I am not involved with the Exam Committee, so I have no inside information.
I always do the D exam in the office as soon as possible after the exam, under exam conditions - books on paper, exam timing etc. This gives me a feeling for the difficulty and any unclear parts of the papers.
When the Compendium answers are published in August, I can check my attempt to see how close I would have been. I aim to do each paper in less than official time to approach the stress felt by candidates.
Click below to see my impressions - comments are welcome
First a pep talk.
No-one knows the expected answers yet, so it is a lot of speculation. Also the exam committee does give points for more than one answer - that is why the Compendium calls it a "Possible Solution". Most candidates only think of the things they got wrong or missed - there are still a lot of things you got right.
This is particularly true on DII where an inferior or unexpected solution may still get some points.
I am not going to give full answers, just comments on some things that appear to have been tested.
DI - in 2 hours 40 minutes
Generally, it seemed a reasonable paper.Some questions were tough to do in the time, some were faster. I think it was easier than the DI of 2009.
Q1: Very similar to Q7 of 2009 - G1/91, G9/91
Q2: A chain of divisionals - G1/05, G1/06 (as predicted here as nr.2)
Q3: Tricky just reading PCT, but R.82.1 is explained in the PCT Applicants Guide or in this guide I recommended here
Q4: Filing by reference (as predicted here as nr. 15)
Q5: R.164 EPC
Q6: Art.70(3) and National Law book (recommended to take to exam here)
Q7: Art.86(2) and National Law book Table VI and IV (London Agreement as predicted here as nr. 6)
Q8: Filing by reference (as predicted here as nr. 15)
DII 2010 in 3 hours and 40 minutes
Generally, easier than DII 2009. Unusual to see two pieces - we haven't seen this for several years. It looked like the pieces could be done separately. However, you are never given the points per question, so you don't know how to plan your time.
Possible Solution (some highlights)
- Repair EP3 using R.56
- Signal is patentable (T1194/97)
- EPKM only enabled via reference to EP1. Presumably if EP1 withdrawn before publication, EPKM not enabled
- NO only EPC state since 1 Jan 2008 (predicted here as nr. 7)
- Make PCT-JU a prior right - R.165 - using further processing
- Oppose EPF