Tuesday, 27 February 2018

Pre-Exam 2018: our answers to the claims analysis questions

Claims analysis part of the Pre-Exam 2018 (paper available here: English, French, and German) was addressing jugs with replaceable filter cartridges.


The client's application related to jugs or filter carriers for mounting on jugs with replaceable filter cartridges for filtering water. [004] indicates that "it would be desirable to provide a jug where the amount of water filtered and therefore the level of exhaustion of the filter could be determined accurately. It would be desirable if the jug were easy to manipulate when filling and also when incrementing the counter indicating the number of times water has been added to the jug."
The client's application has two pages of text describing three embodiments and one page with 3 drawings showing all three embodiments.
4 prior art documents were introduced at various points in the paper, with multiple embodiments in most of them. D1 describes a jug for filtering water that is provided with a counting device, typically installed on the lid, to indicate the number of filtering cycles carried out since a filter cartridge within the jug was last replaced, in order to determine the level of exhaustian of the filter cartridge. D1 has three embodiments, of which one is shown in 3 figures. D2 describes a water-purification jug having a filter cartridge that is subject to exhaustion, and provides for a jug in which the amount of water trated by the filter cartridhe is accurately determined.  D2 has three embodiments, illustrated with 3 figures.  D3 was introduced after question 16. D3 discloses a container lid with an opeming for filling the container, the opening being provided with a movable closing element, and its use on jug for boiling water , or water filters in order to protect the contents of the container. D3 shows one embodiment illustrated with 3 figures. D4 described a water filter jug with a replacebale cartridge. Counting means to count the filtering cycles performed are provided in order to determine the level of exhaustion of the filter cartridge
In total 6 claim sets were tested of  2, 4, 4, 2, 2 and 1 claim(s). Claims were directed to jugs for filtering water, and a filter carrier for fitting onto a jug.

Tested is scope of the claims, distinguishing features, novelty (directly and via two-part form), Art.84, R.43(2), (nojn-)unity, extension of subject-matter, technical effects and aspects of inventive step such as closest prior art, objective technical problem, considering to combine, obviousness of combination.

Our answers:

11: F T F T
12: T T F T
13: F F T T
14: T F T T
15: F F F T
16: F F F T
17: T T F F
18: T F F T
19: F F F F
20: F T F T

The claims part was in our view considerable more difficult than in previous years. Also, careful bookkeeping of (in)dependent claims, embodiment, prior art document was required ("Claim II.2 is novel over the first embodiment of document D2"). We expect that candidates needed considerably more time for the claims analysis part than in previous years, with the risk of not getting to the end.

We look forward for your comments.

Note: the legal questions are discussed here, and general impressions are here.

(c) DeltaPatents 2018

155 comments:

  1. And.. passed! 36 points in the second part if your solution holds, 44 in the first one. I solved and passed all past pre exams and this was the worse score of any of the claims parts I practiced. Very unclear, very open to interpretation. I did not score under 40 in any other year!

    On a side note, I'm a former patent examiner (6 years back in a national office with EPO training) and some of these questions were really open to interpretation/second guessing.

    Anyway, thanks for posting your opinions!

    Time to go celebrate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me 32 and 48. I fully agree with you. Are The answers here provided reliable?

      Delete
  2. RE: Q14.2
    You say that claim III.2 is not novel over D1. However, claim III.2 recites a "detector for [i.e. suitable for] detecting water being added to the jug". In D1, the detector detects that the jug is open. However, paragraph 2 of D2 notes that a drawback of such systems is that the amount of water added to the jug is unknown. Therefore, it seems as though the detector in D1 is suitable for detecting that the jug is open, but it is not suitable for detecting that water is being added. I agree that when the jug is open, water may be added, but the detector as described in D1 cannot distinguish this and so cannot be considered to be suitable "for detecting water being added to the jug". Hence, I believe the claim is novel and that the answer should be true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I changed my answer on this one during the exam. I was following your reasoning at first, but then I considered: all the documents pretty much make the abstraction that you only open the jug for adding water; while this is not so in real life, the facts of the documents are what they are... :S From that point of view, D1 appears suitable for detecting water being added.

      Delete
    2. I also thought 14.2 would be true. The detectors in the client's application and D1 are not suitable for detecting that water is added, they only detect if the flap is moved. Clearly the flap could be manually moved even when water is not added. This was not a good question.

      Delete
    3. Ki - that is not true. D2 explicitly says that sensors that detect the lid being open do not detect water added to the jug.

      There is no disclosure of a sensor configured to detect a blocking mechanism moving that is also suitable for detecting water being added to the jug. Therefore, I think that the fact that the claim recites "for detecting water being added to the jug" means that it lacks support in the description. However, I am convinced that taking the claims at face value, the claim must be considered to be novel.

      Joseph

      Delete
    4. This aspect also caused some internal discussion. Ultimately, we tend to agree with what Ki also posted ('the exam makes the abstraction that you only open the jug for adding water').
      Accordingly, by detecting the opening of the lid, you thereby detect water being added.

      There are certainly valid counter arguments, but we currently expect that this is the intended answer. See also [004] of the client's application which suggests that the client's embodiments detect water being added, while in fact the first and second embodiments also 'merely' detect the opening of the flap.


      Delete
    5. @Joseph: I assume you refer to [002], specifically "This measurement clearly lacks reliability since it is in no way correlated with a direct measurement of the *amount* of water introduced into the jug." (emphasis mine).

      This makes sense as D2 is related to a jug in which the amount of water treated by the filter cartidge is accurately determined. Nevertheless, the only says that it is not suitable to reliably detect the amount of water introduced, not that it isn't suitable for detecting water being added as such.

      Delete
    6. @Joseph: claim III.2 states "wherein the detector is configured to detect water being added to the jug by detecting the blocking mechanism moving from the open to the closed position". Claim III.2 does not state the lid has to be moved directly by added water or the like but solely that moving the lid increments the counter which indicates water has been added. In the German version it is more clear IMHO: "wobei der Detektor ausgelegt ist zum Erfassen des Zuführens von Wasser zum Krug durch Erfassen des sich von der offenen in die geschlossene Stellung bewegenden Blockiermechanismus“ „zum Erfassen […] durch Erfassen” could be translated to „for detecting […] by detecting“

      Delete
    7. I think 14.2 should be True.
      Only the embodiment D1 of fig.2 is relevant for III.2 - addition of water is detected when mechanism move from open to close-

      But no addition of water could be detected in D1 when the blocking mechanism pass from the open to the close because water cannot pass.

      Delete
    8. No, my reasoning was wrong. Yes now i agree more with F in 14.2. I felt to much the pressure of the time.

      Delete
  3. *Sigh of relief*

    After scoring also 44 for the legal part, I would appear to score 46 for claim analysis (assuming the examiner's report ends up corresponding to the solution present here).

    My answers only differed for 17.4 and 18.3; perhaps some of the more ambiguous ones? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested to hear your reasoning for these two in particular. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17.4: pointer to invention in that it suggests to make the blocking mechanism responsive to the flow of water

      18.3: par [014] of D2 indicates a detector can give false positives, e.g. when water is poured out of the jug. Thus, the detector as defined in 3) must have this same drawback, and can not _only_ generate a signal ... in response to water being added to the jug.

      Delete
    2. Also for 17.4 - the technical problem is to provide a blocking mechanism that only opens in response to a flow of water. This technical problem isn't solved by the client's application because you could open the blocking mechanism by many other means...

      Delete
    3. the "only" especially gives it away as false as it did in 17.4, in my opinion.n

      Delete
  4. The client’s application did not show all embodiments, just the first one in two different positions. But thank you so much for getting these out quickly - massive relief!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I disagree with a few of these. Some of them are to do with interpretation of prior art and there seems to be scope for argument. The following two seem clearly wrong to me though:

    12.2 should be False - II.1 is not in the correct two-part form because D1 discloses a counter (111). The configuration of the counter is the only novel feature.

    12.4 should be False. Guidelines F-IV, 4.10 "For example, the invention may relate to an ashtray in which a smouldering cigarette end will be automatically extinguished due to the shape and relative dimensions of the ashtray. The latter may vary considerably in a manner difficult to define whilst still providing the desired effect."

    Any comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About 12.2 I agree it is very open to interpretation...
      About 12.4 I disagree: it is not difficult to define the invention in terms of the features which allow such automatic counting (e.g. means for detecting the opening of the blocking means).

      Delete
    2. I also agree re 12.2 - there is clearly a counter in D1.

      Delete
    3. 12.2: it is a completely different type of counter. Feature with same name is not necessarily the same feature. Not here. So putting "counter" in the preamble is wrong. I is as if you say that "a connection" between two devices needs to be in the claim if they are mechanicallt connected in the prior art but magnetically connected in the invention: both called connection but really different so not in preamble. Just my view.

      Delete
    4. I couldn't decide what they were looking for in the exam. I said that it was correctly in two-part form despite having concerns about the presence of the counter. This is a stupid exam. I would have got full marks if I could provide reasoning on the questions I got wrong. I only got ambiguous questions wrong because I had to guess what the EPO were looking for. If we could provide reasoned statements, it would be clear that I know the law well enough.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Regarding 12.2: the counter is considered as means, the incrementation is considered as function. You cannot separate means and function, otherwise you would not have any means in the characterising portion.

      Delete
    7. Marko - how about this: A jug comprising [XYZ]; and a counter; characterized in that the counter is configured to [...]". What is wrong with that? In particular, what is the legal basis for needing means in the characterizing portion? If this were, true it would not be possible to put a method in the two-part form!

      Delete
    8. That might be another possibility (albeit I am not 100% sure if it would be allowable). But the question was if claim II.1 (as presented) would be in a correct two-part-form. One could not divide the claim _as presented_ in any other two parts - without amending it, possibly to the wording you proposed.

      A method claim is different to a means plus function claim, you can present a method claim without any means.

      Delete
    9. Though, question 12.2 does not prevent any amendment of the claim, (including the characterising part) to get a correct two-part form, if needed.
      Pierre

      Delete
    10. IMHO it is not needed as the claim represents a correct two-part means+function form. ;)

      I guess we will have to wait for the official answers. It is obvious some questions are far from clear.

      Delete
    11. I can see that argument, but I would counter that the "means" are known from D1. It is only the function which characterizes the invention. Therefore, the means should correctly be in the preamble. There is, as far as I am aware, no requirement that the characterizing portion should recite means, rather than merely function.

      Delete
    12. Dear Na, I donot agree. If the application is about an electrical car with some new features, and the prior art describes an electrical device, the device copmprising a battery, would you put he claim as "an electrical device comprising a battery, charaterized in that the device is an electrical car?"

      Delete
  6. Thank you for putting up the answers, Roel.

    Don't really see why 12.2 would be True as the third embodiment of D1 comprises a counter. Why shouldn't "counter" be introduced in the claim prior to "characterised by"?

    Jurre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12.2 being 'True' was not a clear-cut choice for us.

      However, ultimately, as also indicated by Marko above, we considered the counter to be a functional feature in that it is primarily defined by its function (effectively corresponding to 'automatic means for incrementing') and thereby to be quite different from the 'counter' of the third embodiment of D3, which is a manual counter.

      Ultimately, your argumentation also holds some merit, but we considered it less likely to be the intended answer.

      Delete
  7. What about 13.2? Your correction says F, meaning that claim II.2 is not novel over D2. Where is there in D2 a detection of the blocking mechanism moving from open to closed position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to [008] and [009] of D2, the blades 213a act as a blocking means when contacting the flexible guide. The counter counts the number of times the blades contact the flexible guide, and thereby when the blocking mechanism moves from open (blade not in contact with flexible guide) to closed (blade in contact with flexible guide).

      Delete
    2. According to the German text, [008] of D2 reads "Ein Magnet auf einer oder mehreren der Schaufeln 213a...", which to my understanding implies that not all blades have a magnet on it - only one or more of them do - whence at least some of the contacts of one of the blades with the flexible guide may not be detected. I therefore thought that the detector is not configured to detect when the blocking mechanism moves from open to closed. This would only apply to blades having a magnet on it.

      The EN and FR texts are however clearer on that, so that it seems that "F" ought to be the right answer.

      Delete
  8. What about 13.3? Your correction says T, meaning that claim II.4 is novel over the first embodiment of D2. What is the feature which makes it novel? In my opinion it is not novel...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While the first embodiment of D2 does have a biasing means for 'urging the blocking means into the closed position' ([009] 'the rotation of the turbine wheel being stopped...'), it does not disclose the biasing means also being suitable/configured for 'allowing its passage into the open position under the action of the flow of water ...'.

      Delete
    2. My argument would be that the first embodiment of D2 has indeed a blocking mechanism suitable for allowing its passage into the open position under action of the flow of water.

      According to my understanding from the wording of claim II, closed position is any position which the aperture is closed.

      As the tirbune wheel turns, when the water is added, the blocking means, namely the tirbune blade and the flexible guide contacts each other (closed position) and since the tirbune blade turns, the blade which was contacted will move away from the flexible guide (open position).

      I would agree with your interpretation, if "its" in the part of "allowing its passage into the open position" is not the closed position or the blocking means, but "the rest position".

      -B

      Delete
    3. I think the issue is not whether there is a blocking mechanism which can in principle block/unblock the passage - D2 clearly has this.

      However, does D2 disclose a biasing mechanism to 'bias' the blocking mechanism into either state (German: 'Vorspannmittel')?

      This does appear to be the case for the blocking ('[009] 'the rotation of the turbine wheel being stopped...') but not for the unblocking.

      Delete
  9. Thank you for putting up the answers. Your model solution gives me 98 points (48 in legal part, 50 in claim analysis). Thanks again.
    -Franziska

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done! (of course, no guarantees on the correctness of our 'solution')

      Delete
  10. What is your reasoning for why 16.1 F is false - isn't a filter for a jug interrelated to a jug?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question alludes to Rule 43(2)(a) "a plurality of interrelated products". According to GL F-IV 3.2, the term "interrelated" is interpreted to mean "different objects that complement each other or work together". This does not appear to be the case, as the filter and the jug are rather alternatives to a same problem (either you modify the jug's lid, or the filter's lid). As such, it may be allowable under Rule 43(2) but not because they are (a) "interrelated products", but rather because they are (c) "alternative solutions to a particular problem, where it is inappropriate to cover these alternatives by a single claim. "

      Delete
  11. 20.4 asks why you "wouldn't consider" D3, but surely you would *consider* it as it is in a related field and you are looking for an alternative. I agree that the questions states why the invention is *not obvious* over D4+D3 but that isn't the same as *not considering* D3, is it?

    Cheers - Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think 'consider the teaching' is meant to be interpreted as 'consider the teaching of D3 to represent a (potential) solution to the objective technical problem'. But yes, the question is slightly ambiguous.

      Delete
  12. Thanks for your analysis, which would give me 38 pts, assuming you are correct. The claim analysis took me somewhat longer than in the practice exams, and I made significantly more mistakes than for the 2016/17 exams (6 vs. 2).
    Regarding 12.2, concerning the characterizing part of II.1, I think the statement should be "false", since the third embodiment of D1 has a counter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding 13.3, I think claim II.4 is not novel over over the first embodiment of D2. D2 explicitly states that there is a blocking means for blocking the conduit, and that when the counter value indicates a full jug, the turbine wheel can be stopped in a position where blade is in contact with the flexible guide (=biasing means) [009 of D2], and flow of water will rotate the turbine wheel and open the aperture. Certainly open to interpretation and discussion...

      Delete
    2. See my comment above: I agree that D2 has a biasing means for 'urging the blocking means into the closed position' ([009] 'the rotation of the turbine wheel being stopped...'), but it does not disclose the biasing means also being suitable/configured for 'allowing its passage into the open position under the action of the flow of water ...'.

      Rather, the purpose of the blocking means of D2 is NOT to allow the flow of water to rotate the turbine wheel and open the aperture once it has been blocked ('use of the filter can be prevented...').

      Delete
    3. The claim recites "biasing means associated with the blocking mechanism [...] for allowing its passage into the open position under the action of the flow of water". This is simply not found in D2.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your explanation Nico. Aren't the biasing means ("turbine wheel" (suitable) "for allowing its passage into the open position under the action of the flow of water introduced into the jug through the aperture"? In my view, there are biasing means associated with the blocking mechanism (turbine wheel) and they are both suitable for the urging to a closed position and suitable for allowing to go into the open position under action of water.

      Delete
    5. Well, we considered the combination of blade + flexible guide to represent the blocking means (once suitably positioned).

      The biasing means is whatever mechanism causes the turbine wheel to stop at this particular position.

      The previous free movement of the turbine wheel does not seem to be caused/enabled by any particular 'biasing means', i.e., there does not seem to be biasing involved in enabling the wheels to turn.

      Delete
  13. Why do you think 18.2 is false? In my opinion, in D1 the counter will count when the flap is opnened, whether water is going in the jug or not. Feature 3 of the detector able to detect water in the jug, at least this will make a portion of the counted values more likely to be associated with water being added into the jug, and not just due to opening the flap.
    Do you think it is false due to the false positives associated with these detecters (cf. [014] of the application)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lennard, the problem stated in 18.2 has nothing to do with distinguishing feature 3.

      Delete
    2. Yes, "more accurately" does not appear to be achieved by feature 3) over D1 as [014] indeed states that this way of detection suffers from more false positives over the other embodiment (which detect the opening of the flap as D1 also does).

      Delete
  14. Well, [014] doesn't state there are more false positives than in the other embodiments, just that the movement of water may result in a false positive. In any case looking forward to seeing the intended answers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the last sentence of [014] just indicates that the embodiment has a disadvantage (false positives). This disadvantage is there so you can use it with a problem-solution - problem to overcome.

      Delete
    2. It is not just about "false positives" as such, but more specifically false positives from movement of water inside the jug, such as when pouring water FROM the jug - [014] of D2.

      Delete
    3. The examiner's report says about 18.2 that the distinguishing feature 3) provides an indication of how much water there is in the jug rather than explicitly indicating the number of times water is added to the jug. Thus, feature 3 does not address the problem of how to more accurately determine the number of times water is added to the
      jug.

      I do not agree with this explanation. 18.2 states A valid formulation for an objective technical problem......... MIGHT BE how to more accurately determine the number of times water is added to a jug. It does not say: ...formulation is MOST LIKELY.....


      The distinguishing feature may detect water at a point (predetermined) in the jug which may correspond to the number of times water is added to the jug. In this way the number of times water is added to the jug can be determined more accurately.

      Delete
  15. Why is question 19.3 false? D3 does not refer to a jar and there is no jar disclosed in D1 or D2 which has a blocking mechanism as cited in claim VI.1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D3 also discloses a jug ([001] containers for liquids ... jugs ...) which has the described blocking mechanism.

      Delete
    2. In my opinion D3 only discloses a lid for a jug and not a jug itself. Or did I overread something?

      Delete
    3. I would consider 19.3 false because one single feature should not determine the closest prior art.

      Delete
    4. That is true, but 19.3 only stated if it is one valid argument for determinung prior art. In my opinion it definetly could be one valid argument since there is no other prior art disclosuch said feature.

      Delete
    5. The argument does not seem right. It is not a valid argument to select the closest prior art because of one single feature. Guidlines G VII-5.1 state "The closest prior art is that which in one single reference discloses the combination of features which constitutes the most promising starting point for a development leading to the invention. In selecting the closest prior art, the first consideration is that it should be directed to a similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention. In practice, the closest prior art is
      generally that which corresponds to a similar use and requires the minimum of structural and functional modifications to arrive at the claimed invention (see T 606/89)."

      Delete
    6. Agreed with Nico. It is not a valid argument because D3 discloses a jug with the same blocking mechanism. D4 is therefore not the only document that discloses this.

      I wish the best of luck to anybody who tries to argue that D3 does not disclose a jug with a lid, despite the fact that it discloses a lid and states that "lids are used on all sorts of containers for liquids... such as jugs." At best you've got a single selection from a list of two comprising jugs for boiling water or water filters, but even characterizing this as a list lacks credibility.

      Delete
    7. I thought about the example given by Deltapatents for question 19.3.

      Invention claim a Car with a fuel injection system with features ABC.
      prior documents claimed:

      D1 a Car with a carburetor and;
      D2 a Motorbike with fuel injection system with feature ABC.

      Even if D2 is the sole document that disclose feature of a fuel injection system with ABC it is not a valid argument to make it the closest prior art.

      In what this case is different, it is because all prior document refer to a jug?

      Stefano

      Delete
    8. Our answer is based on a perhaps simpler reasoning: statement 19.3 argues that D4 is the CPA because it is the ONLY document which discloses a jug with a particular feature.

      However, D3 also discloses a jug with the particular feature. From a logic reasoning point of view, this statement is thus flawed.

      Alternatively, you may for yourself determine what the CPA is and for what reason, and compare this to the provided reason. I did not do this in the present case.

      Delete
    9. Tank you Nico I got your point.
      S.

      Delete
  16. Hi Lennard+everyone else, do you know when the " official epo answers" will be published? Thanks, Christine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. last year it was end of June.

      Delete
    2. Mid March (2018)

      Delete
    3. Last year was end March, scores as well as answers, for pre-exam. And end June for main exam.
      But varies every year by one or two weeks, so donot be surprised if it is earlier or later.

      Delete
  17. Dear Nico,

    Why is 19.4 False ?

    Thank You,
    George

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear all,

    I worked 16 years in the field of patents.
    I see plenty of technical features in claim II.1.
    Therefore I cannot understand why 12.4 is TRUE.
    Can anybody explain why? Nico?

    Thanks,
    George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear George, I agree as this could be a means plus function feature. The biasing means is a means (obviously) and the function follows afterwards. Sometimes claims like that are objected by the examination division but often the EPO allows claims like that. So i would not dare to definitely state the correct answer would "true" or "false" but I am leaning towards "false".

      Delete
    2. I would say that the characterising portion defines a result to be achieved. How/based on what does the counter increment? A detector (mechanical? magnetic? Other means?) is missing.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the detector is missing, but the question was not about intermediate generalisations (the claims were filed with the application anyway). Claims like II.4 are common to achieve a broader scope of protection and like mentioned the EPO would grant claims of this fashion.

      Delete
    4. As an examiner I would definitely object clarity because there are essential features missing but not because of “the result to be achieved”. A typical case for “the result to be achieved” would be : “jug for filtering water characterized in that the water is filtered more accurately”. Very ambiguous.

      Is there any way to appeal in case I am disadvantaged by the marks accorded to this question?

      Thanks,
      George

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that it's automatic is implicit from the fact that the claim defines precisely when the counter increases.
      Definition:
      automatic - adjective - 1. (of a device or process) working by itself with little or no direct human control.

      Increasing in response to receiving a signal from a sensor is clearly automatic.

      Delete
    2. 3rd embodiment: “ ... close a circuit which increments a counter. Thus, the counter is incremented in response ...” . No automatic.

      George

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. 14.3 specifically asks whether deleting the feature from III.2 adds subject matter. Although these words have been deleted, the feature is still "in" III.2 because conceptually it is in III.1. This "deletion" is therefore allowable.

      Whether any other amendment (deletion or addition) to 111.1 or III.2 adds subject matter does not affect whether or not the identified deletion from III.2 adds subject matter.

      Delete
    5. George, your argument is flawed. Claim III.3 relates to the third embodiment. However, claim 1 is broader than either claim 2 or claim 3 (repercussive effect) and so the argumentation in respect of claim 1 must be more general than the fact that the third embodiment does not use the word "automatic".

      The better argument is that "automatically" is implicit because the claim recites the features that make the increment occur automatically.

      BR, James

      Delete
    6. Michael, I think that is fantastic point. I completely agree with you.

      Delete
    7. The answer is much more simple than you guys are making it out to be. Read the question carefully: Q14.3 question has nothing to do with the word "automatically". The question simply asks whether the supposed deletion of the wording in claim III.2 is allowable. As the features of claim III.2 that have been supposedly deleted are actually recited in claim III.1 (and hence still form part of the subject-matter of claim III.2), this so-called deletion is not actually a deletion at all and so does not add subject-matter.

      The question of removing "automatically" from claim III.1 has nothing to do with what is actually asked in Q14.3.

      The answer is definitely "T".

      Delete
    8. Hi all!
      As said above, automatic here means without human action. The claim now recites that the counter increments in response to a signal from the detector. It thus explicitly exludes a human intervention, and explicitly describes an automatic incrementation.

      Delete
    9. We reasoned along the lines of Anonymous at 18:56 and 19:25: the question indeed is specifically directed at the removal of "configured to increment in response to a signal received from the detector" which is still present in (amended) claim III.1. As such, this particular amendment/deletion does not represent added subject matter.

      Whether the deletion of 'automatically' contravenes Art. 123(2) seems to be a different question...

      Delete
  20. Dear all,
    Dear Delta Patents,

    Why is 19.4 False ?

    Was this a difficult decision for you to take? (similar to 12.4?)

    I am very thankfull to anybody who could give an answer.

    In my opinion D4 would be "complete" by having the features listed in 19.4, thus 19.4 can only be TRUE.

    Thank You,
    George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear George, your argument sounds like an ex post facto analysis.

      Delete
    2. Dear George,

      The assumption for 19.4 is that D4 is the closest prior art and that the claim is correctly cast in the two-part form over D4 (see the preamble of question 19).

      This means that the only distinguishing feature of claim VI.1 is that a detector is provided (of which the signal is counted) 'which is configured to detect the blocking mechanism moving from the open to the closed position'.

      If the objective technical problem is correctly formulated, the distinguishing feature should provide a solution to the objective technical problem.

      This does not appear to be the case here, i.e., if one wants to provide a jug that can be filled without the need to manually move the lid, one does not solve this problem by 'detecting the blocking mechanism moving from the open to the closed position'.

      The problem may be solved by having a biasing means which allows the blocking mechanism to open under the force of water.

      However, this is not claimed, but rather only in response to 'an external force such as that supplied by water' in which 'water' is an optional feature, i.e., not a claim limitation.

      Does this help?

      Delete
    3. Yes, Thank You, very clear now. It was one of the last questions where , honestly , I didn't have much time left to think..

      George

      Delete
    4. One last question for you Nico, please:

      How many of your (Delta Patent) answers differed from the final official answers given by the EQE committee in the years since Pre-Exam is held?

      I mean, was there, for example, at least one of your answers in each Pre-Exam which was not identical with the final official answer, (maybe two or none, or more) ?

      I am not one of the very happy candidates above who announced 98P or celebrated already. I counted rather 70P according to Delta Patents answers, if the final answers will be identical I may pass...

      Delete
    5. Hi Anonymous,

      There is certainly no guarantee that our solution is fully correct. Rather, it represents an attempt to the best of our knowledge.

      I believe that in past years, we deviated from the official answer in zero, one or two statements.

      Delete
  21. George: which version of the GLs have you been using?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GLS Nov. 2016

      George

      Delete
    2. Correct - see OJ 2017, A88: Guidelines version in force on 31 October 2017, which is the November 2016 version

      Delete
  22. Hello there,
    anybody had some trouble with figures of embodiments of document D1??

    They don't show the aperture 104 communicating with container. You can just see the flap 105 floating in the middle of lid 103 (before him as figure shows) that furthermore should be dashed.

    This is very important from the moment that lot of statemets are based on figures.

    Of course, you understand that must be an aperture from the description but I took lot of time just to understand these non-techical drawings.

    Since figures are showed in a cross section they would be show aperture as in fig.1 o fig.2 of embodiment.

    I found this claims analisys really bad conceived

    ReplyDelete
  23. Even in document D4, aperture 404 not visible in drawings, reference lines 404 some with arrow some whitout, the arrow 404 seems to point toward the dashed line.

    But if there is a dashed line it is not a cross section as stated in [002] but a partial cross-section, as all we technic people know.

    Figure 2 of D4 shows aperture 404 but where is the lid 403?

    Figures of D3 are stated to be cross sections but they dont look like cause they don't show dashed areas like the figures of other documents.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear Delta Patents,

    still , I have one more issue: statement 14.2.
    You say it's false, I said it's true.
    In a CEIPI course for pre-examination on page 6 "Tips for the pre-exam" candidates are instructed to "not doubt (technical) conclusions of the paper and beware of over-formal interpretations". A detector for detecting water (or another liquid) is explicitely disclosed in the 3rd embodiment of the application. Such a detector does not pop up in D1. If the question would have been formulated "a detector for assuming the detection of water in the jug" then I would had answered "False". Was the answer to this question a cut clear choice for you? If yes then why? Thank You. George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The detector in D1 is, as described in par [003], increasing the counter when filling the jug.

      Delete
  25. I would like to add one more argument: all embodiments of the application and D2 for instance could be interpreted as "detector for detecting adding of water into the jug" because only due to the gravity force of the water being poured into the jug the flap (or the turbine) will move and thus increment the counter. Of course, we can speculate that one could push the flap of the application (or the turbine of D2) with a pencil and determine the incrementation of the counter this way but this is really something far away from what we discuss.

    So, I see a point of discussion here. One could not define a detector for detecting water else than with the wording of claim III.2.

    Or am I wrong?

    Thank You.
    George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Georgem, I donot get your point. It is always possible to use a diferent phrasing of a claim. In the exam, a chosen claim formulation has to be examined/assesed/evaluated for EPV compliance. You donot need to reformulate the claim. And where amendments are to be done, the amendments are provided and again you need to check them for EPC compliance. Please clarify your point.

      Delete
    2. Dear Roel,

      the epicenter of question 14.2 is the feature “the detector is configured to (=is suitable to) detect water being added to the jug”.

      The subject of this sentence is only the detector and not the whole jug.

      The 3rd embodiment of the application and the first embodiment of D2 clearly and explicitly disclose detectors which are suitable to detect water. The disclosure of the detectors (not of the jugs) of these embodiments involves the water as such in the detection process. There is no detection of water if there is no water ! Thus, no increment of the counter if water is not detected.

      D2 emphasizes the drawback of the detectors in prior art like D1 in paragraph 002 : "This measurement clearly lacks reliability since it is in no way correlated with a direct measurement of the amount of water introduced in the jug". One understands from here that the detection must involve the water in the detection process and there is a need for such detectors.

      In D1 I interpret "in order to fill the jug" like a pre-condition that enables one to fill the jug.
      So the first step of filling the jug is "the flap 105 is manually moved from the closed to the open position revealing aperture 104”.
      After managing this step the counter is already incremented : “and resulting in the automatic incrementation of the counter 111".
      However, at this stage the water was not yet poured inside the jug !
      Here I see a big difference .

      In D1 the detector itself does not involve (=does not need) the water in order to determine the incrementation of the counter.
      From the contrary: I would even say that pouring water over the detector 116 of D1 could lead to a short circuit, a malfunction or even to a total damage of the detector 116.

      For me the answer to question 14.2 is a cristal clear TRUE.

      It is very surprising for me that you seem to have no doubts at all about your false FALSE.

      Kind regards,
      George

      Delete
    3. Hi Roel,

      did I say anything wrong ?
      What do you think about my judgement with regard to 14.2?
      I am very eager to see your answer.

      Thanks,
      George

      Delete
    4. Hi George,

      No, nothing wrong. First waited to see whether other candidates commented, then illness, then other, 'normal' work...

      The detector in D1 is clearly suitabke to detect water being added to the jug - that is its whole purpose, as is e.g. emphasized by the last sentence of D1. Indeed, just opening it and not adding water will also increase the counter, but that does not discount that it is also incrementing if water is added. [This is also consistent with the normal mode of operatiob: you would only open the flap if you want to add water.]
      That the counter also increments with false-positives does not discount its suitability [and intended use] for detecting water being added to the jug. Claim III.2 does not exclude that the counter can also be incremented in another way. [Claim III.2 would also not be incompatible with a further dependent claim that would be directed to "wherein the detector is further configured to ]"

      Rgrds, Roel

      Delete
  26. By comparing the German claims I.1 and II.1, there is a difference, and only in German, in the wording: I.1: "...der auf dem Deckel beim (close to) Durchlass befestigt ist" and II.1: "...der auf dem Deckel am (at) Durchlass befestigt ist".
    During the exam, I considered that this little difference must have a meaning and concluded that 12.2 is false, because the lid is not at the aperture, but close to the aperture in D1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our answers are based on the English text of the paper.

      It is "at" in the English versions of I.1 and II.1: "a blocking mechanism mounted on the lid at the aperture". So, no need to consider any subtle differences kike the one you suggest between I.1 and II.1 in the English version.

      Delete
  27. In my opinion 18.1 should be „false“.
    As written in the description of the applicant [14] „Thus the counter is incremented in response to the water in the jug submerging the electrodes by reaching or exceeding a predetermined level“.
    Therefore, the detector is not able to provide an amount of water in the jug because there can be as much water in the jug so the predetermined level is reached or more. The detector cannot provide an indication of how many liters of water are inside the jug.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Birgit, the detector comprising the electrodes is a simple on/off detector..

      Delete
    2. I also said false, because the detector also detects when the jug is tilted to pour, as clearly described in the application - therefore it no necessarily provide an indication of an amount of water in the jug, just that there is water in contact with the detector.

      Delete
    3. In my view, it does indicate an amount: it indicates whether there is an amount in the jug that is more or less than a predetermined amount corresponding to the bug being filled upto the predetermined level.

      Delete
    4. Not necessarily - it also indicates at any volume if the jug is tipped enough for the electrodes to be contacted with the water! So it is not possible to conclude that the jug has any 'predetermined amount' of water by actuation of this sensor.

      Delete
    5. Do you really want to push the thinking that far? MEven if, then still, it can detect whether there is "an amount" in it in the sense of "some amount", "some water", i.e., not empty.

      Delete
    6. I'm more playing the devil's advocate - I think that with hindsight, probably the 'correct' answer is true, but it's one of the many questions in the exam that err somewhat into the grey area between true and false.
      Luckily with a total mark ~92 it doesn't matter for me, but I found the exam very frustrating with the number of answers that seem to have an answer of "True, but.." or "False, but.."

      Delete
    7. In fact, the feature that the detector also indicates at any volume if the jug is tipped enough for the electrodes to be contacted with the water was the reason why I answered „false“. I think this was a problem for many candidates.

      Delete
    8. 014.........One problem with detectors that detect water level is that movement of the water, e.g. when the water is poured from the jug, may result in a false positive.

      This means that the effect of the detctor is only an indication of the presence of water, not an indication of an amount (how much) of water. You cannot know whether the measured value is accurate.

      Delete
  28. I understand your reasoning, but the statement reads AN amount. If the water reaches a predetermined level, it will let you know that this amount of water is present. Whether or not you continue to add water, the detector provides an amount of water, i.e. the predetermined value. The statement does not refer to THE amount of water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As disclosed in the description of the applicant „One problem with detectors that detect water level is that movement of the water may result in a false positive.“ The detector therefore is very imprecise and therefore the possibility that the detector indicates that the water in the jug has reached a predetermined level or more by accident is very high. The description discloses that it is very possible that the predetermined level is not jet reached although the detector indicates otherwise. Therefore, the detector provides an indication of an amount of water in the jug not for sure. Therefore, 18.1 is false.

      Delete
    2. The effect for the distinguishing feature should be "the detector provides an indication of presence of water in the jug". The detector itself cannot give an indication of an amount. Anybody considering an appeal with respect to statement 18.1?

      Delete
    3. Of course it can! Do you ghave a fire detector in your house, such a radioactive device? That also gives an indication of a fire / an amount of fire / an amount of smoke.

      Delete
    4. an indication of presence of water = water or no water
      an indication of an amount (indication of a quantity)of water= 0,00001 liter or 1 liter or x liter

      The detector itself does not give an indication of a quantity

      Delete
  29. Question 18 also went terrible for me according to the Delta Patents answers.

    I agree with Birgit that q18.2 should be false. For me it would be different if the effect was an indication of a predetermined/specific amount of water.

    For question 18.2 I took the same reasoning as Lennard and answered true.

    For question 18.4 I answered false, because I saw this statement as a novelty argument. How do other people see this?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hello, I dont understand why 11.2 is F. which is the feature of I.1 that make it novel with respct to D1?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our anwer does not give F, but T for 11.2

      [003], last sentence: increments when from closed to open position, so other direction

      Delete
  31. I also answered false. For me it wasn't clear either. It depends how you interpret paragraph 003 of D1. The flap contacting the detector causing the counter to increment, but it is also decribed that the counter increments when the flap is manually moved from the closed to the open position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [003] Figure 1 shows a first embodiment with a lid 103 with a flap 105 which is manually
      moved to open or block an aperture 104 in the lid. In this embodiment the flap 105 is slid
      to open or close the aperture. When in the open position flap 105 contacts an
      actuator/detector 116 associated with counter 111 causing the counter 111 to increment.
      In this way in order to fill the jug the flap 105 is manually moved from the closed to the
      open position revealing aperture 104 and resulting in the automatic incrementation of the
      counter 111.

      So, 2nd sentence: increments when it is in an open position.
      And 3rd sentemce: when moved from closed to open, counter is autmatically incremented. I.e., in combination with 2nd sentence, it increments when the open position is reached when/afetr being oved from closed to open.

      Delete
    2. With hindsight I may answer True, but I still think the first embodiment of D1 can be interpreted differently. How can the flap 105 CONTACT (not disconnect/ release) the detector in open position when you take figure 1 into account?

      Delete
    3. I tend to second that. Fig. 1 seems to be contradictory to what is written in [0003].

      Delete
  32. In my view the flap in figure 1 (representing embodiment 1) contacts the detector when moving the flap from the open to the closed position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. See client's application:
      [012] The interruption of the passage of the flow of water results in the return of the
      blocking mechanism 5 from the open position to the closed position by the action of the
      helical spring 9. The magnetic detector 14 detects a change in magnetic field resulting
      from the magnet 13 moving towards the magnetic detector 14. The magnetic detector 14
      then actuates the counter 11, increasing (or decreasing) by one unit the number
      indicated by the display means 15. The invention thus provides an advantage of
      automatically counting the filtering cycles in order to determine the level of exhaustion of
      the cartridge by the action of the water introduced into the jug, rather than requiring
      manual intervention by the user.

      Delete
    2. You mean fig. 1 of D1? I would interpret it the same way.
      Detector 116 can only be touched be the flap 105 in closed position, not in open position. So this seems to be in contrast with [0003] of D1.

      Delete
    3. I had the same thought about D1 being seemingly contradictory in the exam. In the end, I decided to take the description at face value because it was phrased in almost exactly the same way as the claim language. Moreover, it is established case law that the disclosures of text are more concrete than those of figures. For example, you cannot generally determine dimensions and other information about the workings of a device from figures alone.

      On that basis, it seemed clear to me that it would be safer to a) take the description at face value and ignore the figure, than to b) infer the working of the device from the figure based on the conclusion that the description was wrong.

      Additionally, I considered that if the EPO answers were based on the jug operating as shown in the figure and I answered based on the wording of the description, then the answer would clearly be appealable because it directly contradicts the text of D1. In contrast, if the EPO answers assumed that the text was correct and my answer relied on something shown in a figure, then in an appeal I would have to make an argument that you could derive information from the figure, which is clearly much harder than arguing about what the text says.

      Hope that all makes sense.

      Delete
    4. Statement 11.2 - ambiguous and appealable!

      Delete
    5. The characterizing portion of claim 1.1 reads that a counter configured to automatically increments in response to the blocking mechanism moving from the open to the closed position. This is also directly and unambiguously disclosed in paragraph 003 and figure 1 of embodiment 1 of D1. Paragraph 003, second sentence reads “When in the open position flap 105 contacts an actuator/detector 116 associated with counter 111 causing the counter 111 to increment”. Looking at figure 1 of D1, the only possibility to contact the detector which causing the counter to increment, is that the flap 105 slides from an open to a closed position, which leads to a counter configured to automatically increment in response to the blocking mechanism moving from the open to the closed position (i.e. the matter as described in the characterizing potion of claim I.1). A skilled person will directly and unambiguously interpret embodiment 1 of D1 the same as Claim I.1 when considering the description with the drawing, despite the last sentence of paragraph 003 states that the incrementation results from the movement from the closed position to the open position. The content of the last sentence is contradictory with figure 1 and the first two sentences in paragraph 003. The flap 105 cannot “contact” the actuator/detector 116 in open position when moving from the closed to the open position. The flap contacts the detector/actuator in open position just before the flap completely closes the aperture. A person skilled in the art would directly and unambiguously notify that the description comprises an obvious error in D1. The person skilled in the art will identify what the only possible correction should be. He will correct the prior art documents with the minimum modifications as possible. Therefor he will reversing the words “closed” and “open” in the last sentence of paragraph 003. As a result, the description and figure 1 of the first embodiment would be consistent and unambiguous and the incrementation results from the movement from the open position to the closed position. This means that embodiment 1 of D1 is novelty destroying for claim I.1 and the answer of statement 11.2 should be false.

      Delete
    6. The examiner’s report considers another interpretation and states that claim I.1 is novel over the first embodiment of D1. The examiner’s report considers the answer of statement 11.2 to be True. The examiner’s report states that the characterizing portion would be new over the first embodiment of D1. The examiner’s report argues that the last sentence of this paragraph explicitly states that the incrementation results from the movement from the closed position to the open position, while the first embodiment of D1 does not disclose the characterising feature of claim I.1 namely “a counter configured to automatically increment in response to said blocking mechanism moving from an open to a closed position”. This interpretation is however contradictory with the content of figure 1 and the second sentence of paragraph 003. The flap 105 cannot “contact” the actuator/detector 116 in open position when moving from the closed to the open position (see also explanation under 6). The examiner’s report is silent about this inconsistency and therefor it seems that this inconsistency is an error in the exam. However, It could be a possibility that an error is made in the drawing, namely that position of the detector/actuator 116 should be at the side of the counter 111. However, the position of the detector/actuator 116 in figure 1 cannot be considered as an accidental error. This type of error cannot be seen as an typo-like error. Therefore it is more likely that an error is made in the description. Another possibility to change the description could be to change the word “contact” in the second sentence of paragraph 003 in “disconnect” or “release contact”. This could also make the first embodiment consistent again with the incrementation which could result from the movement from the closed position to the open position, which would lead to the answer true like in the examiner’s report. However, it is not likely that a person skilled in the art considers the accidental mistake to be in the drawing or in the wrong wording rather then an obvious mistake as accidentally reversing the words “open” and “closed”.

      Whether the characterizing portion of claim I.2 is considered to be novel or not novel over the first embodiment of D1 depends how D1 is interpreted by the person skilled in the art. According to my analysis the person skilled in the art will notify the error and he would unambiguously notify which correction to make (i.e. reversing the words closed and open) in order to make embodiment 1 consistent.

      Altogether, the examiner's report does not motivate the answer of statement 11.2 properly and is silent about the inconsistency of the first embodiment of D1 and ambiguousness of statement 11.2. I state that embodiment 1 of D1 is novelty destroying over claim I.1 which results in the answer “false” for statement 11.2.

      Delete
    7. @ second Anonymous 3 April 2018 at 00:18:
      be careful if you want to use this argument: "it is more likely that" is not at all the same as directly and unambiguously disclosed.
      So, if the prior art disclosure is ambiguous or incorrect (and not directly and UNambiguously clear what the correction should be), then you can simply not use it at all. using the interpretation that suits you best is certainly not appropriate.

      @ first Anonymous 3 April 2018 at 00:18:
      "He will correct the prior art documents with the minimum modifications as possible." Interesting legal condition, but I am afraid you made it up yourself. See above: prior art disclosure is what is enabliling disclosed in a direct and unambigous manner to the skilled person, explictly as well as implicitly; not anything the skilled persion may derive indirectly or by using one of several possible interpretations. and certainly not one for which the skilled person ends to choose from several ways to correct a prior art disclosure (wrong ot even contradistory)

      Delete
    8. @anonymous 03/04/2018 at 9.25: What are the minimum modifications as possible in 11.2?

      Delete
    9. At least one of the two versions (open=> closed or closed=> open) is unambiguously disclosed after doing the correction for a skilled person. The fact that there is discussion about the answer indicates that this question is not suitable as a T/F question.

      Delete
    10. The examiner's report does mention the mistake in D1 and it seems that this is a mistake in the exam, leading to a complicated question (too complicated for a pre-exam). Quite some people may accidentally choose the right answer (according to the examiner's report), but other people may be adversely affected.

      Delete
    11. "The examiner's report does mention the mistake in D1"? Where?

      Delete
    12. ..does NOT mention the mistake..

      Delete
  33. Why is 18.4 unambiguously True? I considered "D1,D2, D3 do not disclose a water level detector" as a novelty argument, not as a valid argument for inventive step. An inventive step argument is that the skilled person would not and even not could come up with a water level detector when combining the closest prior art (D1) with other prior art (D2,D3) or common general knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, that none of the prior art disclose the missing feature is not in itself a valid argument for inventive step, the common general knowledge also has to be considered right?

      /Mr.E

      Delete
    2. Had the same thought: answered FALSE because common general knowledge also has to be considered.

      But think the question is badly phrased...

      What would be the answer to "For the assesment of inventive step of claim V.2 it is a valid argument that D1 does not disclose a water level detector"?
      If the answer to that is TRUE because it is (probably, depends on the incentives etc) relevant because it would also be relevant it D1 dhows it, then is is also TRUE for 18.4.
      If the answer to that is FALSE because D1 is not enough as also D2, D3 and common general knowledge must be checked, then the answer is also FALSE for 18.4 because D1/D2/D3 is not enough as common general knowledge must be considered as well.

      What would be the reason that 18.4 says "assessment of inventive step", i.e. independent of the outcome (not "presence" or "lack")?

      Delete
    3. D1 is the closest prior art. The fact that D1 does not disclose a water level sensor is not a valid inventive step argument with respect to D1. I also agree that the common general knowledge (besides D1,D2 or D3) should be taken into account with respect to the closest prior art for a valid inventive step argument. So, the answer should be False.

      Delete
    4. That is indeed what wanted to indicate with my comment just above (Anonymous 8 March 2018 at 14:01)

      Delete
    5. See paragraph 006-009 of D2.
      ….. The jug 201 comprises a detector 212 for measuring the flow (i.e. the amount of water entering the jug) of water introduced into the jug 201…..
      The detector 212 is implicit, but direct and unambiguously a water level detector, because the water level corresponds to the flow of water entering in the jug.
      Therefore the answer to 18.4 should be False

      Delete
    6. 18.4 is an incomplete statement and D2 comprises a water level detector (212)

      2 arguments why 18.4 is not a valid inventive step argument

      Delete
  34. The Examiner's Report is available. A link is on our blog post https://pre-exam.blogspot.nl/2018/03/pre-exam-2018-results-are-out.html

    Our answers to the clais analysis questions would have attracted full marks.

    The Examiner's Report indicates that for two statements, 12.2 and 12.4, marks were awareded for both T and F.

    For 12.2, the Examiner's Report indicates:
    "12.2 – See below: The third embodiment of document D1 discloses a
    jug (101) for filtering water, comprising: a lid (103), an aperture (104) provided
    through said lid (103); a blocking mechanism (flap 105) mounted on the
    lid (103) at the aperture (104) and displaceable between a closed position, in
    which it closes said aperture, and an open position. The third embodiment of
    D1 discloses a counter, but not a counter configured _to automatically
    increment in response to water being added to the jug_. Strictly, the counter
    should be mentioned in the preamble of claim II.1. Nevertheless, it is possible
    to consider the counter being automatically incremented as a single feature,
    so that the present two-part form would also be correct. For this reason it was
    exceptionally decided to award marks for both answers."
    These considerations have also been addressed by some of you that poste comments to this blog.

    For 12.4, the Examiner's Report indicates:
    "12.4 – See below: The wording of claim II.1 is such that the subject-matter is
    claimed as a result to be achieved. In effect claim II.1 claims a solution to the
    underlying technical problem without providing technical details of the
    essential features required to achieve this. As a general rule, claims which
    attempt to define the invention by a result to be achieved should not be
    allowed, in particular if they only amount to claiming the underlying technical
    problem. The technical features that provide the solution to the technical
    problem should be included in the independent claim. Since claim II.1 misses
    at least the definition of a detector, claim II.1 does not meet the requirements
    of Article 84, see Guidelines F IV 4.10 and the answer to 12.4 is “True”.
    However, the answer to statement 12.4 was perceived to be quite difficult in
    the frame of the pre-examination and it was decided to award marks for both
    answers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Howwever, the answer to statement 12.4 was perceived to be quite difficult in
      the frame of the pre-examination and it was decided to award marks for both answers"...

      Can I propose a few statements more?

      Delete
    2. 12.4 was designed in the frame of the pre-examination, because it is part of it.
      Why was it in, if the committee themselves perceived it to be too difficult?
      Why was it perceived too difficult, they donot give any reasons? I think some others were much more difficult.

      Delete
  35. What a stupid, non sense reasonong! What is 'quite' and what is 'difficult'?

    ReplyDelete
  36. But they could not check before the answer to the statemets they drew??

    come on, I spent almost 20 minutes on question 12 and change the answers as well, wasting precious time for statements that are true and false at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. ** POLL **

    We are currently scheduling our courses for next EQE. And, as part of that, we want to POLL whether there is sufficient interest in two new Pre-Exam focused courses.

    We are considering to start two very intense courses, each of one block, for candidates already having some legal knowledge and some claims analysis experience, such as resitters, but who need more knowledge and practice to be successful at the Pre-Exam. Questions/Cases and a thorough discussion of the Answers, organized per key topic, will get the candidate to a higher level, and show the candidate where to improve further. We consider to offer:

    a) a 5-DAY LEGAL course (1 block)
    Thematically organized along key topics of the EPC and the PCT, largely Q&A-based and also including some lecturing on key topics, as well as a discussion of a legal part of one or two pre-exams ;

    b) a 4-DAY CLAIMS ANALYSIS course (1 block)
    Thematically organized along the claims analysis topics tested in the Pre-Exam, and also including some lecturing to introduce themes, and lots of practice with small cases as well as (part of) the pre-exams.

    Please send us an email at training@deltapatents.com if you would be interested to participate in one of these courses or both. With sufficient interest, we can develop the courses and organize the courses in autumn. It is a POLL, so there is no obligation on you if you say are interested.

    Of course we will continue to organize our 12-day Pre-Exam Integrated course (4 blocks of 3 days interactive sessions from June to January) and its Distance Learning version (2-/3-weekly 1,5-hour video conference sessions from mid April to January) for full pre-exam syllabus coverage, and our Pre-Exam Methodology courses (1-day Legal; 2-day claims analysis) for final exam preparation. These courses target first time sitters as well as resitters that need to acquire a lot of knowledge and that want to distribute their study time over a longer period.

    For our existing courses for Pre-Exam and Main Exam preparation, see https://www.deltapatents.com/eqe-pre-exam.html and the brochures and links therein.

    The DeltaPatents team

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bad Claim analysis23 March 2018 at 17:00

    Whoever set up the pre-EQE exam really have messed up with the claim analysis. Even their answers are not convincing

    ReplyDelete