tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post213791472812452706..comments2024-03-26T18:08:13.873+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents EQE Pre-exam: Pre-Exam 2018: our answers to the claims analysis questionsNico Cordeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18418422722416402064noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-84461802530567224372018-07-13T12:41:55.033+02:002018-07-13T12:41:55.033+02:00if they perceive it quite difficult after the exam...if they perceive it quite difficult after the exam, why did they percieve it quite OK before the exam? The exam did not change in th mean time! Was it not reviewed before but only after?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-53397845872177090672018-07-13T12:40:12.668+02:002018-07-13T12:40:12.668+02:00Agree.
And their answers on the overturned questi...Agree.<br /><br />And their answers on the overturned questions, initially as well as later with 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1, are even less convincing, if not completely non-understandable.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-40077048265487858682018-06-18T12:40:26.463+02:002018-06-18T12:40:26.463+02:00The Examiner's Report has been amended in view...The Examiner's Report has been amended in view of appeal submissions, for statements 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1. <br />See https://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2018/03/pre-exam-2018-results-are-out.html Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-71222065201135776072018-04-12T11:42:24.603+02:002018-04-12T11:42:24.603+02:0018.4 is an incomplete statement and D2 comprises a...18.4 is an incomplete statement and D2 comprises a water level detector (212)<br /><br />2 arguments why 18.4 is not a valid inventive step argumentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-54922202531357513262018-04-12T11:38:33.826+02:002018-04-12T11:38:33.826+02:00See paragraph 006-009 of D2.
….. The jug 201 compr...See paragraph 006-009 of D2.<br />….. 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…..<br />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. <br />Therefore the answer to 18.4 should be False<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-21051427278380895932018-04-03T11:46:19.629+02:002018-04-03T11:46:19.629+02:00..does NOT mention the mistake....does NOT mention the mistake..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-42955682855120274482018-04-03T10:49:08.738+02:002018-04-03T10:49:08.738+02:00"The examiner's report does mention the m..."The examiner's report does mention the mistake in D1"? Where?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-27286787862363845532018-04-03T09:50:30.435+02:002018-04-03T09:50:30.435+02:00The examiner's report does mention the mistake...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-44621451053644904592018-04-03T09:45:06.759+02:002018-04-03T09:45:06.759+02:00At least one of the two versions (open=> closed...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-23585454654152901182018-04-03T09:43:29.607+02:002018-04-03T09:43:29.607+02:00@anonymous 03/04/2018 at 9.25: What are the minimu...@anonymous 03/04/2018 at 9.25: What are the minimum modifications as possible in 11.2? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-71884769021153127382018-04-03T09:25:17.391+02:002018-04-03T09:25:17.391+02:00@ second Anonymous 3 April 2018 at 00:18:
be caref...@ second Anonymous 3 April 2018 at 00:18:<br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />@ first Anonymous 3 April 2018 at 00:18:<br />"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)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-91205609825062216682018-04-03T00:18:59.609+02:002018-04-03T00:18:59.609+02:00The examiner’s report considers another interpreta...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”.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-53798213882410197762018-04-03T00:18:20.458+02:002018-04-03T00:18:20.458+02:00The characterizing portion of claim 1.1 reads that...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-11283493631367733742018-04-03T00:17:41.120+02:002018-04-03T00:17:41.120+02:00Statement 11.2 - ambiguous and appealable!
Statement 11.2 - ambiguous and appealable!<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-33072144193964988752018-03-28T13:56:43.140+02:002018-03-28T13:56:43.140+02:00The examiner's report says about 18.2 that the...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<br />jug. <br /><br />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.....<br /><br /><br />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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-59911371563753219622018-03-28T11:32:39.884+02:002018-03-28T11:32:39.884+02:00an indication of presence of water = water or no w...an indication of presence of water = water or no water<br />an indication of an amount (indication of a quantity)of water= 0,00001 liter or 1 liter or x liter <br /><br />The detector itself does not give an indication of a quantityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-74255553259290196862018-03-28T11:10:10.931+02:002018-03-28T11:10:10.931+02:00That is indeed what wanted to indicate with my com...That is indeed what wanted to indicate with my comment just above (Anonymous 8 March 2018 at 14:01)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-71157189315718065062018-03-28T11:06:09.576+02:002018-03-28T11:06:09.576+02:00Of course it can! Do you ghave a fire detector in ...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-24799768914921320182018-03-28T11:02:43.939+02:002018-03-28T11:02:43.939+02:00D1 is the closest prior art. The fact that D1 does...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-20741413003646313602018-03-28T10:12:02.711+02:002018-03-28T10:12:02.711+02:00The effect for the distinguishing feature should b...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-58411866105278984532018-03-27T17:22:28.801+02:002018-03-27T17:22:28.801+02:00014.........One problem with detectors that detect...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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-64863480513900383332018-03-23T17:00:08.798+01:002018-03-23T17:00:08.798+01:00Whoever set up the pre-EQE exam really have messed...Whoever set up the pre-EQE exam really have messed up with the claim analysis. Even their answers are not convincingBad Claim analysisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-45731625078766668382018-03-23T14:58:41.179+01:002018-03-23T14:58:41.179+01:00** POLL **
We are currently scheduling our course...** POLL **<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />a) a 5-DAY LEGAL course (1 block)<br />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 ;<br /><br />b) a 4-DAY CLAIMS ANALYSIS course (1 block)<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The DeltaPatents team<br />Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-50443070203759298962018-03-23T09:49:26.050+01:002018-03-23T09:49:26.050+01:00But they could not check before the answer to the ...But they could not check before the answer to the statemets they drew?? <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-19516097391309772212018-03-22T18:51:21.987+01:002018-03-22T18:51:21.987+01:00What a stupid, non sense reasonong! What is 'q...What a stupid, non sense reasonong! What is 'quite' and what is 'difficult'? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com