tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post8873758151499979403..comments2024-03-26T18:08:13.873+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents EQE Pre-exam: Pre-Exam 2018: the results are out!!Nico Cordeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18418422722416402064noreply@blogger.comBlogger338125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-21858395461010894032019-02-08T11:04:34.579+01:002019-02-08T11:04:34.579+01:00@Roel. Thank you for your helpful advice. How much...@Roel. Thank you for your helpful advice. How much time would you recommend to spend quickly "browsing" through the description. <br /><br />Oli HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-48034922427220374072019-02-07T16:30:46.998+01:002019-02-07T16:30:46.998+01:00The 2018 was much more involve then the earlier on...The 2018 was much more involve then the earlier ones.<br /><br />If you start to read the client's application and the prior art, and then try to remember it all and/or put it all in comparison matrices, you will run out of time by far and be completely confused. <br />We recommend to not immediately read it all in detail, but to first quickly browse through (diagonal reading). Then read the first statements and the related claims, and then read those parts that are needed to answer the statements in detail (e.g., claim I.1, embodiment 2 of D1 for the first statement; claim I.II, embodiment 1 of D2 for the second statement, etc). That way, you always only read what you know you will need to answer the statement - and a goal-oriented reading can be very efficient if you practiced it.<br /><br />But: when the paper is long, the claims are long with many features, there are many prior art embodiments also with man features, and there are many different claims & claim sets, it is even a tough job with an efficient method.<br /><br />And...: accept that here are always a few statements in the claims part that you cannot solve, "simply" because you do not spot the relevant information. Build headroom from the legal part: 40-45 marks or more from the legal part is achievable for well-prepared candidates, which allows some more missed statements in the claims analysis part.<br /><br />Good luck!Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-24693912514116937642019-02-07T13:25:11.023+01:002019-02-07T13:25:11.023+01:00Just did the pre-EQE 2018 and the claim analysis s...Just did the pre-EQE 2018 and the claim analysis section was ridiculously hard. Also completely ran out of time. <br /><br />Does anyone have any useful tips for dealing with claim analysis. The amount of embodiments and figures eventually confused me completely. Is there a system that people have employed. Does Delta Patents have any tips and advice that they are happy to share to cope with several embodiments.<br /><br />Oli H Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-300013939095918462019-01-30T17:24:09.622+01:002019-01-30T17:24:09.622+01:00I think the reason why you are seeing more neutral...I think the reason why you are seeing more neutralised answers is because the recent papers, especially the claim analysis, has become far too difficult and confusing to be completed within the time limit. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-49344075358841285602019-01-30T17:21:08.530+01:002019-01-30T17:21:08.530+01:00Not just trainees, qualified patent attorney also ...Not just trainees, qualified patent attorney also find the pre-EQE 2018 completely unjustified and against the good faith of what we were told pre-EQE was intended to be - which is to allow trainees to prepare for the main exam - not become a EQE paper in itself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-44728542768927370702019-01-30T17:19:31.201+01:002019-01-30T17:19:31.201+01:00There is a growing sense amongst the trainees that...There is a growing sense amongst the trainees that the pre-EQE is becoming harsh and difficult (in terms of question difficulty, time of exam allowed and ambiguous questions) which is unfair as those candidates in early pre-EQE years had much less trouble. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-37595186046584320502019-01-30T17:15:40.288+01:002019-01-30T17:15:40.288+01:00I think it is clear the claim analysis section of ...I think it is clear the claim analysis section of the pre-EQE exam does not work in the T/F format. The Examiner has made it too hard over the past few years and like everything, this really does depend on how the candidate would interpret the answers and the description.<br /><br />In the real world, you advice to client would be based on reasoning and if there are uncertainty, this is where the Opposition, BoA, EBoA, Legal division etc... carry out their job. <br /><br />It is wholly unrealistic to expect candidates to answer T/F for claim analysis especially last year where there are so many variables. Either make the claim analysis more straight forward, testing basics topic or get rid of it. It doesn't help the candidate for the main EQE and certainly does not help an attorney in their everyday profession. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-20854703790725864812019-01-30T14:15:09.159+01:002019-01-30T14:15:09.159+01:00Is my impression correct that the exam committee h...Is my impression correct that the exam committee has become more willing to neutralize statements now than they were for the exams up to and including 2015? They now neutralize statements immediately (after statistics per statement? after public comments on blog like this one?) as well as with interlocutory revision after appeals? Does any appeal move forward to the DBA or are they all handled immediately and fully by the committee, within the 2m from the decicion to grant interlocutory revision? Does anyone have information on how many appeals were filed leading to succesful interlocutory revision, and how many not? I noted that some statements were heavily debated and critized with good arguments but did not get neutralized, such as 11.2 and 18.4, some statements were not neutralized although consistency with others would have required so (5.4 in view of 5.3), whereas some statements were neutralized based on poor arguments (as least as can be concluded from the updated examiner's report, 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1). <br />I noted some of the neutralizations were to statements that were tested in almost the same wording in earlier years, but they did not get neutralized then.<br />It would be useful for candidates studying for next years exams if the committee could update the old examiner's reports while using the same level of lenience as they did now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-67147069820130032702019-01-29T17:33:01.307+01:002019-01-29T17:33:01.307+01:002018 seems particularly hard but like Roel said - ...2018 seems particularly hard but like Roel said - we are hoping that it would be more reasonable and that the content will be similar to 2015, 2016 and 2017. If the paper is like 2018 again, I think there will be a problem for the Exam committee.<br /><br />JEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-60410802900078095782019-01-27T12:35:01.480+01:002019-01-27T12:35:01.480+01:002016 and 2017 were also hard btw but not as bad as...2016 and 2017 were also hard btw but not as bad as 2018. It seems like they stepped it up another level which is completely unfair. Starting to become more like a EQE paper. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-24370862103359539652019-01-27T12:33:14.199+01:002019-01-27T12:33:14.199+01:00I did the same the paper and felt completely awful...I did the same the paper and felt completely awful. It was very difficult and I was so pushed for time I didn't finish.<br /><br />I'm very worried about it. The attorneys at my firm didn't think the claim analysis was good and it is a bit comforting that they found it difficult too. And they have 5-10 years post EQE experience. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-26353702236998939482019-01-23T15:13:40.078+01:002019-01-23T15:13:40.078+01:00A group of us who are sitting pre-EQE 2019 have do...A group of us who are sitting pre-EQE 2019 have done the pre-2018 paper as a mock. Only 1 out 5 passed pre-EQE 2018 and although it is a mock paper, we all passed the other previous papers. We are so worried by the increased level of difficult especially for the claim analysis + time provided. Having looked at the paper, we can see that there were 5 corrections. Some of the answers are confusing but we can go through it. <br /><br />However, we are generally worried by the difficulty of pre-EQE 2018 claim analysis. Someone suggested to me to go on this blog. Has anyone also experienced this? <br /><br />Would this represent a significant shift of difficulty for future papers. We were surprised by some of the questions e.g. inter-related products is new and inventive step questions were alot harder. Even the "straight forward" embodiment and novelty questions appear to be much more difficult. <br /><br />Any suggestions would be helpful.<br /><br />Tom KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-18041259673892363492019-01-21T21:43:08.868+01:002019-01-21T21:43:08.868+01:00I find it shameful and regrettable that the EPO ma...I find it shameful and regrettable that the EPO makes no attempt to 1. acknowledge that the pre-EQE claim analysis 2018 is not fit for purpose 2. acknowledge that there was a timing issue for the pre-EQE 2018 and 3. provide assurances that future papers will provide adequate time and claim analysis format to be in line with other years apart from 2018. <br /><br />The committee has failed to reassure or acknowledge anything. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-43364791001790916742019-01-15T10:29:08.081+01:002019-01-15T10:29:08.081+01:00They are available now via links on the EQE webpag...They are available now via links on the EQE webpage (https://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe.html):<br /><br />Pre-Exam: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/4177da9a2a79e7ddc125837f004100d9/$FILE/PreEx_2019_en_Calendar.pdf (2018-2019)<br /><br />Paper D: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/4177da9a2a79e7ddc125837f004100d9/$FILE/Paper_D_2019_Calendar_EN.pdf (2017-2019)<br /><br />Calendars are in the same format as the previous years. Normal weekends and national holidays are shown; no bridging dates. Use the calendars provided with the paper at the EQE, not the closure dates given in the OJ EPO!Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-62364724991567237772019-01-11T17:26:40.559+01:002019-01-11T17:26:40.559+01:00I think the difficult for pre-EQE 2018 claim anayl...I think the difficult for pre-EQE 2018 claim anaylsis should be scaled down. What I mean is the number of embodiments that needed to be analysis and the amount of different claims set. It is far too many embodiments/claims for students to look at within the time period so I hope the EPO take this on barod. <br /><br />It shouldn't be repeated!<br /><br />GATAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-42600764460094458052019-01-11T17:22:29.155+01:002019-01-11T17:22:29.155+01:00The claim analysis section of the pre-EQE is a com...The claim analysis section of the pre-EQE is a complete joke. The earlier years were ok because it tested principles. The questions in later years are so unrealistic and nonsense that the EPO has to keep back-tracking i.e. changing their answers or provide neutralised answers. It gives us NO information whatsoever as the effectiveness or usefulness of the claim analysis. Why make the claim analysis part so difficult and confusing. It should be straight forward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-6413011238211787132019-01-09T14:51:44.667+01:002019-01-09T14:51:44.667+01:00Roel - thank you very much for the useful advice. ...Roel - thank you very much for the useful advice. <br /><br />KarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-76171194718087369692019-01-09T14:50:25.050+01:002019-01-09T14:50:25.050+01:00Does anyone know when they are going to release th...Does anyone know when they are going to release the calendar for 2019 exams, just like in previous years. <br /><br />KarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-20314333874038495402019-01-06T12:56:32.399+01:002019-01-06T12:56:32.399+01:00See chapter on Functional features in the Guidelin...See chapter on Functional features in the Guidelines. As well as chapter on relative terms.<br /><br />Guidelines F-IV extentively discusses claim formats, claim terms, claim structures and the effect on clarity, incl. definition and/or limition of the claim scope.Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-11262101552280884642019-01-04T17:22:35.703+01:002019-01-04T17:22:35.703+01:00If the Committee has indicated that it is very dif...If the Committee has indicated that it is very difficult to create a T/F format for the claim analysis part of the pre-EQE, why on earth are they still doing it then. Makes no sense to me. <br /><br />AAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-8888764816054865762018-12-27T14:36:09.586+01:002018-12-27T14:36:09.586+01:00Dear Roel and EPO tutors,
Please can you help me ...Dear Roel and EPO tutors,<br /><br />Please can you help me with a fundamental just this once. If an embodiment in the specification discloses features A, B e.g. a first spring requires a greater activation force than a second spring. <br /><br />Embodiment X in the specification discloses a first spring and a second spring but there is no disclosure that the first spring requires greater activation force than the second spring.<br /><br />Would embodiment X still fall under the scope of the claim?<br /><br />When analysing these types of questions, do we only require to look at whether the "physical" features fall within the scope of the claims or would the "function" of the physical features be important too.<br /><br />Karl<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-24512248606351773492018-12-20T15:22:42.094+01:002018-12-20T15:22:42.094+01:00thank you. I've started revision early but and...thank you. I've started revision early but and I was happy with the level of the legal questions - a few tricky ones but it is to be expected. Do you have any tips for the legal parts i.e. what topics we should cover well? <br /><br />The claim analysis section for 2018 really did threw me off course in practice - I found it very very difficult and I do alot of mechanical work as well so I have no idea how the non-mechanical people felt about this paper. Hence, I decided to look at this blog and found out it wasn't just me.<br /><br />I hope the committee really tries to make the claim analysis reasonable next year. Alot of nervous students at the moment. I also found it very long and guessed that the last few questions. I think the confusion in the early parts of the claim analysis did not help. Thank you for your helpful comments. <br /><br />KarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-10807129773385664922018-12-20T09:35:20.421+01:002018-12-20T09:35:20.421+01:00The committee did not explicitly comment on how pr...The committee did not explicitly comment on how pr-exam 2019 will compare to the earlier ones.<br /><br />My personal view is that the pre-exams of 2015-2016-2017 were quite similar in terms of level of difficulty, legal part as well as claims part. They also had similar pass rates (75-78%). The 2018 exam was similar for the legal part (maybe slightly less difficult), but the claims part was more difficult in view of its length as a whole and in view of the detail level of all claims and all embodiments -- this led many candidates into time trouble, associated feelings of uncertainty and confusement, and to an initially lower pass rate (before appeals). The committee indicated -see report- that the claims part is terribly difficult to design in its True/false format, which suggests that they did not plan it to be more difficult and/or time consuming. Last year, the committee indicted at the meeting that they were happy with the consistent pass rate of the years before, and the consistent difficulty level. The committee also indicated that they have read the blogs and other feedback, so they have seen that it turned out differently than (what was presumably) planned. So, enough indications for me to be confident that the 2019 exam will be more similar to 2016-2017 than 2018... let's hope that that will indeed be the case!<br /><br />Good luck with your further preparation!<br /><br />NB: by the way, better be safe than sorry and make sure to get 45 or more marks from the legal part to get some buffer, that is very well possible if you prepare well. And if you are afraid to over-prepare... donot worry, any minute spent now on legal prep is already a further step-on to D the year hereafter. (But even when prepared very well, you will need to study again seriously the year herafter for the higher kmowledge level needed for D, especially as D 2020 will have relatively more DI than in the past -- see the D-report)Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-30639489006676978472018-12-19T21:17:33.732+01:002018-12-19T21:17:33.732+01:00Also did the committee mention anything about the ...Also did the committee mention anything about the pre eqe 2019 and would they address the concerns of the pre eqe 2018 claim analysis section for the 2019 paper.<br /><br />Karl<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-584401433841434859.post-87017990355197815692018-12-19T21:15:24.091+01:002018-12-19T21:15:24.091+01:00Hello Roel. I plan to do the pre eqe 2019 but im v...Hello Roel. I plan to do the pre eqe 2019 but im very worried by the pre eqe exams. Last year seems very difficult and judging from this blog, it is not a good paper. Have u been noticing the pre eqe getting harder and if so was this raised at your meeting. I thought the idea of a pre eqe is just to get candidates more prepared and only test on basics but it does not seem to be the case this year, especially the claim analysis part.<br /><br />KarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com