Pre-Exam 2023 (part 4): erasable inks - our answers
The second claims part was about erasable inks.
“This invention provides erasable inks
that provide good writing performance when used in writing instruments such as
pens. The erasable inks are water-based inks that have a short "waiting
time", i.e. inks that can be erased soon after they are applied on a surface
made, for instance, of paper. Because the water-based inks are based on using water
as a solvent rather than on using other solvents, the erasable inks of the
invention are relatively non-toxic and odour-free.” [002] of the description
of the client’s application)
Our answers to this second claims analysis part are given below. We
have numbered the questions and statements for easy reference in the
discussion.
During the exam, candidates had access to
the EPO Legal Text pages, so including the Guidelines. Access was to the live
versions, so to the versions in force on 17 March 2023 (so not the version of
31.10.2022 acc REE/IPEE).
Candidates could access the exam in all languages,
English, French and German.
In the claims analysis parts (as in the legal parts),
the order of the four statements of each of the questions was randomized, i.e.,
it was different for different candidates.
In view of the randomized order, we provide the
questions and statements together with our answers. If you check your answers
with ours, note that the order of the questions and of the four statements from
a single question may be different!!!
Please feel invited to comment!
The exam had a mix of common and less-common claims
analysis topics. Part 4 was very very chemical with many function-defines agent and resins, many chemical names and formulas, ranges and an example in a table. It seemed that the paper lacked some definitions to also allow the non-chemist to understand it all in full, e.g., as to how much water is contained in a water-based solvent system, and whether an ester-based solvent system also includes water.
Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is
allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear
Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 18-03-2022 18:03"), 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.
Note: the other claims part is discussed in another
blog post: here; the legal part is discussed in another blog post: here;
first impressions and general comments can be posted here.
Nico & Roel
Question 16
Claims as
filed with the description on 16.08.2019
I.1. An erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) water;
(b) a colouring agent; and
(c) a releasing agent.
I.2. An erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) water;
(b) a colouring agent;
(c) a releasing agent; and
(d) a film-forming polymeric binder.
I.3. An erasable ink composition according to claim I.2, wherein the
water is present in an amount ranging from about 40% to about 90% w/w.
I.4. An erasable ink composition according to claim I.2, wherein the
colouring agent is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5% to about 30%
w/w.
I.5. An erasable ink composition according to claim I.2, wherein the
releasing agent includes a modified siloxane and is present in an amount
ranging from about 0.3% to about 30% w/w.
I.6. An erasable ink composition according to claim I.2, wherein the
polymeric binder is present in an amount ranging from about 1% to about 15% w/w
and comprises a polyvinyl butyral resin.
I.7. An erasable ink composition according to claim I.2, wherein said
erasable ink has an erasability of greater than 95% when erased within five
minutes of applying the ink to the sheet of paper.
I.8. A pen comprising an outer body, a writing tip at one end of said
body, a reservoir included within said body and connected to said writing tip,
and within said reservoir a waterbased erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) water;
(b) a colouring agent in an amount of 1.5% to about 30% w/w;
(c) a releasing agent having a water solubility ranging from about 0.5% to
about 70% of the erasable ink composition; and
(d) a film-forming polymeric binder.
For each
of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):
|
16.1 The following feature is described as essential
in the description: The modified siloxane-containing releasing
agent comprises
less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica. The statement has no reference to a specific
claim, so the statement cannot be unambiguously answered. For embodiments or claims comprising modified siloxane, (for an even more
improved erasing) it is essential;
[006]: “When the releasing agent includes a modified siloxane, it has to
contain less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica”. This would result
in T. But modified siloxane is not essential
(see 16.4) so that in other embodiments of without modified siloxane, it is
also not essential that modified siloxane-containing releasing agent comprises
comprises less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica. This would result in F. Both T and F can this be argued. |
|
16.2 The following feature is described as
essential in the description: The polymeric binder is a polyvinyl butyral
resin. F – [008] “such as” |
|
16.3 The following
feature is described as essential in the description: The erasable
ink composition comprises from about 1.5% to about 30% w/w of the colouring agent by
weight of the erasable ink composition. F – [005] “preferably” |
|
16.4 The following feature is described as essential
in the description: The releasing agent is a modified siloxane. F – described as optional in [006]; only
essential for an even more improved erasing [006], not for the effects in
[005] |
Question 17
After receipt
of the search report from the EPO, the applicant envisages to replace claims
I.1. and I.8. respectively as follow:
I.1. An erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) water;
(b) a colouring agent; and
(c) a releasing agent.
I.1bis. An erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) water;
(b) a colouring agent; and
(c) a film-forming polymeric binder.
I.8 . A pen comprising an outer body, a writing tip at one end of said
body, a reservoir included within said body and connected to said writing tip,
and within said reservoir a waterbased erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) water;
(b) a colouring agent in an amount of 1.5% to about 30% w/w;
(c) a releasing agent having a water solubility ranging from about 0.5% to
about 70% of the erasable ink composition; and
(d) a film-forming polymeric binder.
I.8bis. A pen comprising an outer body, a writing tip at
one end of said body, a reservoir included within said body and connected to
said writing tip, and within said reservoir a waterbased erasable ink
composition comprising:
(a) water in an amount ranging from about 40% to about 90% w/w;
(b) a colouring agent in an amount of 1.5% to about 30% w/w;
(c) a releasing agent having a water solubility ranging from about 0.5% to
about 70%; and
(d) a film-forming polymeric binder.
For each
of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):
|
17.1 Claim I.5 contains all the essential
features. F - For modified siloxane, it is essential that
it contains less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica, which is not defined in
claim I.5. Note: it also contains non-essential
features, such as the binder [004] via the dependence on I.2, and the
features of claim I.,5 itself. I.5, when written out, reads: |
|
17.2 Claim I.1bis, if filed as envisaged, would
meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. F - It appears there needs to be a releasing
agent ([004]), which is not included in claim I.1bis. |
|
17.3 Claim I.4 meets the requirement of
Article 84 EPC. F - One aspect of Art. 84 is that all essential
features are defined by the claim - according to [005], the minimum for the
colouring agent is 0.75% w/w. I.4 when written
out reads: |
|
17.4 Claim I.8bis, if filed as envisaged, would
meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. F – Undisclosed combination of ranges. |
Question 18
For each
of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):
|
18.1 Claim I.1 is novel over D2. F – Water is part of a 'water-based solvent system',
colouring agent = 'pigment, whatever its color', releasing agent =
'dispersant ... have a releasing effect' |
|
18.2 Claim I.1 is novel over D1. F – Anticipated by D1's prior art section [002]:
Water is part of 'water-based', colouring agent = 'pigment', releasing agent =
'releasing and spreading agents' |
|
18.3 Claim I.3 is novel over D2. T – D2 described “about
74% to about 94% w/w of the water-based solvent But facts seem to be missing: D2 has a
film-forming dispersent but it is not clear that this is a 'polymeric
binder'. The specific examples of polymeric binders do not match the specific
examples of dispersants in D2. Note possibly F is concluded by a
chemist who, when using special knowledge, may (or not??) consider it
implicit that a water-based solvent system
cannot hold more than a few % of pigment – but that I nowhere disclosed and
may not be true, or may at least not be necessarily so, which is needed for a
novelty-destroying effect. I.3 when written out reads: |
|
18.4 Claim I.6 is novel over D2. T
– 2
certainly does not disclose polyvinyl butyral resin I.6
when written out reads: |
Question 19
For each
of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):
|
19.1 D2 discloses a pen that contains an erasable
ink composition. T - See first sentence of [002] |
|
19.2 D2 does not teach that the erasability of
the erasable ink composition is dependent on the drying time. T - Indeed, D2 lacks this teaching |
|
19.3 D1 teaches that an essential element of all erasable
ink compositions is the presence of a releasing agent. F – [002] "Generally, such erasable ink
compositions also include ... releasing and spreading agents" -
"Generally" means it is not essential |
|
19.4 D1 mentions that water in the solvent system
has disadvantages. F - It does not. |
Question 20
Consider
that the following new set of claims (II.1 to II.3) was filed by the applicant
during the examination proceedings to expedite prosecution and the patent was
granted five months ago with the following set of claims:
II.1. An
erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) from about 40%
to about 90% w/w of water;
(b) from about 1.5% to about 30% w/w of a
colouring agent;
(c) from about 0.3% to about 30% w/w
of a releasing agent; and preferably
(d) from about 1% to about 15% w/w of
a film-forming polymeric binder.
II.2. An
erasable ink composition comprising:
(a) from about 40% to about 90% w/w of
water;
(b) from about 1.5% to about 30% w/w of
a colouring agent;
(c) from about 0.3% to about 30% w/w
of a modified siloxane releasing
agent.
II.3. An
erasable ink composition, wherein said erasable ink has an erasability of
greater than 95% when erased within five minutes of applying the ink to the
sheet of paper.
For each
of the statements, indicate whether the statement is true (T) or false (F):
|
20.1 In an opposition procedure, an opponent will
likely be successful with a novelty attack against claim II.2 over D1. F – D1 has two types of disclosures: |
|
20.2 In an opposition procedure, an opponent will
likely be successful with an attack under Article 83 EPC against claim
II.3. F - The patent application discloses
in [011] an erasable ink composition which would allow the skilled person to
carry out the invention defined by claim II.3 since this composition reaches
an erasability of 95% already after 10 seconds ([012]) Note: the claim itself is a
'result-to-be-achieved' claim and problematic under Art. 84 EPC but this is
not a ground for opposition. |
|
20.3 In an opposition procedure, an opponent will
likely be successful with an attack under Article 123(2) EPC against
claim II.2. T - Not supported by the
original claim set (e.g., 1.5% lower bound is missing in claim I.4). There is
seemingly support in [009], but according to [006], when the releasing agent
includes modified siloxane, it has to contain less than 1% w/w of colloidal
silica. This essential feature is not in newly introduced claim II.2 ->
intermediate generalization. |
|
20.4 In an opposition procedure, an opponent will
likely be successful with a novelty attack against claim II.1 over D2. F - Facts seem missing: Note: initially, we also had an argument on the binder, as we missed the "preferably" because it is at the end of feature (c) rather than at the start of feature (d), where one would expect it. |
(c) DeltaPatents
Annex – Pre-printables for Part 4 (copied from the pdf; added 19/3)
EUROPEAN QUALIFYING EXAMINATION 2023
Pre-examination
Documents for part 4
* Description of the invention
* Documents D1 and D2
Description of the invention
PCT 2021/321654, filed 16.08.2019
[001] Some writing instruments, e.g. pens and
markers, include erasable inks which allow
markings formed with the ink to be erased efficiently. It is desirable that
erasable inks
provide good writing performance when compared with non-erasable inks.
[002] This invention provides erasable inks that
provide good writing performance when
used in writing instruments such as pens. The erasable inks are water-based
inks that
have a short "waiting time", i.e. inks that can be erased soon after
they are applied on a
surface made, for instance, of paper. Because the water-based inks are based on
using
water as a solvent rather than on using other solvents, the erasable inks of
the invention
are relatively non-toxic and odour-free.
[003] All the amounts are expressed, as per the
convention in the technical area, as %
w/w, corresponding to a weight percent (%) of a given compound per weight of
the
erasable ink composition.
[004] In one aspect, the invention features an
erasable ink composition that includes
(a) water, (b) a colouring agent, (c) a releasing agent, and optionally (d) a
film-forming
polymeric binder.
[005] The erasable ink compositions of the
present invention preferably contain from about
1.0% to 30% w/w of the colouring agent, in the form of a pigment on a solid
basis, more
preferably about 1.5% to 5% w/w of colouring agent. So to avoid that the colour
intensity is
too weak for proper reading, the erasable ink has to contain more than 0.75%
w/w of the
colouring agent.
[006] The releasing agent allows the erasable
ink composition to be erased from a surface
made of paper. It is a finding of the inventors that if the releasing agent
includes a modified
siloxane, the erasing is even more improved. When the releasing agent includes
a
modified siloxane, it has to contain less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica. To
enhance
erasability, it is necessary that the releasing agent has a water solubility
ranging from
about 0.5% to 70%.
[007] The erasable ink compositions preferably
contain from about 0.3% to 30% w/w of the
releasing agent, more preferably from about 1% to 7% w/w of said releasing
agent. If the
amount of the releasing agent is too high, the erasable ink composition may
smear,
whereas if the amount of the releasing agent is too low, then its erasability
may be
compromised.
[008] When present, the polymeric binder is a
resin, such as a polyvinyl-based resin (e.g. a
resin of PVC or of polyvinyl butyral (PVB)), an acrylic-based resin or a
melamine resin.
The preferred polymeric binder includes a plasticised polyvinyl butyral resin.
It allows the
erasable ink composition to shine under the light.
[009] Some implementations include one or more
of the following features. The water is
present in an amount ranging from about 40% to about 90% w/w, the colouring
agent is
present in an amount ranging from about 1.5% to about 30% w/w, the releasing
agent is
present in an amount ranging from about 0.3% to about 30% w/w and the optional
polymeric binder is present in an amount ranging from about 1% to about 15%
w/w,
wherein the percentages are by weight of the erasable ink composition.
[010] In another aspect, the invention relates
to a pen comprising an outer body, a writing
tip at one end of said body, a reservoir included within said body and
connected to said
writing tip, and within said reservoir a water-based erasable ink as described
above.
[011] Example: An erasable ink composition was
formed by mixing the ingredients shown
in Table 1, wherein the amounts are percentages by weight of the erasable ink
composition:
|
Ingredient
|
Amount
(w/w) |
Description |
|
Water |
60% |
Solvent |
|
Polyvinyl butyral |
23% |
Binder |
|
Ethylhexyl Phthalate |
8% |
Plasticiser |
|
Blue pigment |
3.5% |
Colouring agent |
|
Polyethylene oxide
modified |
5% |
Releasing agent |
|
Oleic acid |
0.5% |
Emulsifier |
[012] This ink was applied to a piece of paper.
After 30 seconds, an eraser was used to
remove the ink of the paper. The ink erased cleanly, leaving no visible residue
or staining.
A second marking was applied to the piece of paper and allowed to dry for a
longer period
(60 seconds). This marking also erased cleanly. The ink exhibited an erasability
of 95%
after a waiting time of 10 seconds, and an erasability of 100% when completely
dry.
(No drawings with the application)
D1 – Advertisement in The Local Sun,
published on the 15 August 2019
[001] For a number of years, there has been a
desire to produce a pen that produces an
erasable, pencil-like trace. The particular choice of colouring pigments is
important for
maintaining the erasability of traces formed by the erasable ink composition.
[002] Similarly, numerous water-based erasable
ink compositions exist in the prior art.
Typically, such water-based compositions include a block copolymer such as
styrenebutadiene and a pigment. Generally, such erasable ink compositions also
include one or
more additives such as releasing and spreading agents, antioxidants,
surfactants,
gelatinisers, lubricants and various waxes.
[003] The erasable ink composition of our new
pen produces traces that are substantially
erasable with a common pencil eraser and are erasable for at least one day
after the tracs
are formed on paper.
[004] Some specificities of our product are:
- The pigment, of any colour, is present in an amount of 2% to 25%
weight per weight
(w/w).
- An organic ester-based solvent system is present in an amount of
25% to 55 % w/w.
- The solvent system comprises a component selected from the group
consisting of an
optionally substituted cycloalkane, an optionally substituted cycloalkanone, an
optionally substituted cycloalkene, and mixtures thereof; and an organic ester.
The
solvent system may comprise additionally other types of commonly known
solvents.
- A polymeric binder being a liquid butene polymer combined to a
plasticiser.
(No drawings with D1)
D2 – Editorial paper published in Pen
Technology on 1 March 1995
[001] Erasable ink compositions, and more
particularly erasable ink compositions for use
in writing instruments, are becoming more and more popular. However, erasable
ink
compositions should not only be erasable but also provide good writing
performance when
used in writing instruments.
[002] The simplest erasable ink composition for
use in a writing instrument, such as a pen,
comprises a solvent and a pigment. Preferably, said pigment has a flake-like
morphology.
The pigment, whatever its colour, is dispersed in the solvent. It seems that
for the most
efficient systems, the erasable ink compositions include from about 5% to about
20% w/w
of the flake-like pigment and from about 74% to about 94% w/w of the
water-based solvent
system. Such erasable ink compositions exhibit an erasability of at least 80%.
[003] Optionally, the erasable ink composition
can comprise a dispersant. Typically, the
dispersants are water-soluble polymers that include polymeric chains. When
present, the
dispersant is typically included at about 1% to 4% w/w, and most preferably
about 1.5% to
2% w/w. Examples of suitable dispersants include, but are not limited to,
nonionic
copolymers or anionic substituted alkoxylated polymers. 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.
(No drawings with D2)
Is there anyone who’s button for the Main exam enrolment not being activated yet?
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner's Report is now online!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/compendium/preexamination.html
The Examiners' report is online!
ReplyDeleteThe Examiners' report is online!!
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner's report is out!
ReplyDeleteOnly statement 16.3 (in our version 16.1) was neutralized.
The Examiner's Report indicates: "16.3 The following feature is described as essential in the description: The modified siloxane-containing releasing agent comprises less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica.
TRUE: In [006] of the description of the application it is stated that the releasing
agent should always contain less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica, when the releasing agent includes the modified siloxane.
FALSE: The provision of modified siloxane is not an essential feature as discussed in 16.2 above.
Both answers are possible depending on the interpretation of the statement"
Due to a different interpretation of "water-based solvent" (according to the Examiner's Report, this is just water; in our interpretation using just the information in the paper, it is a solvent that is based on water as main component but also includes an unspecified further component -- in line with a water-based INK not being just water but an INK having water as main ingredient plus more such as colorants: a water-based SOLVENT is a SOLVENT having water as main ingredient plus more), the Examiner's Report gives different answers from ours for 17.4, 18.3 and 20.1 (none of them was neutralized):
For 17.4 (also 17.4 in our version), the Examiner's Report gives:
Delete"17.4 Claim I.8bis, if filed as envisaged, would meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.
TRUE: Claim I.8bis is based claim I.8 further specifying the amount of water to be
from about 40% to about 90% w/w. This specific range for the amount of water is explicitly disclosed in paragraph 9 of the description as one of the several optional features in combination with the embodiments of the application as filed (Guidelines H-V, 3.2, G-VI, 8(i))".
For 18.3 (also 18.3 in our version), the Examiner's Report gives:
18.3 Claim I.3 is novel over D2.
FALSE: D2 discloses an erasable ink composition ([001]) comprising: (a) water
([002]), (b) a colouring agent ([002]; pigment = colouring agent), (c) a releasing agent ([003], since the dispersant of D2 has a releasing effect) and a film-forming polymeric binder ([003], since the dispersant is a water-soluble polymer that includes polymeric chains and has the effect of forming a film). D2 does not explicitly disclose that the water is present in an amount ranging from about 40 to about 90% w/w, however it discloses an overlapping range, i.e. about 74% to about 94% w/w ([002] of D2). According to the GL G VI-8, the criteria mentioned in relation to selection inventions can be applied analogously for assessing the novelty of overlapping numerical ranges (see T 17/85), i.e. (a) is the selected sub-range narrower compared to the known range; and (b) is the selected subrange sufficiently far removed from any specific examples disclosed in the prior art and from the end-points of the known range. This is not the case here, thus, the subject-matter of claim I.3 is not novel over D2.
The description in [002] of the application mentions that water-based ink are based on using water as a solvent rather than using other solvents. This means that “water-based” corresponds to “water"
For 20.1 (20.4 in our version), the Examiner's Report gives:
"20.1 In an opposition procedure, an opponent will likely be successful with a novelty attack against claim II.1 over D2.
TRUE: D2 discloses an erasable ink composition comprising : (a) from about 74 to
about 94% w/w of water (overlapping with the range from II.1); (b) from 5 to 20% w/w of the flake-like pigment (overlapping with the range from II.1.); (c) from 1 to 4% w/w of dispersant/releasing agent/film forming polymer (once more overlapping with the range from II.1). Note that the releasing agent of D2 also play the role of a film-forming polymeric binder ([003]). According to the GL G VI-8, the criteria mentioned in relation to selection inventions can be applied analogously for assessing the novelty of overlapping numerical ranges (see T 17/85), i.e. (a) is the selected sub-range narrower compared to the known range; and (b) is the selected sub-range sufficiently far removed from any specific
examples disclosed in the prior art and from the end-points of the known range. Although here we have four overlapping ranges, the ranges are neither narrower nor far removed from the end-points of the known ranges. Please further note that feature (d) of claim II.1 is optional. Thus, claim II. 1 would not be new over D2"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDid you pass as you expected?
DeleteHow would I know? The results aren't announced yet
DeletePlus why would I speak to an anonymous :-)
Deleteyou said earlier that you had 86 that's why :) did not mean to be rude
Deletethe correction is available (but not the results)
ReplyDeletealmost no question has been neutralized, two months for them to discuss it and for what?
Exactly!
Deleteno neutralization, this is weird
ReplyDeleteTwo
DeleteI have compared my answers with the Examiners' Report and seem to have passed, but my 'enrolment to the main examination' button is not activated and instead the 'enrolment to the pre-examination' is activated. Is anyone else in the same situation?
ReplyDelete16.1 was neutralized: the Examiner's Report provides (in its version it is 16.3):
ReplyDelete"16.3 The following feature is described as essential in the description: The modified siloxane-containing releasing agent comprises less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica.
TRUE: In [006] of the description of the application it is stated that the releasing agent should always contain less than 1% w/w of colloidal silica, when the releasing agent includes the modified siloxane.
FALSE: The provision of modified siloxane is not an essential feature as discussed in 16.2 above.
Both answers are possible depending on the interpretation of the statement"
The Examiner's Report answers TRUE for this statement:
ReplyDelete"17.4 Claim I.8bis, if filed as envisaged, would meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.
TRUE: Claim I.8bis is based claim I.8 further specifying the amount of water to be from about 40% to about 90% w/w. This specific range for the amount of water is explicitly disclosed in paragraph 9 of the description as one of the several optional features in combination with the embodiments of the application as filed (Guidelines H-V, 3.2, G-VI, 8(i))."
Unfortunately, no comments were made in the Examiner;'s Report as to the possible relevance of the phrase "Some implementations include one or more of the following features", which one could -as we did- consider to not unambiguously disclose any specific one or more of the listed (combinations of) features such that the amendment would not be allowable.
The Examiner's Report provides (in there, the statement is numbered as 20.3):
ReplyDelete"20.3 In an opposition procedure, an opponent will likely be successful with an attack under Article 83 EPC against claim II.3.
FALSE: Claim II.3 has rather a clarity problem (Article 84 EPC, which is not a ground for opposition), as it lacks the essential features to achieve the effect sought. However, the application (as required by Article 83 EPC) does provide the teaching to carry out the invention as exemplified in [011] of the description (Guideline F-III, 1)."
The Examiner's report is published today, only one question neutralized... (about the 2024 calendar)
ReplyDeletewell it was worth the wait... 1 or 2 neutralizations
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry but two months for this ?
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner's report is now available from Compendium! Surprisingly not so many questions are neutralised!
ReplyDeleteQ 17.4 is marked as true in examiner's report. But I think amending claim (including specified range of water) without including rest of the features disclosed in paragraph [0009] is cherrypicking, therefore it wouldn't meet article 123(2) EPC. What do you think? Would EPO neutralize that question after Examiner's report is published (or any other question)?
ReplyDeleteThey can if someone files an appeal and wins it ... but it takes 1500 euros
DeleteI agree with you as does Deltapatents apparently. However, appealing only makes sense if the outcome is decisive for you to pass or fail (imho).
DeleteHi D42, appealing indeed only makes sense if the outcome is decisive for you to pass or fail.
DeleteIt is for me. I calculated 69 marks as it is. Does EPO change answers to questions or neutralize it without appeal? Maybe they internally realize a mistake and republish results?
DeleteHi Adam,
Deleteusually not.
Neutralizations are given in the Examiner's Report as far as they have been decided in when the marking is finalized and the results letters are being prepared.
However, it happened once that the Examiner's Report was changed due to succesful interlocutory revision of the appeal of a candidate. In principle, each pass/fail decision is an individual decision for an individual candidate and that becomes final if the candidate does not appeal - however, in a few occurrences, they have applied a successful interlocutory revision to all candidates (as far as it changed a fail into a pass); but not in ll cases (after all a decision becomes final if the adversely affected person does not appeal).
So, in principle you need to appeal yourself.
Thank you a lot Roel. Turns out I passed with 75 marks.
DeleteBut it seems like the score doesn't match what we calculated based on the official result. Maybe the randomized questions aren't marked properly?
DeleteNot everyone has the button. I wonder if it indicate passing/failing. My collegue does not have it.
ReplyDeleteThe examiner's report is out!
ReplyDeleteSee above ;)
DeleteYou may not have seen that as you may not have seen/clicked on "Load more...." at the bottom of the first page of comments. (Unfortunately, we cannot force the system to always show all comments while keeping this same layout)
Examiner's report available!!
ReplyDeleteIs it "safe" to count our points with the examiners report? or are there still possibilities that they change their mind?
ReplyDeleteExaminer's report is available!
ReplyDeleteI can now see my results in myEQE! Score doesn't match what I calculated based on the examiner's report though...
ReplyDeleteis it a pass or a fail?
DeleteThank you for sharing the info. I did not receive an email or anything like that informing me about the document in myEqE. It did also not match with what I calculated, because my official results show 2 points more. If this is also the case for other people, it could be because the epo neutralised more than just 2 statements.
DeleteD42 : it seems that they did not send an email to everyone.. and same here:the results were 2 points higher than calculated, they must have neutralized another question
DeleteI don't think so. My actual score in the result was 4 points lower than what I've calculated based on the Examiner's report though.
DeleteHere also two points lower than what I calculated from the examiner's report. Very strange.
DeleteI can now see my results in myEQE! Score doesn't match what I calculated based on the examiner's report though...
ReplyDeleteRESULTS ARE OUT FINALLY!
ReplyDeleteI have just been informed by several candidates that the results are out, finally!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to all that passed Pre-Exam 2023! 🥂🍾💐
Thanks Roel. But I've noticed that many candidates have a issue of the difference between the official result point and the score that we have calculated based on the Examiner's report.
DeleteI think there should be no difference at all but somebody has 2 points higher than what they calculated and I have 4 points gap (lower in the actual result).
I assume that many the randomized questions aren't marked properly?
Should I report this issue to EQE board.. anyway the result doesn't matter for me (PASS matters)..
Yeah, the result score doesn't match with what I've calculated. Weird!
ReplyDeleteThanks Roel and all!
ReplyDeleteI finally failed with 68 (I calculated 69) points. Does anyone plan to appeal against Q18.3 and/or Q14.4?
Since I answered according to the deltapatents solution, a neutralization of one of these would turn my result into PASS.
I am not sure if I will appeal but if here are more candidates we should connect for collecting good arguments? In fact, there are already many good points in this blogpost.
I agree. I agree. I calculated 67 points and I answered to Q14.4, Q18.3 and Q21.1 as Roel did. @Roel: can we send you an email to reach each other?
DeleteI have created this mail address so that we can easily exchange ideas: appeal2023@outlook.de
DeleteEveryone in my situation feel free to contact me!
I've received an e-mail that saying results are available in myeqe. This is another result file that is different than the previous one that was available. Is this the case with everyone?
ReplyDeleteYes, everyone got the email. I got two points more than my first result.
DeleteAs several candidates have noticed, there was a issue for the marking the score as it was different from the score that we have marked with the Examiner's report. The issued was noticed by the Board and the previous result is now revoked (only the new result is the real result).
DeleteToday, 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 comments to this email to:
Deletehttp://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/05/pre-exam-2023-results-and-examiners.html
Hi Roel, but what if water-based indeed means "having water as the main ingredient"? I don't believe the answer would have been any different then.
ReplyDeleteTaking your definition, it means that the solvent system (i.e. being a composition of solvents) has as main ingredient water, meaning at least half of the used solvents is water - otherwise it would be solvent-based.
As a result, an ink composition having from about 74% to about 94% w/w of the water-based solvent system, contains at least about 37% to about 47% w/w of water. Any amount lower than that, would mean that the solvent system is not water-based, because then water would not be the main ingredient anymore.
The answer to 18.3 would then still be false for the same reason (GL G VI-8 - criteria for selection invention also applicable to overlapping numerical ranges): the selected sub-range of 40-90% w/w is not narrow, and not sufficiently far removed from the examples in the prior art.
PS: The whole problem with this paper is that it is using specific terminology which is understandable (although also debatable) when you're familiar with the field, but sounds totally nuts when you are not a chemist working in formulations.
ReplyDeleteThe word solvent is maybe the most confusing of all. Water is a solvent (see also [011] in the application). But when the wording "solvent-based" is used, one actually means "organic solvent-based" and definitely NOT water, basically anything BUT water. Water and solvent in this context are regarded antonyms, although water is a solvent.
Furthermore, from a (somewhat irrelevant) expert viewpoint, it would be strange for a solvent-based ink to even contain water, because most organic solvents are not even miscible with water. Vice versa, the same should be true for water-based inks. However, in real life, a water-based ink will usually comprise some organic solvents, even though it is not easy to mix them (although not impossible when chosen carefully and often done for specific reasons of compatibilizing/spreading/wetting/drying/etc).
The question is if one would then still call this additive a solvent, or rather a wetting agent, or ... because the main function of these low amounts of "solvent" would perhaps not be to solubilize. Do these compounds then form part of the "solvent system"?
To your PS: that is indeed a major issue.
DeleteAfter all, disclosure is all about "directly and unambigously" understood = "what the skilled person will understand", and not "what the skilled person
could understood."... So, understandable but debatable means "NOT directly and unambiguously".
And... the paper should not be read as with expert eyes. See Rule 22(3) IPREE, last sentence: "Candidates shall not use any special knowledge they may have of the technical field of the invention."