Pre-Exam 2023: 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) did you use the available online legal texts (EPO legal texts incl Guidelines, EPC Articles and Rules, RFees; PCT Applicant's Guide, PCT Treaty Articles and Rules)?
(How) did you use the available online legal texts (EPO legal texts incl Guidelines, EPC Articles and Rules, RFees; PCT Applicant's Guide, PCT Treaty Articles and Rules)?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score? How many marks do you expect to have scored in the legal part, in the claims analysis, and for the whole paper?
Were you able to finish each of the legal parts of the exam in the 70 minutes available for the appropriate part? And each of the claims analysis parts?
Did you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? Which? How and how fast were they solved? Did you use the search functions? Did you use annotation, sticky notes and other Wiseflow tools?
How did this year's paper compare to the earlier pre-exams 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 early next week.
Copies of the paper will be provided on this blog as soon as we have received copies of the papers, preferably in all three languages (English, French and German). Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Our Pre-Exam 2023 blogs will have three separate blogs:
- first impressions with your comments as to first impressions, the Pre-Exam 2023 as a whole, the e-EQE platform (this blog), etc
- legal part with our answers to the legal questions (available in due course)
- claims part with our answers to the claims analysis questions (available in due course)
Please be reminded that you can view your exam answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official end of the respective part of the paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded (but in 2021 and 2022, the text of the questions and the statements are included in the answer).
Note that the questions (legal part) and 4 statements within a question (all parts) may appear in a different order here than they were in your actual exam, as the exam presents them in a randomized order to you.
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!
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 17-03-2023 23:24"), 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 parts (part 3 & part 4).
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 parts (part 3 & part 4).
SHARE:
I think the legal part was not difficult, one of the questions was exactly the same as in 2019 pre-exam, very weird. The claim analysis part, instead, was tough! I think there were 2 errors in tes statements, should i fill the form?
ReplyDeleteTo add on to this comment, three questions of the legal part appeared to be exact copies of previous years; Question 1 corresponded tot Q1 of 2021, question 2 corresponded to Q2 of 2018 and question 3 corresponded to Q5 of 2019. Only the names and some of the dates were changed.
DeleteCorrection to my response above, Question 1 corresponded to Q1 of 2019, not 2021.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWas it about Carla (instead of Greta) mentioned as an inventor in question 10?
That was one interesting mistake, but it doesn't really have an impact on the answer so I don't think it will be neutralised.
DeleteI considered Carla as a wrongly designated inventor
DeleteI spent a while thinking about Carla, who has nothing to do there... and ended up with a h... o. . Should I submit a complaint for that?
DeleteIt was correct that the statement mentioned Carla, as that statement was about the possibility to rectify the designation of the inventor = correct that the wrong person was named as inventor.
DeleteStill, I was quite confused because it didn't make sense that there were 2 different names. So I lost quite some time thinking about how the question has to be interpreted
DeleteThe legal part seemed OK to me - not too many surprises. Part 2 was slightly tougher than Part 1 in my opinion. For the claims analysis part, Part 4 seemed tougher than Part 3. Both Part 3 and Part 4 documents were easy to read and understand but the questions put me off a bit.
ReplyDeleteI spotted at least one translation error related to the cleaning cloth, it was translated to "layer" in English but in french it seemed to be different
ReplyDeleteI thought Part 4 was tough. I found it difficult to make a judgement as to whether disclosures in the prior art did or did not disclose the compounds from the claims, e.g. a releasing agent. Being a non-chemist means that the chemical names/types did not help me either. I feel as though there may have been more of an advantage for candidates with a chemistry background in this years pre-EQE compared to previous past papers which have also had chemical compositions in the claim analysis part. Anyone else thinking this or am I just trying to make myself feel better?!
ReplyDeleteI also wondered if siloxane fell within the groups of chemical elements mentioned in D1 and D2, so you were certainly not the only one thinking this!
DeleteThere was alot of chemistry but I don't think it influences the exam. At least it shouldn't. I haven't heard of siloxane in my life and I'm sure there are many others like us
DeleteAs a non-chemist, I didn't have a clue about all the components, for example if solvent can be equated to water, etc. So unfortunately, I don't think I will have any points for part 4...
DeleteMe neither, but the table in the last page of the description mentions that water is a solvent, i think that's all you need to know, no?
DeleteHow much water is in a water-based solvent system (D2)? I could not find that anywhere. What can be extra components other than water in a water-based solvent system? Seems essential for the novelty questions of erasable ink claims over D2.
DeleteI came to the conclusion that a "water-based solvent system" does not disclose directly and unambiguously how much water is actually contained, and that thus the feature "40 to 90 % water" was not disclosed
DeleteAgreed, it was not clear if water was included in the water-based solvent system included water.
DeleteWhy would a “water-based solvent” be 100% water? A “water-based ink” ([002]) clearly is not 100% water…
DeleteThe first - third part were rather fair. However, the fourth part was more difficult, in particular if the "dispersant" of D2 would not be considered novelty-destroying for the "releasing agent" but only as an equivalent feature in view of inventive step. This assessment may be based on poor reading skills on my part though.
ReplyDeleteI think it's novelty destroying, it mentions that it "releases", so it's a releasing agent.
DeleteDear god, I hope so.
DeleteThe dispersant of D2 is a releasing agent: see last sentence of [003] and esp the last 5 words “One of the advantages of the dispersant is that it forms a film at the surface of the writing as well as to have a releasing effect.”
DeleteWhen is DeltaPatents going to release their answers?
ReplyDeleteOur legal answers later this evening; our claims analysis answers tomorrow.
DeleteNot sure the expected answer are the same Regarding question 3 (with regard to what was expected in Q5 in 2019)
ReplyDeleteHow so? I might be reading them wrong, but if I replace Antonia by Saïd and Argentina by Lebanon it appears to be the exact same question. Only the order of the subquestions appears to be different.
DeleteBecause a french resident should use INPI as RO for first pct filing, not Epo not IB.
DeleteOf course a French resident can use the EPO or IB as filing office
DeleteYes you are right.. do that in your practice and your client will be facing a potential 5 year term in jail.
DeleteFirst filing req has nothing to do with the competency of an office to be rO
DeleteI think it does (R19.4(b)) PCT). However I couldn't find legal basis for whether it would actually get forwarded as technically it was filed at the french national office first.
DeleteApplicants guide for EP/FR also indicates the same restrictions but again hard to find an answer for what happens when it's in the wrong language.
Translations for PCT are really only discussed in relation to (S)ISA and IPEA from what I could find during the exam.
A27.8PCT L.614-18 CPI
DeleteBut PCT usually trumps EPC, something similar for national offices? Although your basis seems to contradict that but wtfdik
DeleteInternational treaty, even dully ratified, never ever trumps state constitution or national security laws (as the case here is)
DeleteI guess the question is if not forwarded then what? Translation request? I couldn't find basis for a translation for that kind of purpose but A27.8PCT might be it
Delete@ Anonymous 17 March 2023 at 18:14 (please use a name or a nickname)
DeleteIf a French resident does not use INPI as RO for first PCT filing, the PCT application is still a valid application - there is no penalties in PCT, but there may be penalties under French law.
See https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/filing/filing.html and https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/view-doc.xhtml?doc-code=IB&doc-lang=en#RO:
Delete"It is the responsibility of the applicant or the applicant’s agent to comply with any applicable national security provisions before filing an international application with the International Bureau as receiving Office."
I dont see the similarity between question 1 and question 1 of 2021...
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I wrote it down incorrectly, Question 1 corresponds to question 1 of 2019, not 2021
DeleteI found an error in a question in Part 3; related to objective technical problem of claim I.2 over D1. However, in this question we had to analyse claims II; so I think we had to deal with claim II.1 herein. Should we file this?
ReplyDeleteAh that, yes! I analyzed I.2 as they said, but indeed was strange because I.2 was in the previous page.
DeleteI didn't get that question either. Very weird, I hope it will be neutralized!
Deletefor that statement i considered as it refers to claim II.1
DeleteI also analyzed I.2 because that was written in all 3 languages, so I thought it must be intended. It was quite strange to click back and forth between the 2 claim sets though. In my opinion, if it should have read II.1 instead of I.2, the question must be neutralized
DeleteI thought legal part was okay, quite a number of questions relating to PCT. Also, a bit different variety of questions, not tested previously.
ReplyDeleteI used notes in wiseflow to have side-by-side comparison of claim 8 vs amended claim 8bis, in order not to scroll too much.
I accidentally pressed ctrl+f combination of keybords to access search function and got a warning from the system about not allowed action detected, so I contacted invigilator for that matter and they said it's no problem within a couple of minutes.
It was good that information from Annex C in relation to PCT/RO was given in the question itself as compared to being forced to find it out ourselves for France accepting only French. What did you think?
Otherwise, I relied mostly on my printed material/reference Hoestra book.
My overall opinion is that the exam was tougher this year and that the passing rate will be low (me included..!).
We noticed that the page numbering for each of the application itself, D1 and D2 for Part 4 did not align with the corresponding page numbers given on the cover page. This could lead to confusion. Do you think that this will be taken into account?
ReplyDeleteAnd how does that influence the exam in any way?
Delete(i) confusion; and (ii) potential wasted time in checking for the “correct” documents and associated stress on candidates.
DeleteYou can try to file this complaint, my opinion is that it's not convincing, since there was plenty of time. Not sure they care if you were confused by it since it doesn't affect the answers of the exam. They also had a link to the pdf within the locked browser, so even if you thought your printer didn't print it, you can make sure from there.
DeleteWhile I am also not sure about the "confusion" argument, I wasnot able to open the pdfs once the flow had started.. in my browser the link to the pdfs resulted in an error message. (which is better then what happened to a collegue of mine, his wise flow completely crashed after trying to access the pdf in the flow)
DeleteAn addition to my post of 17:29: After thinking about it for a while, I must admit that I did as well wonder for some time whether or not the prior art documents at hand were complete (which I could not check, as the pdf-link was down). Maybe this does indeed affect contestants that have a relatively low stress resistivity.
DeleteYou can argue that for sure. But the fact remains the same: any potentially missing pages didn't have an influence on the exam answers.
DeleteMahmoud, can you envisage any circumstances where a candidate might be confused by incorrectly numbered pages?
DeleteIf so, how are those circumstances materially different from these circumstances?
If not, are you the examiner?
Did anyone else feel that "A synthetic or a natural sponge" (English version) could be interpreted as a synthetic material that isn't a sponge? In the French and German translations it seemed clear that it was a synthetic sponge or a natural sponge (as in the description) ("une éponge synthetique ou naturelle"; "einen synthetischen Schwamm oder einen Naturschwamm").
ReplyDeleteNot really, it felt quite straight forward and supported by the description literally.
DeleteFor me a natural sponge is a sea plant. A synthetic spong is made in a plant...
DeleteThe description mentions very clearly: "The sponge material of the first, second and third embodiments may be a
Deletenatural sponge or a synthetic sponge." So clearly supported.
What I meant is there wouldn't be support if the synthetic option in the claim is interpreted as 'a synthetic.' as that's broader than 'a synthetic sponge' from the description.
Delete[008] said: "The sponge material [...] may be a natural sponge or a synthetic sponge".
DeleteSo much easier than last year (but tough compared to '15). Expect high pass rates for all.
ReplyDelete/s
DeleteI think the legal part was quite easy, a couple of questions made me think twice but they were easily available in the reference books after a minute of searching.
ReplyDeleteThe claim part was not complex, the prior arts were short, the inventions were easy to understand and not complex (my nightmare was that something like pre-EQE 2018 would happen). There were a couple of questions that were tricky and can bar argued both ways, but I think overall it is doable with a few mistakes.
I think it's very doable to get >40 or even >46 in the legal part. Some questions were copy paste of previous exams. I think I may get around 44 in the legal part.
I think it's very doable to get >34 or even >40 in the claims part. I think I will get around 38 or 40.
So I expect between 80 - 86.
I think the pass rate will be less than last year for sure (last year they got 30 points for free, so it's not a good comparison), but will not be less than 2021. So, something between 2021 and 2022.
I think overall it was one of the easiest exams since 2012, with a little advantage for chemical / life sciences candidates, but I don't think this advantage makes a big difference overall.
Did anyone else believe that the term “made of” (in paragraph [003] of the description of part 3) can be interpreted as “consist of”, such that is narrower than “comprising” used in claim I.1? With such understanding, claim I.1 filed after the description and drawings in response to comm. under Rule 58 EPC doesn’t meet the requirements of Art.123(2) EPC?
ReplyDeleteI Thought exactely the same !!!!!
DeleteIs was only made of fiber so to me is didn’t meet requirements of 123(2)
Same here.
DeleteVery good observation. It didn't cross my mind. I think however that if they wanted you to interpret it as "consists of", they would have used that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I asked ChatGPT, and here is his answer which suggests "made of" is similar to "comprising"
"
The phrase "made of" can be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. Generally, "made of" means that the object in question is composed of a specific material or materials. However, it does not necessarily mean that the object is made up of only that material.
For example, if someone says that a chair is made of wood, it means that wood is the primary material used to create the chair, but it does not necessarily mean that the chair is made entirely of wood. The chair could have other components or materials such as screws, nails, or fabric cushions.
Therefore, it is important to consider the context and the intended meaning of the phrase when interpreting the expression "made of."
"
Then why did they use “include “ in the third embodiment ? If it was already included
DeleteComprise, include, have, contain, comprehend -> broad
DeleteConsisting, is, made of -> the presence of any additional component is excluded
And - if claim 1 does not meet the requirements of 123(2), then none of the dependent of the remaining questions would meet the req. Doesn't that render the questions pointless? Based on this consdiration I thought that the EPO must have considered "made of" as "comprise" even though my first interpreatation went towards "consists"..
DeleteI Agree but still, even if it was pointless , it does not meet the requirement of 123(2).. in real life you have received a notification .
DeleteIt was only made of fibers, but they may consider that “comprises” works
In the third embodiment they added “include” only for one layer . The layer with fibers did not change !
DeleteWhy would they add include if “made of” is the same ?
This question was not clear .. it must be neutralized
"comprising a first layer and a second layer" surely allows also a third layer, but does "comprise two layers" also cover a three-layer embodiment?
DeleteYou know that ChatGPT cannot be trusted - their own masters clearly voiced that!
DeleteBut what do you think about a layer comprising fibers ? As the description only mentioned a layer “made of “ fibers and no other option, was it acceptable (in terms of 123(2)) to write “comprises”
DeleteIf you ask such question, please also give your opinion, so it can be understood why you ask.
DeleteI checked the Guidelines and the Case Law Book. It mentions quite some synonyms to "consisting of" and to "comprising of", but surprisingly I could not find a mention of "made of". The term "made of" is however used a lot, so this probably means that there is no unclarity as to what the term means.
DeleteThe application as filed describes a layer made of fibers ( that’s the words used) and nothing else .
DeleteThe question was whether claims as describing a layer COMPRISING fibers meets 123(2) requirements .
We all disagree about this ..
I think that the main issue is that the claim should include "fibres that are woven to form a textile" it cannot be any fiber..
ReplyDeleteI found the question related to the date in 2024 rather frustrating tbh. Since the EPO did not publish the rules for holidays for 2024 yet, i did not consider preparing a calender for 2024 (in past exams only calenders of the past 3 years were provided). Unfortunately I did not know that the days of the week and the corresponding dates of future/past years correlate and that leap years have an additional influence on this correlation. Hence, i was unable to determine that September 1 2024 will be a Sunday. I now expect a point deduction simply due to the reason of not knowing this correlation (while I am fully aware of any weekend/holiday rules).
ReplyDeleteI had exactly the same experience. But then I tried to extrapolate how the calendar of 2024 would be based on the previous calendars "2019-2023". It appears that the calendar shift by one day, except in leap years where it shifts by 2 days.
DeleteI'm not sure though they would neutralized the statements, unless there is somewhere a limitations to which years they can ask questions about. Obviously they can't ask questions about year 2500, but 2024, I'm not sure?
You could extrapolate, but you would then not get the additional day for the leap year 2024, as this does not apply for 2020 (and having the calender of 2016 to your disposal in 2023 is quite the strech)
DeleteI was also surprised. When the Pre-Exam papers came with calendars, they never had calendars for the year after the exam - only that of the year of the exam as well as one or two years before. Also, no 2024 EPO closure dates have been published yet (and probably not even decided, as the President's decisions always come in the 4th quarter).
DeleteSo it came very unexpected that you needed the 2024 calendar for a time limit.
It would have been appropriate if the "Notice from the Examination Board for the European qualifying examination (EQE)" dd 21 Nov 2021 would have indicated for which years you need to bring calendars.
(Sidenote: the Notice says that you can find need closure dates in the OJ, so closure dates for 2024 would not need to be considered - even the Saturday and Sun day closures are always formally part of that decision of the President!)
By the way, our L-, D- and P-books for EQE2023 preparation have provisional 2024 calendars included.
DeleteYes, this is actually what saved me! For some reason, I had decided to bring the L book to the exam, then remembered that it also includes calendars, and was very happy to find the one for 2024
DeleteP-book did save me on this question!
DeleteI used the epo search and found the Dates for Eqe 2024 - pre Eqe 2024 is on friday so I could calculate the shift of 2 days .
DeleteThis should be neutralised, considering neither the calendar was published in the EPO OJ nor it was ever asked in the previous papers. Also it does not relates to the information published till Oct 2022. Somewhere there should be have been an indication that future calendars would be needed.
DeleteI felt that legal part 2 and claims part 1 were harder than legal part 1 and claims part 2.
ReplyDeleteOur answers to the legal part are now available in our blog post
ReplyDelete"Pre-Exam 2023: our answers to the legal questions":
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-our-answers-to-legal.html
Our answers to the claims analysis part will be posted tomorrow.
Thanks a lot
ReplyDeletePlease let us know if some questions lead to different answers .. I found some formulations not clear ..
ReplyDelete@Sester: Please post your comments on the blogs as to which formulations you found not clear.
DeleteIn my opinion, I think there was an objection/mistake in the text of question 9. As I remember right, if the applicant receives an invitation under Rule 70(2) and Rule 70a(2) EPC then according to these two rules the time limit to answer is six month plus 10 days from the date of the invitation. A time limit of six months running from the publication of the European search report is the the time limit you get if you get an answer under Rule 70(1) and Rule 70a(1)
DeleteIt’s 6 month running from the publication ..
DeleteCorrect: see e.g. GL B-XI, 8 and C-II, 1.1 or C-II, 3.3
DeleteIt was difficult to know if D2 discloses a resilience agent. From the questions it seemed that knowledge about ranges was tested but then then I decided that D2 does not disclose that agent. If I fail it will be because of the second claim analysis part.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody know when the results if we pass or fail will be published? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteNormally and based on previous years, it's around 3 weeks, more or less, so somewhere in the beginning of April.
DeleteHow is "made of" to be interpreted (claims part 3)? In the German version, it said "besteht aus", which is a limiting formulation... However, after checking the English and French version, I came to the conclusion that this is not the correct interpretation. Can it be that there is a discrepancy between the languages?
ReplyDeleteI had the same problem .. in the first two embodiments the second layer is MADE OF … and in the third one it INCLUDES which is différent
DeleteIn part 4, I thought it wasn't clear whether pigment was seperate from the solvent system, or should be included in the 74-94%, due to the "clashing" language of sentence 2 and sentence 3 of [002] D2 (ENG).
ReplyDelete2ns sentence - pigment IS DISPERSED in the solvent
3rd sentence - include 5-20 pigment AND 74-94 solvent system
To me it was highly unclear whether Siloxan was an essential feature. As Siloxan is the only example disclosed in the entire text, and as no alternative is given, I found it to be essential.
ReplyDeleteI considered the statement unclear as it did not relate to a specific claim - whereas essentiality is in my view to be checked in the context of a claimed invention (see Art.84 EPC): essential for the invention in the broadest sense (no) or essential for the embodiment with the better performance (yes)…
DeleteWhat are your thoughts?
Same here . In case there IS siloxan then it should be less than 1%
DeleteIt said it was even better than other compounds, which to me read as it being non-essential, as other compounds would also work sufficiently.
DeleteI interpreted it the same way- As Siloxan is the only example disclosed in the entire text, and as no alternative is given, so its essential.
DeleteReleasing agents are already known to the skilled person, so it is not needed to explicitly give one - also not in view of the functional definition given in [006].
DeleteModified siloxane is just given an example.
Even more, modified siloxane is just given an example for obtaining an even more improved erasing [006] - so, it is essential for the ""even more improved erasing", but not for, e.g., to "avoid that the colour intensity is
too weak for proper reading" as in [005]: that is not limited to a specific releasing agent -- hence, it is in my view not essential for the invention as described in the broadest sense in [004].
But... (see above) I tend to consider the statement unclear as it did not relate to a specific claim.
The examining comitee should learn to use clear wording like "it must" and "preferably", "optionally" and not "in some embodiments" " for example they founnd surprisingly". They are training attorneys to write very unclear applications which can be seen in the applications the office gets.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases they leave open to interpretation if a feature is essential or not, if a feature is disclosed or not. Candidates loose many points just for interpretation reasons.
And then you have to pay the tremendous fee of 1200 euros to appeal.
It is really frustrating. The claim analysis part should be clear to check some art. 52-57, 82-84 and 123(2) knowledge and not to leave doors open to interpretation and make candidates fail just because they interpreted in another way.
Doesnot “in some embodiments” clearly indicate “not in all”? …
DeleteYes but not when the feature is a functional one and then they write "in some embodiments" to clarify it. In examination it would be objected as a functional feature.
DeleteWhat I wanted to say is that the claim analysis part should have the level of clarity of the legal part. Part 3 and part 4 reminded me of examination procedures where the examiner and attorney have different opinions. The difference here is that candidates do not really have an affordable possibility to complain.
DeleteFunctional features are allowed, certainly when you otherwise need to limit you too much.
Delete“In some embodiments” clarified that some examples follow wherein some generic features (eg functional) are embodied in a more specific way and/or where additional limiting features are included.
By the way, complaining can be informally done by voicing your worries on the blog - the committees have indicated multiple times at tutor meetings that they read the blogs and consider what is written there!
DeleteFunctional features are allowed when the skilled person can carry them out. Either wise they are not.
DeleteI had similar thoughts, and changed my answers at least two times. Also the follow-up question depended on the context, regarding the percentage of Siloxan. How would you have answered this question in the exam?
ReplyDeleteYes and it depends on if you regard the feature as essential or , you might loose many points because many A84 and A123(2) questions depend on just that feature.
DeleteThe question was tricky… it was IF there is silloxan, is it acceptable not to claim the percentage?
DeleteTrue, I also decided that the percentage is only mandatory IF siloxane is present, but siloxane itself is NOT mandatory, so in total my answer was „false“
DeleteSame struggle. Not unambiguous, as no reference to what it shall be essential for (compare Q.20 Pre-Exam 2022 where it was not indicated with respect to which claim CPA had to be determined).
DeleteSee our blog answer (now available):
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-part-4-erasable-inks-our.html
I have changed my answers so many times, depending on different interpretations. It was very frustrating. Not to miss the point about the crash of the browser in the beginning of the exam. Not very helpful.
DeleteI found the claim part unclear .. sometimes you couldn’t just answer True Or False it depended on different interpretations…
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree... it was rather frustrating.
DeleteIt was really hard compared to 2019 or 2021… the claim part was really confusing and not clear … so many questions for each question asked it depended on different parameters … I hope some questions will be neutralized as both choices could work
ReplyDeleteI agree. In several questions of part 4 I made full tables to analyze, which gave both true and false as viable options. It was really frustrating. In the end I relied on my thoughts on how I subjectively thought the EPO intended the questions, barring clarity issues. I.e. "what would they want me to figure out here?".
DeleteIn part 3, one question was about the admissibility of claim I.7 being rendered dependant on claim I.5. However it was not possible to decide if the first and second portions of claim 7 were by the same way rendered the same as the ones of claim l.5 or not (as in the preceding question). In view of par
ReplyDeleteContinuation of the previous comment :
ReplyDeleteChanging the undefinite articles of claim I.7 to replace them by definite article rendered the amendment allowable in view of paragraph 6 whereas not changing them led to sthg not allowable. This question should be neutralized in my point of view.
agree
DeleteI found question 5 of part 3 confusing, it was about amending claim I.7 "in such a way that it is dependent on claim I.5" and I was wondering whether it would be only the claim reference, i.e., "claim I.1" that is amended to "claim I.5" or would the indefinite articles have been amended to definite ones?
ReplyDeleteIf the articles are amended then it would have satisfied A123(2), but if articles were not amended, then it is at least A84 problem, but possibly also A123(2)?
Claim I.5 refers to a first portion of the fibres being woven to form a web and a second portion of the fibres being ends or loops, whereas claim I.7 also refers to "a first portion of fibres having a first weight and a second portion of fibres having a second weight". Application paragraph [006] requires that if used with third embodiment (which is in claim I.5), the lighter fibres are used to provide the web and the heavier fibres are used to form the upstanding ends and loops. If the articles are not amended, for me it is not clear whether the "a first portion of fibres of the second layer" in claim I.5 and I.7 refer to the same portion or not. Is there some expected practice how to read/answer such question?
Something bothered me ( last question )
ReplyDeleteYou can not file an opposition based on 123(2) or 83, the opposition is based on 100(c) or 100(2) which have the same terminology as 123(2) and 83
100(b) sorry *
DeleteYou are correct that those are the grounds, but the statements did not use the term "ground for/of opposition", but used "an opponent will likely be successful with an attack under Article 83/ 123(3) EPC against claim ....". Nothing wrong with that. It is even referred to like that on the Opposition Form (EPO Form 2300):
Deletehttps://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/49ED4D48399C60B1C12589650057308F/$File/epo_form_2300_03_23_editable_en.pdf
Please use a name or nickname!
DeleteIn part 4, the interpretation of "un systèmes de solvants à base d'eau" and the corresponding percentages (75% to 94%) in D2 was complicated. Did we have to understand that it contained 75% to 94% of a system of solvants comprising at least 50% of water ("à base de" = a majority of) or rather comprising from more than 0 to 100 % of water or still something else ?
ReplyDeleteAgree, and I do not know the answer either. There is no definition in the paper.
DeleteIt is the same issue in the English version.
See our blog post as to how we used it in our answer (available now!) as to our interpretation:
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-part-4-erasable-inks-our.html
The claims part was tough imho. I think it helped to understand at least two of the office languages because sometimes that was my only chance to understand what they want from me...
ReplyDeleteOur answers to the claims analysis parts are available, together with a copy of the text and figures of the paper, in two separate blogs:
ReplyDeletehttp://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-part-3-cleaning-utensils.html
&
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-part-4-erasable-inks-our.html
We look forward to your comments!
I've experienced something weird. I think that I've answered all the statements of every question. I also double checked it by using the Overview tool which is a very useful tool in my opinion. The overview tool says if a question is fully answered, partially answered or flagged. Before the submission of the third part I've seen that everything was fully answered, also according to the overview tool but now, looking at my answers, it seems that I missed one statement. Has anyone else experienced a similar issue?
ReplyDeleteDoesnot the overview tool say “fully answered” as soon as you answered one of the statements? (That was at least the case for the earlier Wiseflow Pre-Exams)
DeleteCan you still see the overview tool of your exam answer and check/ confirm that?
It is a real pity it it happened, as not answering one of the statements of a question results in 0 marks for the question as a whole, even if the other 3 are all correctly answered…
I had the same problem in question 13..I sent an email to helpdesk they are checking
DeleteIndeed, it was question 13 (third question of third part) also for me. I sent an email to helpdesk the very same day but I did not receive feedback so far.
Delete@Roel: I am not sure about the kind of confirmation you are proposing. By the way, in the overview tool of pre-exam compendium I was able to tick the boxes "unattempted" and "partially attempted" if at least one question were not answered at all or not completely answered (that is at least one statement unattempted)
In my understanding, the Overview pane is an automatically created overview that Wiseflow makes and presents to you - you do not need to tick any box in the overview, although that functionality is provided to allow you to interfere. I will check in Wiseflow's EQE Compendoum to see/confirm how the overview behaves if only some but not all statements of a question are answered.
Delete(I could not quickly find any documentation as to how exactly the Overview pane works though, so that my understanding is based on what I intuitively see and expect)
I checked it in wiseflow: as soon as you have answered one of the four statements of a question, e.g., just statement 1 in Q.2, the box in the Overview gets underline and if you hover it with the mouse it says "Item 2 fully attempted". You cannot change that indication - the only thing you can choose in the Overview is whether you want to see all Qs or only the "Unattempted" Qs - the "Partially unattempted" option is greyed-out and cannit be selected, even though I only answered 1 statement of all 4 in Q.2.
DeleteThe Overview is thus giving incorrect information and you cannot rely on it (apart from seeing which Qs you did not answer at all).
Thank you Roel for the effort and the quick check. I repeated your test in the Wiseflow's Pre-EQE 2023 compendium and I confirm what you wrote: the Overview tool gives incorrect info in that sense.
Delete@Anonymous at 21 March 2023 at 23:32:
ReplyDeleteFYI, Helpdesk answred my email with an acknowledgment of receipt immediatly.
Thanks! It took a few days but I also received kind acknowledgment of receipt
Deleteany news from helpdesk?
DeleteNot so far
DeleteNot so far
Delete@brakh: did you get a reply about your complaint?
DeleteYes it was a refusal
DeleteI just saw that enrolment to the main examination is now possible in my myEQE-account. Does that mean that I have passed? Is this the normal procedure, that enrolment opens before the results are published?
ReplyDeleteI see that the button to the pre-exam is activated for me, although I did so well that I would be very surprised if I failed. But now you are making me scared.......
DeleteThat happened to me as well, but since yesterday is the enrollment to the pre-exam active. Most likely, it doesn't mean anything...
DeleteThe same is happening to me. I calculated to be above 80 but I have just noticed that only the pre-exam enrollment button is active. Does anyone know what does that mean?
ReplyDeleteI wonder why it takes so long to provide the results. Only T/F qeustions. Also, the EPO is closed on Friday and Monday?! So probably another week of anxiety...
ReplyDeleteYes, my guess is that we will have to wait at least another week.
ReplyDeleteI agree, T/F should be straight forward, and even if they need to fix a few statements, it shouldn't take this long... My guess they will give the results this week, because that has most of the time been the case that they gave it within 3 weeks or less. Let's see.
ReplyDeleteI'm it sure it's relevant that epo is closed on Friday, i got my EPAC results at 9 pm, so I guess someone is working to finish it even if the EPO is closed?
Candidates just received an email from the EQE secretariat informing them the following:
ReplyDeleteSubject: EQE - Pre-Examination
Dear candidate,
Please be informed that the deadline for enrolment to the pre-examination 2024 has been extended until 30 June 2023. The results for the pre-examination 2023 will be available in mid-May.
Sehr geehrte Bewerberin, sehr geehrter Bewerber,
bitte beachten Sie, dass die Frist für die Anmeldung zur Vorprüfung 2024 bis zum 30. Juni 2023 verlängert wurde. Die Ergebnisse der Vorprüfung 2023 werden Mitte Mai verfügbar sein.
Cher(e) candidat(e),
Nous vous informons que la date limite d'inscription à l’examen préliminaire 2024 est prolongée jusqu'au 30 juin 2023. Les résultats de l’examen préliminaire 2023 seront disponibles à la mi-mai.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
European Qualifying Examination EQE
European Patent Office
We received emails from some candidates asking about the reasons for the delay, as the email from the EQE secretariat is silent s out that.
DeleteUnfortunately we also do not know.
We have also asked the EQE secretariat to make the examiner’s report (including possible neutralization) available, so that candidates could get a reliable estimation of their score based on that.
Unfortunately that request was not granted, and we do not know why it was not. We still hope it will come soon.
Dear Roel, do you still think that they are discussing neutralizations? Or could it be that the examiner's report is not yet available?
DeleteI can somehow imagine that it is cumbersome to neutralize individual statements, if thats not supported by Wiseflow. But what are the arguments against publishing the report?!
Anyway, thank you for your effort!
The request was granted this Monday, 8 May.
DeleteThe Examiner's Report for Pre-Exam 2023 is available on the EQE Pre-Exam Compendium since this Monday afternoon.
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the respective blogs for the respective parts of the Pre-Exam 2023 for posting your comments:
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-our-answers-to-legal.html
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-part-3-cleaning-utensils.html
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/03/pre-exam-2023-part-4-erasable-inks-our.html
http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2023/03/epo-news-message-european-qualifying.html
I have just been informed by several candidates that the results are out!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to all that passed! 🍾🥂💐
Today, candidates received the following email from the EQE secretariat:
ReplyDelete“Subject: EQE 2023 Pre-examination - Communication from the Examination Board
Dear candidate,
We would like to inform you that after the release of the pre-examination results on 10 May 2023, we have encountered some discrepancies between the results communicated and what was to be expected in view of the Examiners’ Report. Upon conducting a thorough investigation, we have successfully identified the source of the issue, which is of a technical nature. Please be informed that the problem has been solved.
As a consequence, the results have been recalculated and must be re-issued. Therefore, the decision of the Examination Board concerning your result of the pre-examination 2023 communicated to you on 10 May 2023 is hereby revoked. A new decision based on the correct result is now available in myEQE.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
The Examination Secretariat
on behalf of the Examination Board”
Please post any further comments to this email to:
Deletehttp://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/05/pre-exam-2023-results-and-examiners.html
so that the comments are not scattered over various posts.
Fortunatly, it did not change the decision for me. But what happen for some one with
ReplyDelete1: fist decision OK
2: enrolls to main exam and pay in due time
3: second decision is fail
I noticed on my own myeqe they changed all paperwork for the main exam enrollment. So i suspect the epo would cancel the enrollment.
Does someone suffer such a situation ?
It will be interesting to hear whether anyone got from an initial pass to a fail.
DeleteI would expect that the latter did not happen, i.e., that it you initially and 70 and got a pass, they kept you at pass also if your corrected score was below 70, e.g., 68. Was that the case? If so, conformation would be appreciated!
Please post your comments to the other blog post
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/05/pre-exam-2023-results-and-examiners.html
so that the information on this topic is not scatted over our various Pre-Exam blogs.