tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post5283230857911613492..comments2024-03-26T18:08:13.873+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents EQE Pre-exam: Pre-Exam 2017: our answers to the toothbrush questions (claims analysis part)Nico Cordeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18418422722416402064noreply@blogger.comBlogger234125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-77004207542958389522017-12-20T14:33:32.554+01:002017-12-20T14:33:32.554+01:00Does anyone know whether other candidates that fai...Does anyone know whether other candidates that failed due to 18.4 but did not file an appeal were upgraded from FAIL to PASS, as in earlier years? No such info in the decisions, nor on the Compendium pages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-33052179146170205282017-12-20T14:31:54.873+01:002017-12-20T14:31:54.873+01:00So two appeals succesfull based on 18.4, with diff...So two appeals succesfull based on 18.4, with different reasoning.<br /><br />Are/were there any more appeals? Still pending? Or withdrawn after preliminary opinion? On same statement or also on different statements?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-39825574617774616192017-12-20T14:29:30.779+01:002017-12-20T14:29:30.779+01:00The Pre-Exam appeal D 1/17 has also been decided a...The Pre-Exam appeal D 1/17 has also been decided and was put on the EPO Recent Decisions pages yesterday. The candidate's appeal was succesful with respect to 18.4, and he got a PASS at 71 from an initial FAIL at 69 marks. From the decision, it appears that he took the exam in English, but that he also used the texts in German and French (also see D 2/17)<br /><br />See http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/d170001eu1.pdf Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-41324160071105479662017-09-03T12:56:40.690+02:002017-09-03T12:56:40.690+02:00The appeal regarding question 18.4 was successful ...The appeal regarding question 18.4 was successful - both answers were considered in the appeal case (for the DE version). See D0002/17. Not sure if the Exam Committee corrects it for all candidates. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894818186743773612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-60026260128116884572017-08-31T18:49:48.885+02:002017-08-31T18:49:48.885+02:00Succesful appeal about 18.4, German version:?http:...Succesful appeal about 18.4, German version:?http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d170002du1.html<br /><br />Translation error in the paper...<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-87046519598612230172017-03-29T20:55:58.819+02:002017-03-29T20:55:58.819+02:00For all of those who missed a few points and are c...For all of those who missed a few points and are considering to appeal please write an email: eqeappeal2017@gmail.com<br /><br />It may be useful to exchange thoughts.WWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-12739017399234893112017-03-29T19:53:04.759+02:002017-03-29T19:53:04.759+02:00Hi Roel, again: thanks for your comment; I really ...Hi Roel, again: thanks for your comment; I really appreciate this discussion to reconcile my thoughts! (Btw: sorry for double posting above, please feel free to delete that).<br /><br />1) I understand your first point as follows (please correct me if I’m wrong): you are saying that the Claim only includes the “vibrator” as such, i.e. without further specifications regarding its suitability, such as e.g. “for transmitting vibrations to the bristles”. If such a suitability would be provided, it could serve as a distinction over D2, but since such a suitability is missing, any “vibrator” (regardless of its suitability) is novelty-destroying.<br /><br />I agree! If the wording was “vibrator for transmitting vibrations to the bristles”, this would indeed clarify the Claim and could serve as a distinction. However, this does not mean that there cannot be further distinctions elsewhere. In fact, my consideration concerns such a different distinction:<br /><br />As said in my previous comments, I think, the word “vibrator” initially should be legally interpreted to actually find out what the average person has in mind when reading this word. Now let’s just suppose for the time being that the meaning of the word “vibrator” could be defined as “electrically operated element that has the purpose/aim of making vibrations“ (as suggested previously). <br /><br />In this case, a distinction between the Claim and D2 would be the “vibrator” as such, given that the loudspeaker only has the necessary effect of making vibrations but not the purpose/aim of doing so.<br /><br />2) Regarding your second point I agree that it is not allowed to read into the word “vibrator” a meaning, which only appears in the description (!) and use this meaning as a distinction over D2 (T 0223/05).<br /><br />However, when I’m speaking of legal interpretation above, I’m not speaking of interpretation against the description but against common general knowledge (excluding special knowledge).<br /><br />I would appreciate your opinion.WWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-64645581889004254992017-03-29T15:43:47.834+02:002017-03-29T15:43:47.834+02:00juhhu, i passed!juhhu, i passed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-4030060210518089102017-03-29T15:24:28.002+02:002017-03-29T15:24:28.002+02:00Hi All, the 2017 pre-exam results are now publishe...Hi All, the 2017 pre-exam results are now published on the EPO's website https://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/statistics.html Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-43167990195982260692017-03-29T15:23:00.548+02:002017-03-29T15:23:00.548+02:00The results are bow also on the EQE webpages.
See...The results are bow also on the EQE webpages.<br /><br />See http://pre-exam.blogspot.nl/2017/03/pre-exam-2017-results.htmlRoel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-77690035607950542792017-03-29T15:15:19.816+02:002017-03-29T15:15:19.816+02:00Results are online now!
Results are online now!<br /><br />Charlienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-2654577637816444442017-03-29T15:06:30.664+02:002017-03-29T15:06:30.664+02:00RESULTS ARE OUTRESULTS ARE OUTSimmersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-1225520294261416042017-03-29T15:00:21.839+02:002017-03-29T15:00:21.839+02:00The results are out!
http://www.epo.org/learning-...The results are out!<br /><br />http://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/statistics.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-33293842189058051172017-03-29T15:00:03.924+02:002017-03-29T15:00:03.924+02:00results are on the website nowresults are on the website nowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-41153970903441236852017-03-29T14:34:22.242+02:002017-03-29T14:34:22.242+02:00The Examiner's report for 2017 with answers is...The Examiner's report for 2017 with answers is here: https://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/compendium/preexamination.html Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-8732360985197434542017-03-29T14:31:05.185+02:002017-03-29T14:31:05.185+02:00http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.n...http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/D5EAA4BE858F2350C12580F20031EB92/$File/ExReport_PreEx2017.pdf Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-32741473998438728432017-03-29T14:24:38.496+02:002017-03-29T14:24:38.496+02:00there is now a full answer sheet on https://www.ep...there is now a full answer sheet on https://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/compendium/preexamination.html<br /><br />I think they match Delta'sUK traineehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16700203152726488119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-63974745345388324762017-03-29T13:38:36.094+02:002017-03-29T13:38:36.094+02:00The Examiner's Report saya under 15.2 and 15.4...The Examiner's Report saya under 15.2 and 15.4 "Claim II.4 is a dependent claim, and thereofore contains all the features of independent claim II". isn't this the wrong way round? Should it not be "Because Claim II.4 contains all the features of claim II, it is a dependent claim according to Rule 43(4)." The mere reference does not make it a dependent claim, as, e.g., with "Claim 1 - An apparatus comprising ..." and "Claim 2 - A method of operating an apparatus according to claim 1.", claim 2 is not a dependent claim?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-75734188512818242032017-03-29T12:40:20.089+02:002017-03-29T12:40:20.089+02:00http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.n...http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/D5EAA4BE858F2350C12580F20031EB92/$File/ExReport_PreEx2017.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-58660351714620162142017-03-29T12:39:39.498+02:002017-03-29T12:39:39.498+02:00The Examiner's Report is available on the EQE ...The Examiner's Report is available on the EQE Compendium website:<br /><br />http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/D5EAA4BE858F2350C12580F20031EB92/$File/ExReport_PreEx2017.pdf<br /><br />Our answers to the claims analysis questions all agree with those in the Examiner's Report:<br /><br />11: T T T T<br />12: T F F F<br />13: T F F T<br />14: T T T F<br />15: F F F F<br />16: F F F F<br />17: T F T T <br />18: T F T F<br />19: F T F F <br />20: F F F F<br /><br />The Examiner's report briefly motivates all answers.<br /><br />W.r.t. 18.4 and the loudspeaker-vibrator topic, the Examiner's Report reads:<br />"18.4 False: Although there is a slight difference of the German language version compared to the French and English versions, paragraph [003] of D2 clearly discloses in all three languages that vibrations are generated via the loudspeaker. The melody is played over the loudspeaker of the music module, which is located in the handle. The loudspeaker converts the electrical signal so as to play a melody and generate vibrations in the air. Hence, the music module 26 and its loudspeaker is an electrically operated vibrator in the handle"Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-77366992254917756202017-03-29T12:30:45.124+02:002017-03-29T12:30:45.124+02:00EPO has issued the examiner's report, identica...EPO has issued the examiner's report, identical to the answers of the Delta !!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08060176308392853013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-79293572366684572232017-03-29T12:27:24.957+02:002017-03-29T12:27:24.957+02:00DELTA PATENTS: no errors it seems! DELTA PATENTS: no errors it seems! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-55719348687940790452017-03-29T12:06:04.486+02:002017-03-29T12:06:04.486+02:00http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.n...http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/D5EAA4BE858F2350C12580F20031EB92/$File/ExReport_PreEx2017.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-688772240027655722017-03-29T10:47:36.565+02:002017-03-29T10:47:36.565+02:00Hi WW,
Note that claim II does NOT specify what th...Hi WW,<br />Note that claim II does NOT specify what the electrically operated vibrator is meant for. If that functional feature of the vibrator is essential (to transmit vibrations to the bristles), it should be in the claim. As this functional is not in the claim, it cannot establish novelty: the claim is assessed for novelty as it is under the EPC, not after it being constructed. Also. Art.69 EPC does not play a role here: that only plays a role to determine the scope of protection; so, any functional features attributed to the vibrator in the description cannot be used to interprete the claimed vibrator as beiung arranged to transmit vibrations to the bristles.Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-86792163683461716572017-03-29T10:39:15.048+02:002017-03-29T10:39:15.048+02:00Can you stop this childish pollution of a serious ...Can you stop this childish pollution of a serious and useful discussion?Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.com