- The general impression seems to be that there was still a lot to read in Part 1, but that it was more manageable than 2021. I have not made the exam yet, so I cannot comment on it myself.
- Just like last year, there ere a lot of issues when handing the answers at the end of each part (see below)
- If you had any issues with the exam, report them as soon as possible to helpdesk@eqe.org. Formally, complaints must be formally filed no later than midnight on the day of the exam you are complaining about. I have helped update Preston Richard's template for EQE complaints to make the process a little easier, especially after a tiring day. Even if you have miss the formal deadline, submit all complaints that could affect your marking or performance as quickly as possible. You can also give a reason why you were not able to submit immediately after the exam, such as tiredness or needing to prepare for the next exam.
1. Telegram chat groups
- Join the EQE Telegram groups to discuss issues with other candidates: Main group (324 members), Study group (133 members), ABC&PE-claims (206 members), D&PE-legal (166 members) and Marketplace (72 members). The groups are public, and open to any tutors or candidates. A few rules: treat others with respect, no discussion of cheating, no exchange of large sections of copyrighted materials (use of excerpts for study and discussion allowed). During scheduled exams, no discussion of the exam questions or answers. During mocks, no restrictions.
- It is now strongly recommended to log-on to WISEflow at least 60 minutes before the start of the first part of each exam. This gives you a chance to see if everything is working. After clicking on the correct exam flow, you enter the flow page.
- Early camera check: It is possible to start the FLOWlock/LockDown Browser in the flow page up to 60 minutes before the exam to test your camera and microphone by performing the ID check.
- If you do not need to print, you can just stay in the Browser, waiting for the exam to start.
- If you need to print using that computer, you must exit the Browser, restart your internet browser, log back in to WISEflow, and enter the flow page again. You will also need to perform the ID check again.
- It is also possible to print using a second computer logged into WISEflow, but this second computer must be turned off and out of reach during the exam.
- Print BEFORE starting the FLOWlock Browser: At least 10 minutes before the start of the exam, any printable documents will appear on the flow page. Click on the refresh icon (clockwise arrow) or press F5 to see them. This year, it seemed as if the documents were available about 20 minutes before the start.
- Most copies of candidates C1 answers were timely available Part 1 for printing.
- Last year, there were some problems last year with missing pages in the pdf's, so check them to see if they look complete and report any problem. It was a pdf conversion issue, and the complete answers were correctly submitted and could be easily be reconverted. This year, at least one person in A had the first letters of each paragraph missing and some words in between were also missing.
3. FLOWlock / LockDown Browser
- Browser updates: it is now expected that you verify the software at least once in the morning BEFORE each exam. You should be using the latest version of FLOWlock / LockDown Browser
- To verify: after logging-in to WISEflow, click on the drop down menu next to your name and select "Edit profile" and "Test Browser". This will start the FLOWlock / LockDown Browser, and check that it is
up to datecorrectly installed. However, I learned from a couple of people that contrary to the normal meaning of the word "Verify", the command does not check whether the Browser is up to date. The only way to check appears to be to download the latest version and compare the file name with the earlier one you downloaded. - Several people did report Browser stability problems after updating - everything was fine during their mock exams in February.
- Browser crashes during A, B, C and D: many people had crashes, even with home computers on home networks who had no problems during the mocks. After successfully starting, the Browser spontaneously vanished, with just the desktop backdrop being visible. This issue was seen by some during the mocks. It is unclear what the cause is.
- if an internet browser can be opened, you can restart WISEflow.
- if no options are available, you may need to to reboot your computer, and then restart WISEflow.
- Prepare a backup system: I heard on Monday about someone who had no problems during the mocks, but could not get into any parts of the D exam yesterday because the Browser would not recognise the laptop internal camera (a personal laptop with no external cameras connected). What a disaster - a year of preparation flushed away by WISEflow. If you have had crashes, or you are worried, prepare a backup system and have it in your room, turned off and out of reach:
- Borrow a computer to which you can have full administrator privileges. The recommended technical specs are very low. Or ask your IT department if they have an old one that they can reset and give you administrator privileges.
- You will have the least chance of technical issues if you use a dedicated desktop with one screen (at least 27 inch), one camera, one microphone, one keyboard, one mouse, one loudspeaker device, one printer, direct wired (USB/HDMI) connections to all peripherals, administrator access, cabled (LAN) access. The chances of problems are even more reduced by connecting to a non-company network.
- Chat window frozen:
severalmany people found after a crash (and logging in again) that chat window remained open in the "Calling representative" or "Contacting invigilation" mode. There was no way to stop it, move it, or to contact an invigilator. This meant that it was not possible to request an unscheduled break, for example, or to report any other issues. At least one person had to waste more time calling the EQE helpdesk telephone number (which has very limited capacity) to get back in because the chat was frozen. - helpdesk suggested refreshing - the refresh icon is the "clockwise arrow" at the top left between X and (i). F5 should also work (at least in Windows).
- if it still does not work, continue working on your exam. If you need to contact the helpdesk, call +49 89 2399 5155 (helpdesk number with very limited capacity).
- Lost lines from answer: after a FLOWlock Browser crash, rebooting and logging-in, one person reported that they were missing the lines from the last several minutes of thier had been lost, and they had to retype them.
- Can't find Refresh: Refresh will solve a lot of problems. The refresh icon is the "clockwise arrow" at the top left between X and (i). F5 should also work (at least in Windows).
- Blurry assignment preview: many candidates have reported this problem. The assignment preview window is the only possibility in FLOWlock to allow side-by-side comparison, so the blurriness makes this unusable. The official guidance received from the helpdesk, both during the mocks and during exams, is to not use the preview window, or that it was due to the individual system.
- a solution reported in the Telegram groups was to adjust the text zoom ratio in WINDOWS/ Display Settings to 125% before starting the FLOWlock Browser.
- Note that this WINDOWS setting cannot be set or reset during the exam.
- The zoom level of the FLOWlock Browser and all the tabs can be set during the exam using the selection menu which appears when the (i) icon in the top left is clicked.
- It is also possible to separately change the zoom level of an assignment tab using CTRL+SCROLL MOUSE, or the (-) and (+) buttons in the assignment tab toolbar. Zoom settings can also be set directly by clicking on the arrow next to the percentage in the assignment tab toolbar.
- It is only possible to separately change the zoom level of the answer tab using CTRL+SCROLL MOUSE.
- At least one person reported that after setting the zoom to 125%, they spontaneously got the blurred window again. They were advised by the helpdesk to just close the preview window.
- Many problems handing-in: both at the end of Part 1 and at the end of Part 2.
- This was a major problem last year during C, related to the high number of candidates handing in relatively long exam answers. This is an area where WISEflow and the FLOWlock Browser work well - you need to first try refreshing (F5 "clockwise arrow" at the top left). If that does not work, contact the helpdesk who will guide you. During the C exam, the large number of calls made the response slow, but everybody was eventually helped. The main issue is having such a problems at the end of Part 1 - many did not get a full scheduled break, and some were not able to print out their Part 1 answer for reference during Part 2.
- There are many options available to the invigilator, including downloading your answer locally using an administrators menu and emailing it. FLOWlock Browser is continuously saving versions local and cloud versions of your answer. But always check your answer to see if it seems complete.
- Even if you managed to file your answer and everything seems fine, you should still file a complaint. it is unlikely that there will be problems, but just in case some of your answer got corrupted or appears missing. They can then double check if something looks strange during the marking.
Difficult paper.
ReplyDeletePete - do you know that if an IS attack for C2 was written, but there was also a novelty attack for C1 and your CPA for C2 was a novelty document for C1, would you get marks transferred to C1 for novelty points discussed in C2. I basically realised this today but ran out of time in Part I to make a quick novelty attack on C1 (but by providing most novelty arguments in C2 which is dependent on C1, I was hoping that this would be taken into account for C1).
I've seen in the past somewhere in mark schemes that Examiner awarded novelty marks if it is done in a dependent claim.
E.G. C1 - expecting A5 novelty
DeleteC2 (dependent on C1) - A5 + A4 but I didn't manage to get a novelty section seperately done for C1. However, it should still be obvious that novelty points in C2 applies to C1 also.
I have no idea. There is so much overlap between Part 1 and Part 2, and Part 1 is pretty tight for time because you get all the prior art. I can imagine a lot of people realise during Part 2 something that was actually relevant for Part 1.
DeleteI can imagine in the case you mention, looking at the novelty/IS of a dependent claim, this is a gray area.
In general, they are always pragmatic when marking to find a reasonable position between all the rules.
If you are worried, you can let helpdesk know that you ran out of time in Part 1, and request that they take it into account in Part 2. There are no guarantees at all, but if you are failing after the marking, they will look at your individual circumstances to see if anything should be taken into account.
thanks Pete. I actually only did this in part 1. My analysis in claim 2 meant that I find that A5 was novelty destorying as all features of claim 1 were present during my inventive step attack. So the novelty analysis for claim 1 features is actually already in part I but in claim 2. I just ran out of time to actually make a seperate section so hoping that I can claw back some marks for claim 1. claim 2 is dependent on claim 1. In the past, some mark schemes have indicated that you can claw some marks back for analysis done in dependent claims but can also be applicable for independent claims too.
DeleteIf it is clear from your answer as a whole that you reached this conclusion, then they will usually accept it. In the marking, they will give you the benefit of the doubt.
DeleteWhy did you think it was difficult?
Part I was very tight for time. Claim 1 was not the nicest as it confused me completely. That lead me to do a different IS attack (or at least different to DP proposal). Then, I struggled to get down a completed IS attack for C2 but when doing this, I analysed a document that made me realised that A5 could also be used for C1 novelty attack but it was too late then. All the features of C1 were analysed using A5 as CPA in C2. I then had problems submitting but that's a different issue.
DeletePart II went a little bit better but was still tight for time.
Hi Pete- do you know if they take badly to typographical errors. When I want to include inventive step arguments from a previous claim e.g. Point 5.1. claim 5 - AX is closest prior art for same reasons as point 5.1. I actually meant point 4.1 (claim 4). It is also clear that I referred back to point 4.1. numerous times under claim 5 for inventive step argumentations etc... so would they just accept this is an error and take into account my closest prior art reasoning for claim 5 is the same as for claim 4. It was very hard to check these things on a computer screen as wiseflow is not the most user friendly software - not that I had time to check my answers anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf the notation is obviously wrong, then they will overlook it. They will always give you the benefit of the doubt - they try to understand your answer when they mark it.
DeleteThe only issue that can happen is that sometimes the arguments could apply to more than one claim.
If you are worried, you can let helpdesk know that you made this transcription error because of the difficulties of working with WISEflow.
They also realise that a lot of people will be copy/pasting similar parts of your own answer, so you can get errors like this. If the error is obvious and they can see what was intended, then they ignore it.
Thanks Pete. It was clear that I refer to point 4.1 later on in that paragraph but only when I wanted to refer my reasoning of CPA, I referred back to point 5.1 and this should be point 4.1
DeleteI will email them and hope they are reasonable with it. It is a typographical error. It is also so much harder to spot errors on the computer.
Basically the answer is something like the below
DeletePoint 5.1 - Claim 5 IS attack
AX is CPA for reasons as point 5.1.
AX discloses all features of point 4.1
The argumentation and points in point 4.1 equally applies here.
Would this be obvious enough that I actually mean to refer to point 4.1.
It's pretty clear to me. They should take it into account and ignore the error based on your answer.
DeleteIn this case, it should be fine - 5.1 is obviously wrong, and assuming a typing error, you would expect it to be 4.1.
DeleteI had one error (just spotted it) where I had PSA instead of CPA - it is only in one of the IS attacks and the rest is fine. Would this also be ok? Its clear that it is meant to be CPA as everything after it all relates to technical field, purpose etc...
ReplyDeleteI think that's very minor. Wouldn't affect the reasoning as to do with why you would select CPA. Pete would you agree?
DeleteThey mark trying to understand your answer. If it is followed by CPA arguments, they will just ignore it.
DeleteI am still struggling with the split in Paper C. The first part was really difficult and there was not sufficient time to think never mind trying to attack.
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked that this still hasn't been accounted for, despite 3 years of setting up the e-EQEs. the papers doesn't seemed like it has been adapted sufficiently for candidates online.
Last year, I can understand it - they only chose the platform 6 months before the exam, and they were still figuring everything out up to the week before the exam in 2021.
DeleteBut they have had 12 months to adapt this exam - there is no excuse.
The current concept for the C Exam in Wiseflow still makes no sense. If you note the claims on paper, you can do everything on paper and just type in your answers.
You can even read the documents from Part 1 during your lunch break as preparation for Part 2 - the worse the split, the more this helps you.
It would make so much more sense if we can print the claims. I really don't know what the worry is. They making incredibly difficult and flicking back and forth online is just not good.
DeleteCopying and pasting claims is a nightmare, something like this should be straightforward.
However, the biggest gripe I have is the timing. It eats away your time especially in Part I and then you are not allowed or don't have time to react. In previous years, if you attack claims - you may realise that you might have gone a bit wrong in the first few claims and adapt your answer again accordingly. But here, they throw everything at you at the start and expect you to separate the irrelevant subject matter for the first part. I really think they need to re-think Paper C online.
It is not that hard - either have two smaller cases, or have one case with the apparatus/device claims in part 1 and method/process claims in part 2. In a real opposition, real prior art tends to be directed to either apparatus/devices or methods/processes. And the apparatus/device and method/process sections of real patent applications can be split into two.
DeleteThe problem with the current exams is that they are so artificial (pieces hidden in illogical places), and they spend so long on them, they are afraid to change anything substantially because it can have unintended consequences.
Theoretically, for 2023, they will have had more time to split the exam. But I am not sure that they will use WISEflow any more in 2023 (it is no longer mentioned in the EQE examination announcement).
So, if a client asks whether you can split an application into 2 parts, you can tell him that it will be ready in 2 years time ;-)
DeleteI read that in some instances it could be helpful to let the examiners know why you wrote something or what you genuinely meant with it. Anyway I cannot stop wondering about the fact that someone could interprete this as an attempt to make your paper recognizable or traceable.
ReplyDeleteIs this a stupid concern? I want to explain something about what I wrote, but I don't want them to think I am trying to breaching the rules.
Where was this mentioned about being recognizable? You are not allowed to put your name on there (although people often do it by accident in C as part of the formalities).
DeleteYou are always allowed to add a "note to the marker", and it is recommended if you are really stuck making a choice or you are uncertain how to interpret something. You never lose marks for this, but the committees also say that it rarely gives marks.
You can also briefly indicate what you would have done with more time in the hope of getting at least something, like "File a divisional for X + Y".
Thank you Pete.
ReplyDeleteI meant if I write to the epo help desk saying I'm the one who wrote "This and that" quoting myself but what I really meant was "This or, if considered a weak attack, also that". they can match my words with my email address.
Is this not equivalent to having signed the paper C?
Sorry if stupid maybe is only paper C PTS.
Privacy is not a problem, so send an email if you are worried. They then have to decide if and how to use it. They will file it under your EQE number.
DeleteThe committee will mark your paper (two markers, independently and anonymously) - if you pass, they will normally not look at any of your complaints or e-mails in detail.
If you are just failing, the Examination Board will then look at your individual circumstances based on your EQE registration number. They will be very reluctant to use anything submitted after the end of the exam, but that is done on a case-by-case basis, so it is impossible to predict.
So do whatever lets you relax the most :-)
Hi Pete. How damaging is it if you only get one part of the answer right. For example, if you got the wrong CPA but the right combining art. I hear that it is basically zero marks. E.g. they want A2 + A5 but you got A3 + A5 instead.
ReplyDeleteJust to add to Karl's comments but differently - if you have a different CPA than expected, but there are good reasons for selecting it - will they take this into marking considerations and you can gain most of the marks. Or is it literally no marks.
DeleteThey will theoretically accept good arguments to support any prior art as CPA. The problem in practice is that during the exam, you think you have made the right choice , so you dont spend a lot of time on the arguments. If you realise there is some ambiguity or issue during the exam, you will argue it much better.
DeleteUnfortunately, in this artificial opposition exam, something (CPA) which is completely correctable later on, and which is never a separate issue (it is not discussed in detail - you have to present the complete inventive step argument), and you need to be prepared to deal with any document being selected as CPA.
The main guidance for marks is based on how many others did the same as you. If it is a lot, they will accept that there was something unexpected in the exam, and not penalise it too heavily.
I have not looked at this years exam in detail, but there is normally a dependent claim that forces you to switch CPA, so that you are pushed back on to "their desired path".
The C exam is a positive marking exam, so you can pick up marks everywhere, and they still have to choose the weighting for all the other attacks. So, even if they give you zero marks for that part, they could be giving extra marks for a particular attack that most people got.
I have talked to many people convinced that they have failed just after the exam, who later get a passing grade. The best thing is to discuss it on a blog (the committees also read them) and then forget about it until the results come out.
Thanks Pete. This year, for claim 5 - it appears that there are two possible CPA (according to DP): A3 1st embodiment or A3 2nd embodiment. There have been plenty of debate as to which ones are CPA on DP. I went for A3 2nd embodiment for reason that it is the only document that describes a portal system just, but. I just hope they consider both options.
DeleteIt could also be that this was deliberate. Although there are marks for argumentation, you got them in the past for the standard "most features in common" or "similar purpose". If there is only one, it does not really matter how you justify it. It would be a good idea to have more than one and give more marks for argumentation. If both are allowed, then there are no consequences in the exam (except for lost time). There are normally many safety efatures built into an exam to prevent runaway loss of marks.
DeleteIn this set, if you gone wrong on claim 3, then marks could be lost in claims 4, 5 and 6 as they all start from 1 document (according to DP solutions). That's a heck of a lot of marks to lose because you may have selected the non-optimal CPA to start with on C3/C4.
DeleteFor Claim 2, i used the wrong closest prior art but i have the good argument from the technical problem. So if i have the second half of the comment which is good but the first half wrong, do you think that i have a chance to have some points?
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to predict - they have promoted CPA choice to a pass/fail criteria over the last few years.
DeleteThis does make marking easier, but it does not test something that is critical in real life. In all the proceedings I have been involved in, it has never been more than a minor issue.
It is merely a starting point, and can always be reformulated later. In fact, inventive step is determined by the number of steps made, the technical changes made per step, motivations to combine and technical incompatibilities. Even if you attack based on a document which is further away, if the steps are obvious, it is not inventive. The EPO usually selects it in their opinion after seeing all the argumentation - the fewest steps (and suitability) identifies CPA afterwards.
It does seemed very harsh and doesn't seem to be right if people are getting zero marks for selecting the wrong CPA, especially when there are reasons for selection (albeit not the optimal selection from the EPO's point of view).
DeleteThe problem is that the exam deliberately excludes certain documents from being CPA because, for example, they have a teaching away. So, if you miss this or don't realise it, they can consider it a serious exam deduction.
DeleteAs a general principle, a mistake which is fully correctable later in the procedure should never lead to a huge loss of marks.
Just want to put on the blog record, that the work around of increasing windows zoom to 125% and reducing wiseflow zoom to 75% worked for the first 20 minutes before the editor went blurry !!
ReplyDeleteI also find that the first part was tight gor time too. It was still a real struggle to get through everything.
ReplyDeleteMost qualification exams at least agree some boundaries, usually in the form of a syllabus. For many years, the EQE has worked with a trust system, where the committees were trusted not to go too far outside what a well-prepared candidate could expect to pass based on previous exams.
ReplyDeleteI think A and D are relatively consistent, and passing is still reasonably predictable with the correct preparation.
C has also remained relatively consistent, although it is artificial and bloated. Under the old system, you were almost certain to pass on the second attempt. The problems in passing are now mainly related to the ridiculous split, where you have top read the prior art twice.
B has now become a major barrier to passing - that was never supposed to be the case. The A and B exams were always considered the minor exams, and C and D were the major exams. A and B were originally designed to be taken after 2 years drafting experience, and C and D after 3 years.
I don't know what the solution is. It was never the intention to spend several years qualifying - you should be done in max. 2 years if you prepare.
They have certainly raised the bar for non-native speakers - if you look at the statistics based on nationality from 2021, you can see how much better native speakers did on B and C (see below).
I always use these ES+FI+IT+TR to give a rough idea of how non-native speakers perform - from teaching, I know that the knowledge level tends to be on-average good, but they are affected by longer and more complicated English texts. They will also suffer more by not being able to compare text side-by-side. It is not scientific. It is just my experience - other nationalities may also be used :-).
Pass+compensable fail:
A - All: 78% - GB+DE+FR: 83% - ES+FI+IT+TR: 68%
B - All: 65% - GB+DE+FR: 74% - ES+FI+IT+TR: 50%
C - All: 57% - GB+DE+FR: 76% - ES+FI+IT+TR: 39%
(the D1-1 compensation means that the statistics are useless).
It will certainly be improved when they make an effort adapt B and C exams to WISEflow.
I've struggled with C ever since the split was introduced and I am a native speaker. I think it is even more unfair on those non-native speaking candidates.
DeleteThe test for C now is the ability to rush through it. Candidates are barely given time to really think about their attacks especially in the first part. You just need to put something down. Even if you are prepared, you could get penalised heavily by selecting the wrong CPA on the day - it is zero marks if the wrong CPA is used for inventive step attack. I find the way paper C has been formulated recently very strange and has nothing to do with real life whatsoever. You simply have no time to think in the exam - its just a very bad way to test candidates. It's very frustrating that splitting paper C into two halves has become a major barrier to passing.
The problem with Paper C is that they expect a perfect answer and have little consideration for alternative or different attacks. I understand that you can actually change your stance during Opposition proceedings so I do struggle why it is marked so harshly if you don't get the attack that is the optimal solution. Surely, it is better and more sensible for them to see how you structure the steps of the problem solution approach.
DeleteIn the past, candidates were able to correct mistakes they've made earlier in their attacks for example, if you realised you used the wrong CPA or document in an earlier claim as you attack later claims. This is no longer the case which is deeply unfair.
DeleteThe bombardment of all prior art documents create massive confusion especially when bits and bobs are hidden or removed in the claims and application as filed. Through this confusion, candidates may select the wrong document in the first part but then realised this later on in second part. The idea that you can't go back and correct is damaging as paper C works as one whole paper. Its also unfair as it has taken away the ability of candidates to correct their answers - something that previous years can do. You can do it for A and B but not for C.
I don't understand why they can't just make 2 different inventions - invention 1 for part 1 and invention 2 for part 2. Only provide the relevant documents in each section.
Do you know how tough they are on the marking? E.g. if in C1 i put that A3 was not prior art under 54(2) as its published after A1. But then in C2 argue for the products disclosed in A3 as prior use products, can they penalize me in C2 for using these while in C1 stating that A3 is not prior art?
ReplyDeleteBasically all my arguments and attacks are correct, but I somehow contradict myself since in C1 (effective dates section) I said A3 was not prior art.
I mean, okay to not give me some marks in the Effective dates section, but it would be harsh to be penalized later in C2 based on that, if i argued correctly with right attacks.
DeleteThey don't go through your answer penalising any small mistakes or inconsistencies. They will give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you really have contradicted yourself, then you get no marks - you cannot leave it up to them to pick the correct answer.
DeleteIt looks like in this case you are legally arguing two different things - about the document itself as prior art, or using the document as proof of a prior use. That does not appear to be contradictory.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteIf an independent method claim 2 refers back to the product of claim 1, and your analysis of the product appears in claim 2, would they give you marks for analysing features of the product for claim 1?
So for example, claim 2 - a method of making a hybrid barn according to claim 1 - I did the analysis of the hybrid barn product under claim 2 and then realized that the document could be used as novelty attack for claim 1 but completely ran out of time to write this down under another heading for claim 1.
I did an inventive step attack on claim 1 - which is probably not correct. So would they consider my analysis on claim 1 features for novelty under claim 2 or would they mark the incorrect inventive step attack for claim 1 and ignore my analysis for claim 1 under claim 2? I would hope that novelty and inventive step are different category and that they would consider the novelty analysis features of claim 1 under claim 2.
It is difficult to predict - it depends on how you presented the attacks. But they do have a system where answers that are just failing are checked again to see if there are unmarked portions. So, in that case, they would at least look at it carefully.
DeleteIf you are worried, you can always send an email to the helpdesk, explaining how you ran out of time and the consequences. They will treat it as any other content or complaint delivered after the exam - there is no guarantee that they will agree with you, but they will at least have a chance to take it into account.
Hi Pete - a general question, if the claim MUST contain the features of a previous claim, why wouldn't they take that into account if the features of the previous claim has been analysed using the correct document for both claims. Ok, you may not get all the marks for the previous claim because it wasn't explicitly stated but it seems reasonable to me that some marks are awarded if your analysis of the features required in the previous claim is correct, as you needed to analyse the features of claim 1 again anyway using the correct document to attack claim 2.
DeleteIt seems pretty harsh to give no marks for analysis of claim 1 features with the correct document even if you don't explicitly say Art 54(2) EPC claim 1 using AX.
Perhaps an example to explain what I mean.
DeleteClaim 1 - A5 discloses a device comprising A, B, C and D features.
Claim 2 - A5 discloses a method according to device of claim 1, further comprising steps E, F and G.
You've done your analysis of claim 1 features (A, B, C and D features in claim 2) + E, F and G steps.
Is it really no marks for features belong to claim 1 even though its pretty clear your analysis would cover claim 1. I'm still not sure why no marks would be given for analysis of features belonging to claim 1.
They will always give you the benefit of the doubt, but they cannot see inside your head - they can only judge you on what you handed-in.
DeleteIt seems likely in this case that they will give some argumentation marks. But they are looking for those short and clear statements to be clear about what you realised. If you were not explicit about an "easier" novelty attack, they will have to assume that you did not realise, or that you considered it a weak attack, or that you rejected it for some other reason.
Your example is more complicated, because claim 2 is in a different category, so it is considered an independent claim. So, the dependence is very loose (that is why EPO usually objects to this as unclear during examination).
DeleteI completely understand that you won't get full marks because it is not completely clear. I agree on that. However, I would be very shocked if zero marks are given because to me, that would seem extremely harsh and some marks for claim 1 should be awarded based on this analysis. I completely understand your point about claim 2 being another independent claim but it still relies on those features from claim 1, so if analysis is done for features of claim 1, then some marks should be clawed back for claim 1.
DeleteHi Pete - would they look carefully at your script if you are near 45 marks or if it is closer to 50 marks?
DeleteI am not sure - for C (and also in real-life oppositions), it is important to be clear about claim / attack / ground / facts-evidence.
DeleteBut it is impossible to predict how they will award marks like that for a particular exam. There are no general rules governing all situations - they will always adapt the marking in the interests of the majority of candidates.
After independent marking by 2 markers, if you are scoring 43-44 marks or 48-49 marks, they will check to see whether you have been unfairly penalised by the marking. If so, you can get 1-2 marks extra. In a normal year with 1000 candidates, there are about 30 on D that get extra marks this way.
DeleteWow - is it really zero marks. Like Joe said, I would have thought you will lose marks for not clearly stating that it is for novelty for claim 1 but it's clear here that some argumentation marks are intended for claim 1.
DeleteIt could be zero marks, but it could be some marks. There are no general rules for this - it varies over the different exams and sometimes per claim/attack on the same exam. It also greatly depends on how you have written the attacks - you might think that it is "obvious from your answer", but when someone else is marking, they may not be convinced.
DeleteBut if you are just failing, they will look again at parts where you were awarded no marks.
Just recently followed this thread so may have misunderstood. How can it be zero marks if you had to analyse the features of claim 1 anyway as part of your answer to claim 2. I don't quite understand why the Examiner would not know those features that belong to claim 1. It's very obvious which features that belong to claim 1.
DeleteIn your case, you will get all the marks available under claim 2 for this assessment of those features.
DeleteThe original question asked was regarding the marks available under claim 1. Assuming that there are are marks for claim 1 for the conclusion (not novel over Ax) + argumentation supporting this conclusion explaining where the features are disclosed in Ax.
They did not write down that claim 1 was novel (and did not argue it regarding claim 1). So, no marks can be awarded for this attack on claim 1.
If explained under claim 2 where the same features were disclosed in Ax, would they get at least some of the argumentation marks for claim 1?
Without knowing the marking yet, and seeing how it was written down, it is impossible to say. If If under claim 2, you explain where all the features are found in Ax, and state very clearly - "therefore all the features of claim 1 are disclosed in Ax", then you are likely to get that portion of the marks from claim 1.
But if you are simply explain where individual features are found, especially if the list is incomplete, then it becomes less certain the number of marks that are awarded.
I really had to rush through my inventive step for claim 2 in the first part as I was so tight for time. I got the right attack but missed out several things as I just had to get things down (all bullet points and brief as possible). I did better inventive step attacks in second part with detailed explanation. Not being able to go back and change your answer for part I is really costly. They overload you at the start and as a result, you had to quickly write things down just to finish in time. I was up to the wire with part one. Yes, they had 2 claims but they were very long and difficult claims to analyse. I don't think they have adapted the paper well again for this year.
ReplyDeleteI've been told that you will fail if you do not indicate signature. Is this true.
ReplyDeleteNo - that is not true at all. There are no fatal or minus marks. For C, you start with 0 and get marks awarded for everything that you get correct.
DeleteAlso, a missing signature is in real life completely correctable.
Most candidates spend far too much time on the formalities part - there are very few marks available. Look at the Examiners Report for 2021-C: that is the most you need for full marks on the formalities part.
Phew.
DeleteAlthough u just realised that I wrote something wrong in C2, which I would never have done if the paper was together. For the formal data, is it marks for C1 and C2 separately or do they mark it across board so that you need to get both things right in each half to get a mark. This bit is not clear to me from any EPO communication.
Anything generic can be in either part. If it is part specific (grounds, claims attacked), then it has to be in the correct part.
DeleteHi Pete
ReplyDeleteAccording to DP, claim 1 answers could be novelty under A5 or inventive step using A5 + A4. I messed this one up and went for A2 + A4 but I would have got the same difference, technical effect, OTP etc.. if the Examiner does allow 2 different answers, would I get any marks for my different IS attack I.e. I got A4 as correct combining art?
My worry is that they wanted novelty attack but will accept only 1 differing IS (A5+A4) and won't consider anything else.
Appreciate that you're not an examiner but just wanted to know your view based on your experience etc... I just need to get to 45 marks so every little thing may make a difference.
If a lot of other candidates did it, they will also accept it and give it a reasonable number of marks.
DeleteThere is always some room in individual cases - they will then look at your argumentation why A2 is a good starting point. If it makes logical sense, you will also get some marks.
Thanks Pete. Would they consider some marks for A4 as the combining art?
DeleteI don't know. I have never studied the C marking in that detail. But on other exams, I have seen marks for identifying a critical piece (use of information) even if you don't use in the way that they wanted.
DeleteHello Pete. I know that the EPO does not double penalise a candidate for papers A and B, but does this also applies for paper C. If you select the wrong CPA for claim 4 and then in claim 5 (dependent on claim 4) - you mention - see points, features, argumentations of claim 4. Would you also get penalised for this?
ReplyDeleteI suppose the same question applies for formal data section, if you wrote that claim 3 has no effective date but 4, 5, 6 are entitled to priority, where actually, claim 4 has no effective date and claim 3, 4, 5 and 6 has an effective date.
or to be more specific, you mention that claim 5 has the same CPA for reasons set out in claim 4.
Delete