Pre-Exam 2022: 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?
Were the legal topics 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? Which of the legal questions did you consider particularly difficult, and which relatively 'easy'?
Were the various aspects of claims analysis well balanced? How did you deal with the situation that only part of the paper (only the prior art) could be printed? 
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?

Were you able to finish each of the legal parts of the exam in the 70 minutes available for the appropriate part? And for each of the claims analysis parts? 
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How & how fast were they solved?

How did this year's paper compare to the earlier pre-exams of 2015-2019 and 2021 (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
We expect that the paper will become available in all three official EPO languages on the EQE website, Compendium, Pre-Exam at the end of the week or next week

Our Pre-Exam 2022 blog will be composed of three separate blogs:

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 18-03-2022 20:22"), 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 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 (once those are available). 

Thanks!
Labels:
Roel is a European Patent Attorney and tutor at DeltaPatents.

Comments

  1. Siul18 March 2022 at 16:48

    overall, the examn was similar to 2021. I was surpise that there were no questions regarding time limits.

    The claim analysis it was clear and the document were quite short, which is a plus.

    The question regading opposition i found it quite dificult to answer it due to the way in which was formulated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MG18 March 2022 at 17:00

    I found the legal part a bit surprising. There were no questions on time limits or priority. The board of appeal question took me by surprise and also PCT was under-represented. The questions that were asked were all very interesting though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But my calendars18 March 2022 at 17:14

    I can't believe there were no date questions!

    Think it went well, claims analysis seemed simpler than most years. Some odd legal questions on appeals and opposition.

    Does anyone know how we actually download answers rather than just view them?

    ReplyDelete
  4. George P18 March 2022 at 17:16

    Surprised legal has no time limit calculations, but overall okay.

    Did anyone get confused in the objective technical problem/CPA question of part 4 in that they didn't tell us which claims to evaluate these from?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 17:19

    "Did anyone get confused in the objective technical problem/CPA question of part 4 in that they didn't tell us which claims to evaluate these from?"
    Yes, very much so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roel van Woudenberg18 March 2022 at 21:13

      Oh, was thay indeed the case? I could not find it any claim reference in that Q, and thought that it would probably have gone missing when the exam results from some candidates were send to me. I could not find it in any if their answers... interesting in view of the presence of 9 claims..

      Delete
    2. Roel van Woudenberg15 April 2022 at 09:16

      The Examiners' Report (published yesterday) indicates that there was an error in the question as presented in Wiseflow to the candidates:

      "Since the following sentence was missing on WiseFlow:

      “Assume in the following that inventive step has to be assessed in respect of claim II.9.”

      the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for question 20."

      Delete
  6. LH18 March 2022 at 17:22

    Yes, it was a bit odd. Provide our own calendars this year, just to not have to use them at all! And some 'bread and butter' topics conspicuously not examined.

    George P - I found the CPA question odd too for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerben18 March 2022 at 17:28

    I sat the exam in my office, using the same hardware/setup as during the two mock exams. Then, everything went well; this time, surprisingly, I was unable to upload the identification picture at the start of the flow using the office Internet connection. I ended up using my phone as a hot spot, which worked well.

    Regarding the legal question: like the previous commenters, I was surprised by the lack of time limit calculations, especially after the extensive warnings to bring our own calendars. I also thought there was a surprisingly large number of less common topics (board of appeal, disputed right to a patent, transfer of a patent), especially in the first batch of questions. Still, it seemed very doable.

    Regarding the claims analysis, I had the impression there was a very large number of questions regarding novelty of the various claims (but maybe I disremember the balance of previous pre-exams). And the very last question felt incomplete, but I believe that topic should be discussed under a different post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 17:40

    Have those who sat the exam in French noticed the difference between "croissance" and "formation" whereas it was systematically "growth" in the English version?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unknown18 March 2022 at 17:56

    The CPA questions at the end of part four were poor. Very unclear as to which subject matter/ claim was supposed to be considered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AN19 March 2022 at 00:46

      Indeed, poor CPA questions, as not indicated which claim each of statements related with. So question ill-defined.

      Delete
    2. Roel van Woudenberg15 April 2022 at 09:17

      See above @Roel van Woudenberg 15 April 2022 at 09:16

      Delete
  10. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 18:02

    For me, all the wiseflow buttons were in German for the first two parts and then french for the third part. This wasn't resolved during the flow but the invigilator provided translations when needed. The buttons were in English for the final part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Me18 March 2022 at 18:34

      For me they were in English in part 1, in German for 2 then french in 3 and English again in part 4.

      Delete
    2. King J18 March 2022 at 19:48

      This was a bit the same for me, but luckily the questions and statements were still visible in all three languages, so in the end it did not bother me too much.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 18:15

    Hello all, I dont really have a good feeling about the pre exam, the missing time limits and mostly easy questions werent asked much from my point of view. Also, more questions regarding 123(2) allowability were asked than usual I think. Also the opposition entry in the first part was a suprise, overall Im not sure what to think about the pre exam.
    I agree, that the short texts in the third and fourth part were convinient and not overloaded.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Armin18 March 2022 at 18:18

    The legal part had some unexpected topics for me, in particular the boards of appeal question and the one regarding stay of proceedings. As I barely studied stay of proceedings, I had to look that up on the spot (and did so at the end, after answering the remaining questions). As mentioned by others, no time limit calculations at all, which was also very surprising. Overall, however, very doable, especially with the right tools/material at hand.

    As for the claims analysis part: while the amount of text was very manageable, a few of the statements were just too vague for me to give a clear-cut answer, even in retrospect. The fact that the closest prior art was discussed without specific reference to any claim - with there being two independent claims involving clearly different features - was a very strange choice.

    There was also a question about the textile bag for the yoga mat, and its novelty with respect to D2, which surprised me since D2 did not mention any textile bag at all. I wonder if they originally meant to ask about D1, since D1 described a "plastic or cotton" bag.

    I also had an issue with WISEflow where the navigation buttons in the UI would be in a different language regardless of the language selected for the question. Luckily, it did not affect me too much during the exam, but I can imagine it may have for others.

    ReplyDelete
  13. HW18 March 2022 at 18:32

    Re. claim analysis of the wine part, how did people evaluate claim II.1 with regards to 'wherein the composition of a gas in the headspace of the bottle is modified.' Was the composition of a gas modified in the prior art? Eg was adding nitrogen modify the composition of a gas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 18:50

      In my opinion yes, air is being changed into something else but original air composition which changes the composition of the gas in the headspace.

      Delete
    2. AB18 March 2022 at 19:24

      In my opinion, no. But I think it can possibly be argued either way.

      I say no because paragraph [003] refers to air as a gas (despite in reality it being a mixture of gases... 78% N2, 21%O2, etc.) being "replaced" (i.e., displaced) by another gas comprising less oxygen than air. In my view, the composition of air is fixed, the composition of the other gas is fixed, and the description talks in terms of replacing one with the other. In my view, there is no disclosure of modifying the composition of either air or the other gas. What is modified is the oxygen concentration of the gas mixture in the volume that is the headspace, but that's not what I construe the term "a gas" in claim II.1 to be referring to, based on the description.

      It would have been nice if it was possible to construe claim II.1 without needing to refer to the description, let alone part of the description that wasn't especially clear.

      That's my take at least!

      Delete
    3. Gerben18 March 2022 at 19:46

      I would say that D11 (the vacuum pump) does not change the composition of the gas in the headspace; although it does change the absolute (but not relative) amount of oxygen.

      D12 changes the composition by adding CO2 which 'pushes out' some oxygen.

      D13 changes the composition by adding N2, flushing out most of the oxygen.

      Delete
    4. Ben18 March 2022 at 20:20

      I havent thought about the vacuum pump in your way, i actually though doubt it, that the vacuum pump does not change the composition: if it was a full vacuum in the headspace due to the vacuum pump, there wouldnt be any matter left to have a composition, thus, there has been a change from a composition to no composition, which is a change in composition.

      Delete
  14. Dr Me18 March 2022 at 18:38

    No indication that the prior art was 54(1) and (2) in the German version texts for part 4. I can't see immediately how this might have had an adverse effect on the DE candidates but it was an inconsistency nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roel van Woudenberg20 March 2022 at 10:50

      You mean that no such into was present at the top of page 2022/P4/DE/2 of the German version, while it was at page 2022/P4/EN/2 and 2022/P4/FR/2 of the English and French versions of part 4?
      Yes, that is a difference which should not have been there, but would it really have let to any doubt for the German candidates as to what the (prior art) status of D11, D12 and D13?
      Also see D 2/21, reason 5 on how to understand exam questions.

      Delete
    2. Roel van Woudenberg20 March 2022 at 10:52

      D 2/21 is discussed in our other blog post here:

      https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/02/on-interpretation-of-pre-exam-questions.html

      Delete
  15. Sleipnir18 March 2022 at 18:46

    There are three statements that I will be emailing about this evening due to them being ambiguous and unclear.

    Firstly, in part 2, "If a request for grant is not filed on a form drawn up by the EPO, an application filed together with that request will not be dealt with as a European patent application."

    It is true that Form 1001 is not required to obtain a date of filing but if this is not eventually submitted (see A90(3), R57(b), R41(1) and A 90(5)), the application will be refused i.e. not dealt with as a European application. What is meant by the above statement in the exam? There is too little information there in my opinion.

    Secondly, in part 3, "The present application indicates that a yoga mat made of poly-Y is more effective than a yoga mat made of poly-X or poly-Z in reducing sweat generation on the body of the athlete while the athlete is in contact with the yoga mat." There is no indication in the description of the yoga mat that the yoga mat can be made of poly-Y, only that one surface of said mat can comprise poly-Y. As there s no disclosure of the mat being "made" of poly-Y, how can one answer this statement with a true or false?

    Thirdly, in part 4, "The EPO may issue a communication under Rule 62a EPC in the search phase for the present set of claims." The word "may" in any case makes this satement ambiguous as the EPO may do many things. There is a non-zero chance that the EPO will not issue such a communication. Indeed, R62a(1) states "If the European Patent Office considers that the claims as filed do not comply with Rule 43, paragraph 2, it shall invite the applicant to indicate, within a period of two months, the claims complying with Rule 43, paragraph 2, on the basis of which the search is to be carried out." So the communication is only issued if the EPO decides the clams do not meet R43(2), which of course is not certain as Exmainers have different opinions on how to apply R32(2), A123(2), A84, A54, A56 etc. Therefore, there cannot be a definitive answer to ths statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 23:45

      My understanding is that the application is indeed treated as a European application because A.90(5) EPC states, "[...]the European patent application shall be refused".

      Delete
    2. Roel van Woudenberg20 March 2022 at 10:55

      Please refer to the other blogs posts for legal part and for claims part for discussions on these topics.

      https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/03/pre-exam-2022-our-answers-to-legal.html

      https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/03/pre-exam-2022-our-answers-to-claims.html

      Delete
  16. Ben18 March 2022 at 20:20

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Happy tired18 March 2022 at 20:26

    Legal
    1. Question on RPBOA2020 was unexpected
    2. No time limits and ep entry was also a surprise
    3. Question on opposition was confusing in my opinion.
    Almost All answers had "patent will be revoked if claim 1 (or claim 2)..." . However they were IC so the patent would be kept amended, not revoked.so all would be false.
    I thought I must have understood something wrong and disconsidered it.

    Claim analysis
    1. Invention 1 was ok
    2. Invention 2 was tricky
    3. Both had little text to read, which is good but also less clear to find basis etc.


    Do you agree or disagree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Siul18 March 2022 at 20:35

      No amendments were filed for the opposition question, so the patent cannot be kept in an amendment form

      Delete
    2. Gerben18 March 2022 at 21:04

      In my view, the question about opposition was about extent and ground of the oppositon and what the OD can do. If I am not mistaken, the OD cannot change the extent of opposition, so claim 2 cannot be grround for revocation; but the OD may add new grounds of opposition, so they can revoke the patent because claim 1 is not patentable according to some fresh ground of opposition.

      Delete
    3. Roel van Woudenberg18 March 2022 at 21:16

      Not really a question on RPBA2020... see our legal answers

      Delete
    4. AN19 March 2022 at 00:49

      I made own calendars because of Notice. But no time limit questions at all!

      Delete
  18. Anonymous18 March 2022 at 20:44

    can we expect the blog post with the answers still today?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Roel van Woudenberg18 March 2022 at 21:01

    Our answers to the legal part are now available in a separate blog post:

    http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/03/pre-exam-2022-our-answers-to-legal.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roel van Woudenberg18 March 2022 at 22:18

      Our answers to the claims analysis part are now available in a separate blog post:

      http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/03/pre-exam-2022-our-answers-to-claims.html

      Delete
  20. Roel van Woudenberg20 March 2022 at 11:05

    As with eEQE 2021, in the legal part not only the statements within each question, but also the questions where presented in randomized order to the candidates. One candidate had the questions in the same sequence as shown in our legal answers blog, with the stay question as first question (a difficult and unexpected topic to start with), while another candidate informed me that his first question was the opposition question (a more frequently occurring topic that could be expected to be part of the exam, so less unfamiliar). For an equal level playing field, it would appear more appropriate if the questions all come in the same sequence. Also the randomized sequence of statements may have an effect of differences of perceived difficulty, especially in the claims part where it makes a difference in which sequence claims and/or prior arts are presented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous25 March 2022 at 09:56

      I as not so happy with getting the most difficult question first. I did not know that others got that question later and that they could start with an easier one.

      Delete
  21. Karen21 March 2022 at 17:05

    Did anyone face technical issues with the Wiseflow/Lockdown Browser during the exam? In particular when launching the flow for Part 2, an endless process saying "Initialising. Preparing the assignment" just after the ID verification via camera?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tara prasad22 March 2022 at 08:24

      Yes, I had exactly the same issue. The facial check and the mic check went on well but later I had the initialising, preparing assignment window this time without the count down timer and the loop was endless. I contacted the Zendesk chat and they couldn't suggest anything apart from refresh and reboot. Also, it took a long time as the admin at Zendesk had to wait for the tech support and later the tech support for the tech expert. I had this loop for three times without any solution. Everytime ending up with different agents. That is also time consuming as it takes time for the new agent to come to page. All info on the chat is logged but still they need time to disgest. All in all, I lost 32 mins in part 2 and had to do the portion in 38 mins. Hope the exam committee takes note of this and assess the damage.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous22 March 2022 at 08:26

      Did you file a formal complaint? If not, I recommend that you still do.

      Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the EQE 2022, item 8 (https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/0EBC9DA304DF20A4C125868100424C67/$FILE/Instructions%20to%20candidates%202022.pdf)

      Delete
    3. tara prasad22 March 2022 at 11:41

      Yes, done! Thanks!

      Delete
  22. Karine22 March 2022 at 11:36

    Does anyone know when we will get the results? Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roel van Woudenberg23 March 2022 at 16:14

      I do not know, but can do an (educated? ;)) guess:

      In 2021, Pre-Exam was on 1/3/2021, results came out on 31/3/2021 and Examiner's Repprt on 1/4/2021.
      So for 2022 with Pre-Exam in 18/3/22, an estimate would be 16/4/22.
      But it may be that factors like statements/questions which are being challenged, complaints, and practical things like holidays and meeting dates of Pre-Exam committee, Quality Committee and Examination Board have an effect.

      Delete
    2. Karine24 March 2022 at 13:33

      Thanks Roel :)

      Delete
  23. Art.94(3) EPC22 March 2022 at 14:19

    When are the results out? Danke.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alex Debernard6 April 2022 at 15:52

    I look forward to the results (hopefully on 16/4/220. If one was to file an appeal on a question's answer, what is the time limit and how can he do it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roel van Woudenberg6 April 2022 at 17:07

      See our blog post of WEDNESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2022 "On the interpretation of Pre-Exam Questions and on Pre-Exam appeals?"
      https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/02/on-interpretation-of-pre-exam-questions.html

      Would you see a reason to appeal?

      Delete
  25. Roel van Woudenberg8 April 2022 at 15:26

    The Results letters are now available in MyEQE.
    (Examiner's Report not yet on the Compendium pages)

    Congrats to all that passed!

    Please feel invited to post any comments on your results (was it more or less as expected, what do you conclude from it, ...) to our new blog post:

    http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/04/pre-exam-2022-congratulations-to-all.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Roel van Woudenberg14 April 2022 at 22:12

    The Examiner’s Report is now available on the EQE Compendium pages https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/compendium/preexamination.html

    It says to part 3:

    “Remark: There is a translation error in the German version [005] of the description, second line. It should read Poly-Y and not Poly-X.
    Due to this translation error the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for questions 11 to 15.”

    Also, w.r.t. Question 20, it says:

    “Since the following sentence was missing on WiseFlow:

    “Assume in the following that inventive step has to be assessed in respect of claim II.9.”

    the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for question 20.”

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Created By SoraTemplates | Distributed By Blogger Templates