you need to provide an inerpreter and announce it 1 month ahead
ReplyDeleteHi Magda,
DeleteYou seem to have overlooked Rule 4(4) EPC: "If the parties and the European Patent Office agree, any language may be used."
So interpretation is needed in that case, as this paragrasph of the Rule does not specify so.
Also see GL (2017) E-V, 2, last sentence: "However, if
the parties and the EPO agree, any language may be used in oral
proceedings without interpreting or prior notice."
A new kind of pre-exam but fair and well drafted, much more than last year. Hope I did good.
ReplyDeleteWaiting for Delta results.
S.
Hello Folks,
ReplyDeletemy answers of the claim anaylsis were:
11: F/F/F/F
12: F/T/F/F
13: F/F/F/F
14: T/T/T/F
15: F/F/T/T
16; T/T/F/T
17: F/T/T/F
18: F/T/T/T/
19: T/T/F/F
20: F/F/T/F
Hopefully, everone agress
Agree except for 11.2, 13.3, 13.4, 17.1, 19.3, 19.4, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3
DeleteWith respect to 11.2, I agree with F.
DeleteClaim 4 is not clear due to the claim dependency. It is written as dependent on all previous claims. Therefore, you can make the combination 4+1 in which case the second layer referred to in claim 4 is not defined. Also, in that case the subj-matter of claim 2 and 3 is missing: the first layer and that the first layer comprises a detergent.
16.1 F?
DeleteIn my opinion, the mesh size pertains to the optional support grid ("preferably" [004], [006]). Thus, being optional, it's not an essential feature.
@SL
DeleteI agree with 16.1 as F for the reason you give.
20.3: In my opinion "false":
DeleteThe range of A2, ie 100-150 fulfils the three criteria for novelty of a sub-range (cf. GL VI-8). In particular, [007] of the spec. makes it clear that the fastening strength is considerably improved in this range.
Consequently, 20.4 should also be "true", since A.2 and A.1 provide the above-mentioned improved fastening strength.
I got 17.1 down as True. Anyone else think this
DeleteHi Pete, why did you think so? Please discuss at the claims analysis blog http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2019/02/pre-exam-2019-our-answers-to-claims.html
DeleteFor 13.3 - no detergent. For 13.4 - no bleach
ReplyDeleteI think that 13.3 is F and 13.4 is F
Deletewell, D2 names tha layers differently, but that the first layer is the second layer and vice versa has no effect.
16.1 F (paragraph [004], "preferably", a support layer is joined to each reinforcing insert; thus, the mesh size of the support layer is also preferable); 16.2 T (agree); 16.3 F (paragraph [005], the composite fibres are "preferably" carbon fibres; thus, not essential).. 16.4 T.
ReplyDeletefor 16.1 - the mesh is optional but the mesh size is not optional. Therefore I believe the mesh size is essential. So I put 16.1 - T
DeletePlease explain how there can be a mesh size without a mesh.
Delete19.1 F because the claim recites a support grid; and the application only discloses the support grid with a mesh size (either 0.5 to 1500 or 100 to 150), thus missing this feature of the mesh in respect to the support layer (unallowable intermediate generalization).
ReplyDeleteBut the question is whether or not it is an essential feature not whether it is an allowable amendment. So I think the answer is T.
DeleteThat's what I thought during the exam, too. However, in question 19, A.1 and A.2 are said to be filed "during the examination proceedings".
DeleteTherefore, I now tend to the view that A.1 is supported by claims III.1 + III.3 + III4 from questions 17-20 and paragraph [0003].
Any opinions?
I understand your point. Claim III.1 is missing "extending through the reinforcing inserts" compared to A.1. I see that support is found in paragraph [0003], so you have a point. However, the claim is still missing the mesh size. The claim is now broader than the disclosure because the disclosure only discloses the support grid with a specific mesh size (whereas the claim now recites just a support grid of any mesh size); and to file a claim that is not supported by the disclosure seems violate the EPC. I can't find support in the disclosure that does not have a mesh size. I'm not arguing that the mesh size is an essential feature, but I'm arguing that the amendment picks a feature from a group of features, where it does not have support to do that. So? I'm not sure whether it is T/F, but I'll lean F for now. I, personally, think 123(2) questions are always a little fluffy; let's see the solution.
DeleteFor 20.1 - T (No support grid in D11), 20.2 - T (no teaching in D11 or D12 of a reinforcing insert) and 20.3 - F (further reinforcing so it does contribute to novelty and inventive step), 20.4 F
ReplyDeleteDo you agree?
Disagree. Paragraph [002] of D11 discloses a "support grid 12". This composite structure 10 is "stronger than a structure without a support grid". Thus, I say T. Maybe I'm missing something?
DeleteRegarding 11.2: claim 4 says according to claims 1.1 to I3.
ReplyDeleteThe combination of I.1, I.2 und I.3 does not show that a first layer comprises a detergent.... So 11.3 seems to be False
Hi Roel - do you think you will be able to release the legal and claim analysis provisional marks up tonight.
ReplyDeleteP.M
I hope Roel slept last night :)
DeleteS.
Samunaleykum Roel. When are you planning to announce unoffical results? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWe just posted our answers to the legal questions in a separate blog post - https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2019/02/pre-exam-2019-our-answers-to-legal-part.html
DeleteThe claims analysis answers will follow later today. Doing some double checking.
Should 19.3 be True and 19.4 be True (PSA is expected to look at neighbouring technical fields) also the purpose is the same as the invention.
ReplyDelete19.4, I disagree (my answer F) because D12 relates to "bicycle components" and the invention relates to airplane parts. The purpose of strengthening an airplane component is different than the purpose of strengthening a bicycle (airplanes are bigger, in the air; bicycles are on the ground and much smaller). A PSA would start with an airplane reference, not a bicycle reference. Also, the statement is more of a feature analysis, and not a general purpose. It is more important that the prior art have a similar or same purpose and not just features in common. GL 2017 Section F. Of course, I could be wrong.
DeleteYes, I initially put answer down as F but then I thought the purpose of the invention is quite similar to D12 so I changed my mind. My reasoning is that the PSA would look at neighbouring fields if the purpose is the same. But I see your argument and hence seriously considered putting down F. In the end, I went T for the reasons above.
DeleteClaims A.1 and A.2 are not directed to airplane parts, but to composite structures. So, any composite structrue can be closest prior art, does not need to be an airplane structure -- if needed, then that should be a claim limitation.
DeleteI also think 19.4 is T. I agree with Anomymous 10.05.
DeleteI also agree with Anomymous 10.05
DeleteI think 19.1 - T, 19.2 - T, 19.3 - T
ReplyDelete19.4 is a tricky one. I can see both sides to this. I hate closest prior art questions because I think you are both right. They probably need to make these questions very obvious. Otherwise, you can see it in both ways. EPO examiners would often find prior art like this to throw at applicants during examination.
DeleteWe just posted our answers to the legal questions in a separate blog post - https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2019/02/pre-exam-2019-our-answers-to-legal-part.html
ReplyDeletePlease put your discussions on specific legal questions to that post.
Thank you, Roel!
Deletethanks Roel. Do you know when you can put up the claim analysis provisional answers. I'm a lot more nervous about that considering how some of the debates on this blog are. I can see both answers for some questions like 13.3, 13.4, 19.4
DeleteWe are double-checking our claims analysis answers. Will be on later today!
DeleteA candidate asked to post his impression on this blog:
ReplyDeleteThis year's pre-EQE was a bit different than previous years. I started out with the claim analysis part and finished within an hour. In contrast to the 2018 pater, this part seemed very easy. The legal part, on the other hand, was a mixed bag. Some questions where easy, while others took me almost half an hour to answer. Some subjects, like divisionals, renewal fees, and objective technical problems were barely touched upon. While opposition and novelty were perhaps overrepresented.
At the end of the exam I had the idea that I would pass the exam, but the variation in difficulty of the questions has me worried whether I overlooked things.
agreed. the claim analysis now looks very deceiving. Very worried about this now.
DeleteOur answwers to the claims analysis part are now available in a seperate blog post:
ReplyDeletehttps://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2019/02/pre-exam-2019-our-answers-to-claims.html
My comments for this paper overall is that it is tough (certainly the legal part) but fair. Some tricky ones in claim analysis such as overlapping ranges which were never tested before. Intermediate generalisation was hard and also added subject matter questions. Questions on novelty for 13.3 and 13.4 looked easy at face value but led to a lot of confusion for me. Seemed simply but yet hard. 19.1 and 19.2 - I think it should be True.
ReplyDeleteOverall the claim analysis was much better than 2018. I feel sorry for colleagues who left the profession because of last year's paper. I certainly knew a few. It seemed that the EPO is listening to many candidates concerns last year.
The results are out!
ReplyDeleteSee https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2019/03/pre-exam-2019-results-are-out.html for pass rate and links to to results file as well as examiner's report